Application of 

Field-Based 

Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront 

Voluntary Setting

Prepared by 

Brian Pietruszewski 

National Network for Environmental Management Studies Fellow

Compiled May - July 1999 

Prepared for 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Technology Innovation Office 

Washington, DC 

http://clu-in.org

Before and after photos of 

a brownfield property along 

the Detroit River in 

Wyandotte, Michigan 

Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools in 

the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

Prepared for 

U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office 

under a National Network of Environmental Management Studies Fellowship 

by 

Brian Pietruszewski 

Compiled May - July 1999
About the National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS) 

NNEMS is a comprehensive fellowship program managed by the Environmental Education Division of 

EPA. The purpose of the NNEMS Program is to provide students with practical research opportunities 

and experiences. 

NNEMS fellows receive a stipend determined by the student’s level of education and the duration of the 

research project. Fellowships are offered to undergraduate and graduate students. Students must meet 

certain eligibility criteria.

Acknowledgments 

Many thanks to those contacts who provided information from agencies and organizations around the 

nation. I would particularly like to thank my project officer, Mr. Carlos Pachon, as well as Mr. Dan 

Powell, Mr. Kelly Madalinski, and Mr. Jeff Heimerman, all from the EPA’s Technology Innovation 

Office in Arlington, VA. Particularly helpful and persistent professional staff included Ms. Monica Smith 

of EPA Region 6, Ms. Susan Sandells of Michigan DEQ, Mr. Kent Kitchingman of EPA Region 9, Mr. 

Tom Mix of EPA Region 9, the EPA Region 5 Brownfields team, Ms. Barbara Dick of EPA Region 4, 

and Ms. Debi Morey of EPA Region 7. 

Obtaining electronic copies of this report 

This report was designed to be viewed electronically due to its extensive use of hyperlinks. A complete 

electronic copy of this report is available from the Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information Internet site 

(http://clu-in.org), sponsored by EPA’s Technology Innovation Office.

Notice 

A National Network for Environmental Management Studies grantee under a fellowship prepared this 

document for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report was not subject to EPA peer 

review or technical review. The U.S. EPA makes no warranties, expressed or implied, including 

without limitation, warranty for completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information, warranties 

as to the merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. Moreover, the listing of any technology, 

corporation, company, person, or facility in this report does not constitute endorsement, approval, or 

recommendation by the U.S. EPA.
Table of Contents 

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 1 

Progression and Goals of This Report ................................................................................... 1 

1. Introduction to the Voluntary Market ............................................................................... 2 

1.1 Important definitions .......................................................................................... 2 

1.2 Background ......................................................................................................... 2 

1.3 Overall market size of the waterfront voluntary sphere ..................................... 3 

1.4 Market fragmentation by contaminant ............................................................... 4 

1.5 Why use field-based tools for waterfront and other voluntary sites?................. 5 

1.6 General obstacles to field-based characterization technologies under current 

programs ............................................................................................................. 5 

2. Assessing Aqueous Sediment ........................................................................................... 6 

2.1 Identifying contamination and the decision to characterize............................... 6 

 2.1a Driving mechanisms for assessment.........................................................10 

2.2 Additional funding mechanisms to drive sediment assessment ........................11 

 2.2a Navigation projects and the beneficial reuse of sediment ........................11 

 2.2b Loans and grants.......................................................................................12 

2.3 Post-characterization risk assessment for sediment ..........................................13 

2.4 Potential impact of prospective EPA Contaminated Sediment Standards on 

assessment .........................................................................................................14 

2.5 Emerging field screening and sampling technology for CS ..............................14 

3. Current Application of Innovative Characterization Technology at Waterfront 

 Voluntary Sites.................................................................................................................15 

3.1 Methods of data collection ................................................................................15 

 3.1a National Brownfields Assessment Pilot (Federal Pilot) properties..........16 

 3.1b State voluntary cleanup and brownfields programs .................................16 

 3.1c General exceptions and advisories for data collection .............................17 

3.2 Decision making in the characterization tool selection process........................17 

3.3 Baseline assumptions.........................................................................................18 

3.4 Results ...............................................................................................................19 

3.5 Cases..................................................................................................................22 

3.6 Future research needs ........................................................................................25 

 3.6a Cost/benefit analysis needs.......................................................................25 

 3.6b Additional research needs.........................................................................26 

4. Conclusions......................................................................................................................26 

Other References and Recommended Reading.....................................................................27 

Appendix A Data Matrix, Contact List, and data tables for 115 sites on the following 

topics: Oversight, Progress, Field Tool Application, Contaminants, 

Remediation, Sediment Assessment, and proximity to NPL........................A1 

Appendix B Certified, verified, and evaluated field-based site characterization tools.....B1 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

Acronyms 

ASTSWMO - Association of State and Territorial and Solid Waste Management Officials 

CADF - Confined Aquatic Disposal Facility 

CDF - Confined Disposal Facility 

CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations 

CMI - Clean Michigan Initiative 

CS - Contaminated Sediment 

CWA - Clean Water Act 

CWSRF - Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

CZMA - Coastal Zone Management Act 

DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality 

DEP - Department of Environmental Protection 

DOI - Department of Interior 

EDA - Economic Development Authority 

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA - Endangered Species Act 

FRTR - Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 

GIS - Geographic Information System 

MPRSA - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 

NAS - National Academy of Science 

NFA - No Further Action letter 

NOAA - National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

NRC - National Research Council 

NRMRL - National Risk Management Research Laboratory (ORD) 

NSI - National Sediment Inventory 

ORD - Office of Research and Development (EPA) 

OSWER - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (EPA) 

OSPS - Outreach and Special Projects Staff (EPA) 

PRP - Potentially Responsible Party 

RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RHA - Rivers and Harbors Act 

RLF - Revolving Loan Fund 

SITE - Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation 

SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction 

TIO - Technology Innovation Office (OSWER) 

TOSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act 

USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

UST - Underground Storage Tank 

VCP - Voluntary Cleanup Program (state) 

WES - Waterways Engineering Station of USACE 

WRDA 96 - Water Resources Development Act of 1996

XRF - X-ray Fluorescence 

For additional definitions and acronyms, please refer to glossaries located in recommended reading 

documents at the end of this report
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

1 

Abstract 

Voluntary action to redevelop potentially contaminated property operates under vastly different 

market constraints than mandated corrective action programs. Pressures exist that impact the 

time scale, cost/benefit ratio, priorities, and resources that allow the action to transpire. Nonmarket pressures, usually in the form of regulation, also affect decisions over the course of 

redevelopment. Together, these forces also determine the technologies and methods used to 

characterize the property, as well as the media sampled. 

The waterfront voluntary setting provides added value to property owners, potentially providing a 

greater incentive to sink costs and invest in field portable technologies to characterize contaminated 

sites. Previous case studies1

 have shown that such tools are not only faster, but more cost effective 

in the long run, despite a high initial sticker price. However, while the information barrier 

concerning field-based soil assessment technologies continues to decline, and their application 

increases, assessment of common property resources, particularly aquatic sediment, remains 

infrequent without a clear cost recovery mechanism. This report will investigate the reasons 

behind that and detail the current level of field-based characterization tool application at 115 

waterfront brownfield and Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) sites.

Progression and Goals of This 

Report 

This paper began as an investigation into 

innovative remediation technology application 

in the federal Brownfields program. The 

rationale involved attempting to collect data for 

waterfront Brownfields similar to that contained 

in the Annual Status Report <http://www.cluin.org/products/asr/> for Superfund and other 

documented sites. 

 

It was known at the start of the research period 

that consistent documentation did not exist for 

Brownfields. However, after about two weeks 

of investigation, it became clear that few 

waterfront Brownfields sites had reached the 

remediation phase. Properties targeted under 

federal pilots comprised only seven of the 25 

completed remediations noted here; nearly all of 

the other properties remained in various phases 

of characterization, and the attention of the 

project shifted to application of field portable 

assessment tools. Additionally, the data pool 

expanded to include the wider waterfront 

characterization market in both federal and state 

brownfield sites, as well as state VCP properties. 

Very little separates these categories in terms of 

characterization needs, as long as the setting 

remains constant for research control purposes. 

Then, as now, evidence of aqueous sediment 

work was highly desired to test if, when, and 

how area-wide assessment issues were handled 

around waterfront property. Such evidence 

could suggest a market for field-based sediment 

characterization tools, if and when they become 

available. Due to cost recovery concerns, most 

of the voluntary work done on these completed 

sites involved only landward soil removal within 

a property boundary. This paper presents 

several lines of evidence to explain why that has 

been the case, and also explores mechanisms 

that allowed stakeholders to overcome such 

concerns and characterize area-wide problems 

like contaminated sediment (CS). 

Lastly, the data set for this paper does not 

encompass all waterfront brownfield and 

voluntary cleanup sites nationwide, though with 

the advent of online databases, that goal appears 

at least possible for some states. Due to the brief 

12-week supported research period, the goal was 

to gather as many sites as possible, regardless of 

geographic location. Therefore, the dataset is 

not recommended for making comparisons 

between varying state regulatory 

environments―however, it does adequately 

capture nearly all known activity on waterfront 

properties targeted through the federal 

Brownfields Initiative. Discussion of further 

research needs follows at the end of this report.
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

2 

1. Introduction to the Voluntary 

Market

1.1 Important definitions

Brownfield (also, federal Brownfield): when 

capitalized, refers to property that a municipality, 

state, or other local government has identified for 

attention under an EPA Brownfield Economic 

Redevelopment Initiative pilot. 

brownfield: any abandoned, idled, or underused 

industrial and commercial facilities where expansion 

or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived 

environmental contamination. 

waterfront property: a parcel of land adjacent to any 

body of water, including streams, bayous, rivers, 

lakes, bays, estuaries, harbors, ports, and oceans. 

innovative technology: alternative technology with 

limited full-scale application and a resulting lack of 

data on cost and performance. Many such 

technologies have been used for several years; 

however, information on site-specific cost, multimedia applicability, and performance under different 

regulatory constraints remains elusive. 

media: the physical setting of the characterization 

process; any one of the following: soils, groundwater, 

aquatic sediments, air, surface water, etc. 

contaminated sediment: aquatic sediment in a natural 

waterbody (non-industrial containment setting) that 

contains chemical concentrations posing a known or 

suspected threat to the environment or human health. 

Terms used interchangeably: field tool, field analysis 

or screening tool, field-portable tool 

 firm: contractor or engineering company performing 

the characterization work. They obtain site 

characterization tools from vendors. 

vendor: developer or supplier of site characterization 

equipment on the open market.

Sources: EPA―OSPS, EPA―TIO, NAS―NRC, and 

author. 

1.2 Background

For most cities, waterfront property along rivers, 

lakes, bays, estuaries, ports and harbors holds 

the highest value and highest resale potential. 

As the marquee land for a city, it receives the 

heaviest use in all sectors (commercial, 

industrial, and residential), and reflects an image 

to outsiders and potential investors. Its setting 

also places it in a position to absorb large 

amounts of contamination, not only from heavy 

on-site use, but from sources higher in the 

watershed as well, through surface runoff, 

subsurface flow and aqueous transport. 

The presence of brownfields along the 

waterfront hinders the economic health and tax 

base of a city, and is widely thought to attract 

crime and other social problems. 

Redevelopment of waterfront property often 

drives redevelopment in other areas of the city, 

particularly for second-tier properties located 

upland in nearby neighborhoods or industrial 

zones. For a city attempting revitalization, 

therefore, the waterfront is a natural place to 

start. 

Depending on a municipality’s resources and 

approach to redevelopment, it may place 

particular importance on certain priorities for 

initial waterfront brownfield 

redevelopment―namely, that it occurs rapidly 

and on a municipally owned property with a low 

likelihood of contamination. This not only 

accelerates the property’s return to the tax base, 

it provides an easy example to convince lenders 

and property owners to redevelop second-tier 

sites and additional, more complicated, 

waterfront sites on their own. Indeed, this has 

been the example for countless Brownfield 

pilots across the nation2

. 

The majority of municipal governments, 

however, lack the capacity and resources to 

undertake sustained site investigations and 

cleanups without significant state and/or federal 

assistance. Meanwhile, owners of contaminated 

property still perceive a number of legal and 

technical disincentives to stepping forward and 

sinking assessment costs that may lead to legal 

consequences

3

. 

In recent years, two program categories have 

sought to remedy these problems. At the federal 

level, since 1995, the EPA’s Brownfields 

initiative has provided pilot grants to over 300 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

3 

municipal, state, or tribal governments to 

explore and demonstrate reuse solutions. These 

grants seek to create frameworks for future 

redevelopment at the local level, with a focus on 

stakeholder involvement. Coinciding with the 

federal policy initiative, over 44 states now have 

some form of voluntary cleanup program (VCP), 

and approximately 28 have both state brownfield 

and VCP programs4

. Nearly all (95%) of these 

programs have been developed during the 1990s, 

with an intent to limit owner liability through 

“No Further Action” (NFA) letters, cooperative 

agreements, and memorandums of 

understanding (MOUs) between EPA Regions 

and state regulators5

. 

Very few brownfields pilots, however, and only 

a handful of state initiatives have allocated funds 

expressly to pay for site characterization or 

cleanup. Agencies at all levels currently lack 

funds for this purpose, even if the money 

remained within the public sector (for instance, a 

state-city transfer for a municipally owned 

property). Fortunately, the federal Brownfields 

Initiative, as well as most states, now have 

Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) <http://www.epa. 

gov/swerosps/bf/rlflocat.htm> to lend resources 

for this purpose. The bill to reauthorize 

Superfund, S. 1285, which has languished in 

committee for over six years, also proposes 

interest-free loans of up to $200,000 explicitly 

for site assessment purposes6

. In the meantime, 

however, the broader emphasis remains focused 

on developing frameworks so that 

redevelopment of potentially contaminated sites 

may continue after funds expire. 

Barring a grant or loan to the municipality, the 

responsibility to pay assessment and remediation 

costs on a land parcel still rests with either the 

seller or a prospective buyer who has agreed to 

assume the risks. Given the needs and priorities 

of interested parties, cheaper, faster, more 

effective, and more accurate site characterization 

should arise as a major demand feature of all 

media in this market. 

For many reasons, however, this only somewhat 

describes the present scenario for site 

characterization tools. Gorte (1999), for one, 

has accurately captured the challenges for such 

vendors seeking to enter the brownfields 

market7

. While the issues she notes are not 

themselves unique to the waterfront 

setting―rather, they apply to the technology 

market on all brownfields projects―they are 

adequately embodied by the present situation in 

it. 

1.3 Overall market size of the waterfront 

voluntary sphere

Before information collection began, an exercise 

was undertaken to estimate the number of 

waterfront properties falling within the scope of 

federal and state voluntary cleanup efforts. 

Table 1. State VCP and Brownfield Programs at a Glance 

VCP 

• Forty-four (44) states have VCP programs 

(exceptions are VT, FL, KY, ND, SD, WY) 

• The majority of these were established by statute, 

most funded via participant fees or reimbursement. 

• Eligibility is generally defined by restrictions on the 

type of volunteer: municipalities, private industry, 

persons on/off the state priority/activity list, nonNPL, anyone not responsible for pollution, 

purchaser, owner/seller, or financial viability of site. 

• Virtually all provide incentives, such as tax rebates, 

relief from state liability, relief from some federal 

liability under cooperative agreement, not-to-sue 

covenants, ability to withdraw, NFAs, and technical 

assistance. 

Brownfields 

• 28 States also have brownfields programs, with 

varying criteria, including: any site eligible for 

VCP, local government lands only, no parties 

responsible for contamination, no other state or 

federal action on the property, and/or must have 

redevelopment potential.

• Brownfield identification leaders - IL, DE, AR, 

MI, CT, and NY.

• Illinois also has the most cleanups underway 

(~439).

• Michigan and Delaware lead in total commitments 

to redevelopment.

• The most common brownfield incentives are tax 

and liability relief.
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

4 

In 1995, EPA estimated that 79,387 non-NPL 

known or suspected state hazardous waste sites 

existed in the United States8

. These numbers 

were derived primarily from state hazardous site 

inventories and CERCLIS <http://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/sites/cursites/toc/>, the EPA database 

of potentially contaminated sites. Due to the 

fact that they are not listed under the federal 

NPL program, they constitute the balance of 

sites referred back to the states for action. Once 

referred back to the states, the properties remain 

subject to CERCLA and usually end up in socalled “state Superfund” programs, if the states 

have their own system of prioritization, cleanup, 

and reimbursement. Of those sites, EPA had 

information to suggest that 28,997 required 

further attention9

. 

A 1999 report to the EPA from Kensington 

Systems, Inc., revised the total 1995 non-NPL 

figure upward to 92,05710. It found, however, 

“no such vehicles to track abandoned and 

underutilized sites...an important part of the 

brownfields definition,” leaving the true number 

of brownfields potentially much higher11. In 

other words, Kensington found it difficult to 

distinguish which sites on the state Superfund 

rolls would receive attention through state 

priority, voluntary cleanup, and brownfields 

programs. The author sympathizes entirely, and 

has included the most comprehensive list of 

publicly accessible online databases in the 

“contacts” datatable. 

Before further estimating the waterfront 

voluntary market size, one should note the 

impact of non-NPL “state Superfund” market 

size on environmental technology providers. The 

vendors remain highly reliant on state 

enforcement and voluntary actions once the 

federal facility and Superfund (NPL) work 

realms are removed from consideration. 

Furthermore, the health and activity level of a 

state’s mandated corrective action program often 

parallels and sometimes supports its activities in 

the voluntary sector. With only 11 State 

Superfunds spending more than $10 million in 

1997, the already fragmented market has had its 

viability extremely limited in some places12. The 

most current data shows that13

: 

• Six states represent 76.4% of total state 

Superfund balances 

• States represent 43.7% of the total 

amount added to funds in FY 1997. 

• 11 states (including NE, which has no 

fund) have fund balances insufficient to 

cover a single cleanup. 

Between EPA and the states, no known datasets 

group specific voluntary sites by contaminant, 

setting, ownership, or other criteria. For the total 

number of waterfront properties, we might 

assume a back of the envelope calculation 

around 5-10% of the Kensington figure. This 

hypothetical number has relevance both to the 

present field-portable technology market and to 

prospective common property resource 

(groundwater, sediment) assessors. It is clearly 

not, however, the limit of the universe for either 

service provider. Field-portable and on-site lab 

technology in particular emphasize widely 

applicable soil and groundwater characterization 

tools. This sublevel of analysis instead 

represents the ripest potential market in the 

voluntary sector for both groups of 

characterization tool developers. Therefore, this 

sublevel provides the same obstacles with a 

much larger overall market size, potentially 

revealing a more realistic picture of actions 

transpiring outside the realm of mandated 

corrective action and/or demonstration 

programs. The goal will be to assemble a 

representative dataset with a small fraction of 

this sublevel. 

1.4 Market fragmentation by contaminant

For any contaminated site, the possible 

assessment technologies depend on the possible 

contaminants desired for detection. The FRTR 

Field Sampling and Analysis Matrix (Version 

1.0) <http://www.frtr.gov/site> presents most 

necessary information about such tools and their 

proper contaminant applications, though, as the 

name states, its emphasis rests with sampling 

and collection, rather than longer-term detection 

and monitoring. While many tools can serve a 

variety of purposes including detection, 

screening, and monitoring, the obstacles to 

designing a multi-contaminant assessment tool 

are many. This causes the characterization 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

5 

technology market to become fragmented by the 

diverse, contaminant-specific nature of sites. 

Additionally, sites with multiple contaminants 

may require several completely different 

detection tools. Even conventional “non-detect” 

soil samples, once tested, usually cannot 

undergo further analysis, because initial testing 

chemically alters them. Before the advent of 

field-based technologies, this last fact often 

necessitated multiple rounds of site sampling. 

1.5 Why use field-based tools for 

waterfront and other voluntary sites?

Field-based tools provide advantages in cost 

effectiveness and speed, and can screen samples 

to provide better definition of contaminated 

areas. Some newer on-site analysis tools can 

provide results on par or even more accurate 

than those in labs, depending on the 

contaminant, its sample handling requirements, 

and its propensity to degrade or volatilize. For 

waterfront properties, due to the variety of 

media that should be tested, screening and onsite analysis tools can provide dramatic savings 

and eliminate the need to hire multiple 

contractors for multiple rounds of sampling. 

The sizable turnaround value of a clean property 

may offset the high sticker price of using fieldportable tools―a key reason for choosing this 

setting over others for research. Most 

importantly, the waterfront voluntary setting 

may provide the only opportunity for further 

assessment of common resources―specifically 

aquatic sediment―in the near future.

1.6 General obstacles to field-based 

characterization technologies under 

current programs

 

Many reports have dealt with the following 

points as “the barriers to brownfield 

redevelopment,” and Gorte has addressed most 

regarding their impact on innovative 

technologies. Without reinventing them, it 

seemed necessary to mention them here before 

proceeding further, including elements unique to 

the waterfront voluntary setting where 

appropriate. 

• Funding sources-Funding questions with 

waterfront brownfields and VCP sites are 

not as easy to answer, despite the sizable 

turnaround value of a clean property. In 

communities where federal pilots have been 

in place for some time, some property 

owners and municipalities have waited for 

government or RLF support before 

proceeding further with redevelopment, 

even though they may have taken previous 

voluntary action. Without such support, 

funding sources for what is by nature a 

voluntary cleanup process remain solely in 

the private sector. Currently, many perceive 

that the greenfields setting still provides a 

more secure investment and a more rapid 

turnaround for private capital. 

• Time scaleLenders and investors demand 

rapid turnaround and have little tolerance for 

cost overruns due to uncertainties or 

incorrect application of technology. 

• CostThe limited amount of innovative 

technology application in all media has 

limited cash flow for vendors, causing 

“sticker” prices to remain higher than the 

non-innovative remedies. This affects inhouse research and development and the 

availability of characterization and 

remediation technology overall. 

Cost/benefit and performance information, 

where innovative technologies―especially 

for characterization―tend to perform better 

relative to conventional methods, is now 

more readily available, though regulatory 

acceptance lags dramatically. 

• Questions on effectivenessMost 

importantly, state and local officials have 

regularly refused to approve characterization 

and cleanup plans with “unproven” 

technology, instead insisting on a sampling 

standard far in excess of that required by a 

risk-based approach. Lenders and investors, 

as well as contractors and engineering firms, 

also tend to frown upon any method that has 

not seen significant full-scale application. 

This effectively closes the market for 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

6 

hundreds of thousands of brownfields sites 

to technology vendors. 

• Field problemsUsing technology 

correctly remains a problem in some field 

cases. Firms must train personnel to use the 

tools properly, but more importantly, 

someone with a chemistry background 

should review the sampling/screening/ 

analysis plan to denote the best way to 

achieve data quality objectives with the new 

technology. 

The above problems leave a limited number of 

providers. In the latter case, a company may 

lose incentives to develop new technology if that 

sector is not making a profit, forcing many firms 

to look overseas―particularly to 

Europe―where fewer regulatory issues provide 

greater comfort. Several analysts have set an 

informal timeline of five years for American 

firms to enter the international market, fearing 

that further delays will force some firms out of 

business14. 

2. Assessing Aqueous Sediment 

2.1 Identifying contamination and the 

decision to characterize

The diagram illustrates that responsibility for 

sediment issues in the marine waterfront 

voluntary setting is at best unclear. Further 

inland, states claim domain over inland 

waterways such as rivers and lakes, but the 

agency and statutory web (CWA, ESA, 

RCRA/CERCLA, RHA; NOAA, EPA, USACE, 

DOI, States) remains just as complex. 

Theoretically, phase I investigation results 

should provide the impetus for a sediment 

investigation during the succeeding assessment 

phases. However, constraints surrounding the 

voluntary and brownfield process often lead to 

minimal (surface grab), if any, sediment 

investigation―rather than a more preferable 

area-wide approach to redevelopment and 

assessment. The following scenarios illustrate 

why sediment sampling occurs less frequently in 

this setting: 

Figure 1. Agency and statutory responsibilities for CS along the marine waterfront 

See acronym list; statutes follow horizontal lines. 

Source: 1997 NRC Report <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5292.html> Figure 1-1 (see endnotes)
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

7 

1. Potential extent of problem not viewed as a 

threat to human health 

A phase I investigation may conclude that 

even if contaminated aqueous sediment 

exists, it would pose no risk to human health 

and the environment due to environmental 

factors like desorption over time or natural 

recovery (natural influx of clean sediment 

that serves as a cap). Additionally, the total 

release may be limited to a safer range if the 

facility did not discharge directly into the 

water body and if groundwater 

contamination appears unlikely. In these 

cases, the phase I work would have correctly 

addressed the possible CS issue and 

concluded that the potential risk did not 

justify additional testing. 

2. Problem not proximate to an area where 

human health might experience an impact 

This rationale, though similar to the first, 

differs in that the phase I assessment will 

only address CS if some part of the 

contamination may impact a municipal 

good, such as a beach, water supply 

well/intake, or game fish. In some states, 

namely Michigan, state assessment and 

characterization funds are explicitly 

provided according to these priorities. The 

state’s environmental bond fund, the Clean 

Michigan Initiative <http://www.migov. 

state.mi.us/issues/CleanMI.pdf>, has carried 

out several projects according to these 

criteria15. However, little incentive 

remains to address CS in phase I, if funding 

to test it in phase II depends on a factor not 

present―a factor that, even if present, 

would likely result in an institutional control 

(i.e., fish advisory, beach closure) rather 

than a removal action. 

2a. Preference for institutional controls

Institutional controls mitigate risks to 

humans, but leave contamination in place 

for potential impact on biota and elsewhere. 

For many CS problems, regulators and 

municipal officials will close off adjacent 

shallow groundwater wells or surface water 

intakes, particularly if they serve small 

private water supplies. In the event of 

toxin uptake through the food web, fish 

advisories and fishing bans are 

implemented on an area by area basis. 

Beach closures and fencing off the 

waterfront complete the list of commonly 

preferred control methods. With the 

exposure pathways presumably closed and 

the policy satisfied, the resolution in many 

cases satisfies the goal of risk reduction to 

human health and the environment. 

3. Property line or jurisdictional problems 

Brownfields and voluntary cleanup 

programs place great emphasis on cleaning 

up the actual land that comprises the site. 

This owes to the emphasis on redevelopment 

and returning the property to productive, 

taxable use. However, only in rare 

brownfield and voluntary cases―in 

Bellingham, WA, Emeryville, CA, and 

Portland, OR―have large-scale, area-wide 

assessment procedures been implemented to 

address issues outside the property line; 

specifically, in waterways or aquifers. 

 

The area-wide concept, however, leads to 

questions about what constitutes good 

sediment sampling for an institutionalized 

property line mentality. The clear answer, 

barring a stable aquatic environment with 

minimal chance of contaminant and 

sediment transport, is that expecting an 

For reference, nearly all CS cleanup on record comes primarily 

from Superfund, employing conventional dredging and 

disposal, capping, or stabilization methods. Though a number 

of innovative ex-situ treatments have been accomplished using 

dredged material, few in situ sediment treatment methods 

<http://clu-in.org/products/renhold.htm> have passed beyond 

the demonstration stage. Soon-to-commence beneficial reuse 

demonstrations will attempt to enhance the viability of 

navigational dredging, although debates continue about 

dredging's overall effectiveness as a remedial action tool. 

The State of Michigan uses the following priorities to 

recommend assessment and remediation grant funds under the 

Clean Michigan Initiative: 

1. A threat to human health via contact exposure or the 

municipal water supply. 

2. A threat to a sensitive natural resource (defined as game). 

3. If the work is part of a wider redevelopment or 

revitalization project. 

Source: http://www.deq.state.mi.us/cal/dq030199.htm#partIII
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

8 

accurate picture under those constraints is 

unreasonable. From a legal perspective, 

since most states claim authority over their 

surface waters, only the landward soils need 

be accounted for in private cleanups―so 

long as contamination traceable to the 

property does not appear elsewhere during 

any later assessment work for different 

reasons. The odds of such assessment work 

occurring and such a link appearing, given 

the cost, environmental conditions, and 

boundaries of a future perceived problem 

seem slim. The contamination, however, 

remains in the environment, and is 

continually added to by pollution from 

surface runoff and industrial sources. 

3a. Public ownership of waterway

Unless the state also owns the waterfront 

property, an otherwise voluntary program 

for a private landowner provides no 

requirement to sample aquatic sediment. 

The state’s only recourse is to reject such a 

property from the VCP or deny a NFA 

letter. Some might argue that only select 

states would pursue this course of action. 

Typically, the emphasis remains instead on 

soil and groundwater beneath the property. 

Only with evidence of groundwater 

contamination and the potential for 

subsurface flow into the water body via 

sediment would such an assessment occur, 

likely under a different, mandated program. 

Action of that kind would probably occur 

only if the contaminated groundwater 

impacted a water supply or provided some 

additional threat to human health. In other 

cases, contamination would likely go 

unchecked for an indefinite period of time. 

3b. Public (city) ownership of property

City ownership of the property may limit 

liability in some cases; however, the risk of 

becoming a PRP does not completely 

disappear―an event that would commit 

resources most municipalities do not have 

to the project. In many cases, in the words 

of a Michigan project manager, “the cities 

choose to do the easiest sites first and 

establish a track record, rather than deal 

with the more complicated properties”16. 

This practice benefits the municipalities by 

Table 2. New Orleans Brownfield Project Second Cut Evaluation Criteria - Draft Guideline

Proximity to: (Points) 

School (2) 

Park (2) 

Residential area (2) 

Commercial area (5) 

Industrial area (5) 

Operating business (5) 

Level of contamination 

Known high contamination (0) 

Probable low level contamination (5) 

Probable little contamination (10) 

Ownership of Site 

Local government entity (10) 

Private citizen or other (0) 

Owner Interest 

Supports brownfield redevelopment of property (20) 

Opposed to brownfield redevelopment of property (-20) 

Has not responded (0) 

Redevelopment Interest 

Documented (20) 

Not Documented (0) 

Level of Commitment from Prospective Purchaser 

Low level written commitment (0) 

Mid level commitment with earnest money (5) 

Highest commitment with contingent contract (10) 

Employment Creation 

Potential job opportunities known (10) 

Potential job opportunities unknown (0) 

Number of jobs 

Will create at least 10 new jobs (5) 

Will create under 100 new jobs (10) 

Will create over 100 new jobs (20) 

Source: Internal Document: "New Orleans Brownfields Project Second Cut Evaluation Criteria - Guideline For 

Consortium Weighting." Interoffice Memorandum from Amy Clipp, Deputy Director, New Orleans Mayor's Office 

of Environmental Affairs (8/27/97).
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

9 

putting off any liability problems in the 

water, but leads to questionable prioritizing 

among land parcels. 

Brownfields projects in New Orleans, by 

no means the only ones to prioritize 

according to this system, provide some 

insight through a draft guideline point scale 

used in 1996. This scale was used to 

determine which brownfields in the federal 

pilot would receive funds for an expedited 

site assessment demonstration. Here, a 

previous round of ranking reduced the 

number of properties under consideration 

from 80 to 30. In this round, the guiding 

scale emphasis rests primarily on job 

creation and ease of redevelopment, with 

the highest-scoring properties generally 

receiving the greatest priority. One could 

surmise that the possibility of having to 

address CS would not assist a property 

under these criteria. 

4. Proximity to ongoing CERCLA 

investigation

In general, waterfront properties near 

CERCLA waterway sites―for example, 

properties bordering Tacoma, Washington’s 

Thea Foss Waterway―have had offshore 

aqueous sediment evaluated through 

Superfund. In this way, what would have 

been a Corps of Engineers responsibility to 

assess a navigable waterway was covered 

under another program. However, questions 

remain for brownfield cases with upstream 

polluters resembling General Electric’s Fort 

Edwards and Hudson Falls, NY plants, 

along the Hudson River. Analysis of 

downstream property owner behavior, if 

brownfields or VCP sites existed at the time, 

would prove insightful. 

Due to sediment transport, relative location 

to a water body impacted by a CERCLA site 

may affect waterfront redevelopment. 

Under these conditions, disincentives exist 

for waterfront owners, particularly private 

owners, to voluntarily characterize their 

sites. These include: 

• Potential identification and liability as a 

PRP for the waterway 

• Potential detection of subsurface 

contamination transported from other 

sites (which solves the problem of 

paying for cleanup but places property 

out of market for a much longer time 

scale). 

• Cost of characterization and 

concomitant threat of remediation need 

Additionally, investigating offshore carries 

heavy disincentives depending on the status 

of the Record of Decision (ROD): 

• If a ROD has been signed, any 

contaminated sediment problems will, in 

theory, be eliminated by the remediation 

action. Although this presents a greater 

risk the further downstream one travels, 

from a “threat” perspective it solves the 

immediate problem. This assumes that 

all PRPs have been identified and that 

the cleanup is effective. Brownfield and 

VCP site owners will not and have not 

investigated adjacent aquatic sediments 

in these cases as a result. 

• If a ROD does not exist, in all likelihood 

the project remains at the PRP 

identification and liability stage, or in 

the characterization phase. Brownfields 

owners may choose and often have 

chosen to wait until obligated, or until 

an agency seeks to assess their area as 

part of a larger characterization effort. 

In a larger sense, when a Brownfield 

owner chooses not to assess any media 

due to a CERCLA threat, a process 

known as “mothballing” the property 

occurs, preventing vital redevelopment. 

5. Multiple sources and contamination 

confounding

Aqueous sediment contamination may arise 

from a variety of sources, including: 

• Subsurface plume originating on or offsite 

• Groundwater leaching 

• Direct discharge from the facility 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

10 

• Surface runoff from the facility and 

from higher in the immediate watershed 

• Sewage discharges and system 

overflows 

• Transport from upstream sources 

• Other water column sources, including 

the settling of particulate matter from 

the air and discharges from vessels. 

For these reasons, characterizing and 

assigning liability to the comparatively 

small share of sediment contamination that 

may arise from a single waterfront 

brownfield exceeds the scope of most state 

and local enforcement agencies. The cost of 

attempting to do so might well exceed the 

amount reclaimed. Additionally, other 

priorities clearly supersede it at the national 

agency level. 

Yet without question, CS remains a problem 

in the nation’s waterways that 

comprehensive liability laws struggle with, 

due to the lengthy process of identifying 

responsible parties. Under WRDA 92, the 

EPA’s National Sediment Inventory 

identified 96 watersheds in the U.S. as areas 

of probable concern, where 75% or more of 

the sediment sampling stations indicated 

toxicity levels that posed at least some risk 

to human health17. This round of sediment 

sampling, the most extensive ever performed 

in the U.S., will have to be followed by 

additional sampling, though, to adequately 

characterize the problems and identify the 

highest priorities for cleanup within a 

watershed. For many locations, the 

waterfront voluntary setting―in cooperation 

with outside funding sources―may provide 

the only opportunity for such work in the 

near future. 

2.1a Driving mechanisms for assessment

Brannon and McFarland (1996) identify three 

mechanisms driving sediment evaluation: 

impacts of dredged navigation channel 

sediments; environmental and human health 

impacts of existing undisturbed sediments versus 

natural recovery (usually in the context of an 

existing project for an identified location); and 

source identification and control18. These, 

together with a few other forces, comprise the 

primary institutional incentives to test for CS 

today. Other forces include spills or excessive 

releases from permitted facilities, sudden human 

health impacts, and reporting of abnormal 

conditions by outside parties. 

With the exception of preventative source 

control, none of the above mechanisms causes a 

state or other agency, to go out and “look” for or 

at new CS. The CS at Black Lagoon, for the 

Detroit River/Trenton Channel beneficial reuse 

demonstration project, was discovered when a 

child experienced detrimental health effects and 

skin damage after walking in the water19. To 

this day, no viable PRP exists in the area, despite 

the heavy industrial footprint along the river and 

extensive ongoing mapping of CS in other river 

sections before the Black Lagoon discovery. 

This illustrates not negligence on the part of the 

agencies involved, but rather the limitations of 

science when asked to perform the difficult task 

of PRP identification and differentiation for a 

common resource with multiple pollution 

sources. The liability law imposes an incredible 

scientific burden to drive cost recovery; a burden 

which may be more easily met for some 

contaminants and some cases than others. 

The result is the unfortunate situation of streams, 

rivers, lakes, bays, and other common 

waterways impacted by hundreds or thousands 

of point and non-point contaminant sources, 

with no means other than scarce, governmentfunded source control or baseline sediment 

mapping inventories to further characterize most 

of them. Although the most serious problems 

will ideally be addressed by the liability law and 

navigational dredging by the Corps (as industry 

tends to concentrate around navigable 

waterways), the time scale of the law and the 

lack of funded source control represented by 

these approaches will still leave future problems. 

Additionally, the assessment funding provided 

by navigation and USACE waterfront 

redevelopment projects is tied to a remediation 

method  dredging20. 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

11 

For the remaining waterways, the potential CS 

problem remains largely uncharacterized and 

growing, though with less toxicity than in 

previous decades. An areawide, watershedbased assessment approach provides the best 

hope of addressing source control and 

determining where “hot spots” exist. It would 

also enable the EPA to make more judicious 

applications of the liability law, while truly 

solving contamination problems over the long 

term. In this sense, the Clean Michigan 

Initiative represents an epic shift in state-federal 

mindset and responsibility, where a state has 

volunteered to fund CS remediation in nine nonSuperfund designated waterways, while 

retaining the right to pursue cost recovery 

against identifiable PRPs21. 

As stated above, however, the voluntary or 

brownfield approach seems inadequate to 

address the problem by itself. The liability 

scheme, for its part, faces its own challenges, as 

the National Research Council notes that “it can 

take up to 15 years or more before a 

management strategy is put into place”22. Even 

under sediment cleanup standards, discerning 

responsible parties and determining 

investigation priorities will probably not lead to 

efficient cost recovery. In the meantime, CS 

continues to accumulate and impact the 

environment, though perhaps on a slightly 

smaller scale than before, with constant transport 

throughout the aquatic ecosystem. 

2.2 Additional funding mechanisms to drive 

sediment assessment 

To address the problem, local, state and federal 

agencies have had to shoulder an additional part 

of the cost recovery burden. However, by 

forming consortiums with private stakeholders 

in the waterfront voluntary setting, some groups 

have been able to address area-wide 

contamination problems and may recover, in the 

long run, some tax income that they may have 

lost by waiting for a 100%-liability based CS 

cleanup. Arguments will abound on all sides 

concerning whether or not the states, in 

particular, have the resources, cleanup and 

monitoring standards, and moral obligation to 

pursue this course23. Nevertheless, funding 

sources do exist for those willing to pursue areawide cooperation. 

2.2a Navigation projects and beneficial reuse 

of sediment

 

Navigable 

rivers and 

harbors tend to 

absorb the bulk 

of CS 

contamination, 

due to contaminant transport and industry 

concentration around these areas. A primary 

mission of the US Army Corps of Engineers 

involves developing and maintaining the 

navigable channels for these waterways. 

Because it lacks a line item in the federal 

budget, the Corps remains dependent on local 

representatives and other government agencies 

for work. It estimates that 5 - 10% of sediment 

in such channels is unsuitable for open water 

disposal under the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR)24. To solve this problem, USACE must 

theoretically use the least costly approach that 

complies with disposal regulations. Contracting 

parties must handle costs above and beyond that, 

though many cases cast doubt on the severity of 

that mandate25. The NRC recommends altering 

the policy for good to emphasize beneficial 

sediment reuse, because current government 

policy pays for risky open-water but not 

landward or beneficial disposal, an obvious 

disincentive to sponsors26. 

The Corps has the authority under WRDA to 

clean upland properties if contamination 

migrates from them and impacts a navigable 

waterway, and brownfields provide suitable 

locations for beneficial reuse. Typically the 

sediment in the deep navigable channel does not 

pose a hazard―most contamination instead 

appears on the wings of the waterway. 

Therefore, clean or treated sediment dredged 

from the channel can cap landward soil 

contamination on waterfront brownfields, 

freeing them for reuse. One problem still under 

investigation, however, is that of microbes and 

contaminants in untreated fill sediments 

potentially entering the lungs via aerial exposure 

pathways. 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE)

Waterways Engineering 

Station, Vicksburg, MS 

<http://www.wes.army.mil/> 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

12 

This approach also leaves the problem sediment 

outside the channel unaddressed, since the work 

pattern has evolved this way over time, but the 

Corps has an interest in attacking that sediment 

as well. It could accomplish this by joining 

cooperative efforts, just as it invested heavily in 

cooperative beneficial reuse research when the 

number of available CDFs and CADFs began to 

shrink. Under WRDA, the Corps may dredge 

outside of the navigable channel to remove CS 

in other parts of the waterway. Though it has 

never used this power, cost sharing provisions 

might make it an attractive option to a port 

authority and/or state agency. 

When the Corps does upland brownfield work 

for ports and cities, the cost sharing parameters 

make its involvement much easier than 

contracting privately, at least in the assessment 

phase, where the Corps only requires a 

municipality to cover 50% of the price. 

However, federal Brownfields pilot funds may 

not be used to pay the Corps, and additional 

work―costly if not accounted for in the federal 

budget―requires 100% funding by the client. 

Still, covering the upland assessments―which 

may comprise between 40 and 70% of 

brownfield redevelopment costs―would remove 

a sizable burden from municipal redevelopment 

agencies. Then, under an area-wide model, the 

Corps could re-enter the water and perform 

needed CS work and channel maintenance with 

a federal appropriation. 

Recently, Dr. Tommy Myers of the USACE 

undertook a survey to gauge the demand for 

beneficial reuse of sediment on waterfront 

brownfields. Of 60 surveys sent out to ports and 

harbors around the United States, Myers 

received 20 responses―consistent with an 

earlier response that American Association of 

Port Authorities received when it queried its 

predominantly deepwater membership about 

brownfield redevelopment demand. 

Respondents, Myers notes, likely know of―or 

highly suspect―CS problems in their 

waterways, and seek assistance in balancing 

their desire for dredging and port expansion with 

the need to address contamination. With the 

prospect of EPA sediment standards, the Corps 

may investigate the possibility of a national 

sediment work strategy, with Congressional 

authorization and funding.

Finally, the Corps conducts research into field 

screening and assessment technologies for 

sediment, which are discussed later in this 

document, and will need demonstration projects 

in the future. 

2.2b Loans and grants

From an area-wide problem-solving perspective, 

a loan may provide the resources, but forming a 

public-private coalition with landowners will 

prove difficult if they will have to help repay the 

loan. This approach would only appear 

attractive if the landowners knew they might 

face CERCLA liability for impacting a common 

resource. In the waterfront setting, just such a 

complication arises when one considers the 

possibility of contamination not only in 

landward soils, but in adjacent aqueous sediment 

as well. Therefore, cooperative agreements 

among multiple stakeholders that cut across 

regulatory programs and interests―most often 

navigation, voluntary cleanup, brownfields, and 

mandated or liability-driven actions―have 

proven quite successful at securing funding. 

The key to effectively utilizing a loan approach 

likely involves a combination with grants or 

Table 3. Survey conducted by Dr. Tommy Myers, USACE-WES, under Section 212 of WRDA 96 

Statement 1: Contaminated sediments are a serious problem that impedes maintenance and development of 

port infrastructure. 

Indicate and Comment: Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither/Disagree/Strongly Disagree 

Statement 2: Significant opportunities exist for coupling contaminated sediment remediation with waterfront 

brownfields redevelopment. 

 Indicate and Comment: Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither/Disagree/Strongly Disagree 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

13 

other funded projects at the state or federal level. 

This allows the consortium to address multiple 

area-wide contamination concerns, particularly 

regarding upland sources and impacts on 

wildlife. To property owners nervous about 

investigating their land, such grants and projects 

indicate a commitment to solving overall 

environmental problems rather than simply 

forcing PRPs to assume costs for a sediment 

project with an indeterminate scope. This is not 

to say that the PRPs have to “get away” with 

their pollution for the cooperation to work. In 

Bellingham, for instance, Washington’s 

Department of Ecology conducts ongoing State 

Superfund work in a region that has been well 

mapped for CS for many years. There, Ecology 

addresses the most severely affected area―the 

Whatcom Waterway―through Superfund, while 

its grant-funded consortium with the Port of 

Bellingham addresses CS in the inner bay. 

Additional upland voluntary cleanups in 

conjunction with CS remediation would also 

recover some costs for the state. 

As stated above, the federal Brownfields 

Initiative, along with most states, provides 

Revolving Loan Funds (RLFs) <http://www.epa. 

gov/swerosps/bf/rlflocat.htm>. Other loan 

opportunities are available at the state and 

federal level, however, and one with particular 

importance for CS and brownfields may expand 

in the near future. 

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

(CWSRF) takes in state and federal 

contributions, and then pays out low or nointerest loans for water quality projects. Each 

state, as well as Puerto Rico, has a CWSRF 

program linked to the fund. Currently, it holds 

over $27 billion in assets, providing about $3 

billion worth of water project support annually27. 

For brownfields, the CWSRF can fund projects 

that would mitigate or even eliminate aqueous 

sediment pollution problems. According to a 

recent memo, CWSRF funds could cover at least 

the following tasks28

:

• excavation and disposal of USTs 

• constructing wetlands as a filtering 

mechanism 

• capping of wells, well abandonment 

• excavation, removal, and disposal of 

contaminated soil or sediments (presumably 

in situ methods are covered as well) 

• tunnel demolition 

• phase I, II, and III assessments

Although the states determine project eligibility 

on an individual basis, most likely anyone 

qualifying for a VCP program will also qualify 

for CWSRF funds. The terms of the loan could 

provide a much needed incentive for waterfront 

brownfield owners to assess and clean up 

aqueous sediment, particularly if the owner is a 

municipality seeking to address wider water 

quality issues. In some cases, CWSRF 

proponents note that a loan may provide a better 

deal than a grant that requires cost sharing29. 

In addition, the Administration proposes to 

earmark 20% of CWSRF funds in its FY 2000 

budget for “non-point source and estuary project 

grants.” With a budget request of $800 million, 

this could amount to approximately $157 million 

in grants. On an individual project, these grants 

could cover 60% of the costs, with the remaining 

40% paid by a no-interest CWSRF loan or other 

specified financing sources30.

2.3 Post-characterization risk assessment 

for sediment

Risk analysis rests at the core of CS problems, 

due to their widespread nature. For many sites, 

although contamination may spread throughout a 

waterway, removal or treatment of all CS is both 

impractical and unnecessary. Under such 

procedures, low-level pollution may accumulate 

or have uncertain impacts on the environment 

and go both unassessed and unremediated due to 

a lack of distinguishable PRPs and direct threats 

to human health. Such questions, however, 

address matters of responsibility and cost 

recovery, and the fact they remain unresolved to 

this day emphasizes how a risk-based approach 

has helped to expedite the actual cleanup process 

while the debate continues. 

For CS, risk and cost/benefit analysis channels 

resources toward greatest efficiency in the 

remediation phase. Smaller, high-risk “hot 

spots” may require more expensive and more 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

14 

complicated solutions; larger, low-risk areas 

often allow for less expensive methods or 

natural recovery. The NRC notes, however, that 

more risk and cost benefit analysis needs to 

address “risks of sediment removal or relocation 

or the risks remaining after remediation”31. 

While diminishing returns serves as the law of 

risk analysis, quality standards used to evaluate 

those risks “have not been linked quantitatively 

to ecological or human health risks,” the NRC 

states32. From a policy perspective, the 

preventative principle should drive such 

decisions; however, the NRC statement gives 

powerful ammunition to those with an incentive 

to oppose sediment quality standards out of 

liability fears. If EPA attempted to promulgate 

such standards without Congressional authority, 

it face a legal conflict similar to its Clean Air 

Act air quality standard revisions, recently 

struck down by a Federal District Appeals 

Court33. 

2.4 Potential impact of prospective EPA 

Contaminated Sediment Standards on 

assessment

 

What level of risk, though, translates into a 

quantifiable standard that determines the next 

step in the cleanup process? As stated earlier, 

the waterfront voluntary setting provides, in 

many cases, the only near-term opportunity for 

sediment assessment in a municipality. 

Unfortunately, under the present system, 

assessing CS responsibility without an imminent 

threat to human health proves difficult―which 

means that costs of proceeding further cannot be 

recovered. With the EPA pursuing maximum 

toxicity standards for sediment, the question of 

payment for assessment and cleanup has the 

potential for increasing legal conflict, depending 

on the rigor of the standards. However, the end 

result could provide a better benchmark to 

determine the need for and success of CS 

cleanups. Projects to date have tended to 

address toxic “spot contamination” already in 

place, rather than genuinely addressing issues 

throughout the watershed, such as surface 

runoff, because non-NPL CERCLA cleanups 

lack that authority34. Again, the question 

becomes one of funding, in this case, money that 

the liability law does not allocate for such 

preventative purposes. 

Any new sediment standards will strongly drive 

technology use in the aquatic environment. 

Under such regulations, sampling tools would 

have to meet stricter data quality objectives for 

the quality criteria contaminants, although 

sediment usually contains multiple contaminants 

that the criteria might or might not cover. 

Currently, dredging or grab sampling from the 

top of sediment layers risks cross-contamination 

and remains subject to forces in the water 

column. It also ignores leaching and does not 

provide indication of contamination depth. The 

much more common coring techniques usually 

have limited core lengths and unrepresentative 

interior diameters, also making it harder to 

collect a high quality sample. Furthermore, the 

NRC labels coring as “slow and expensive,” 

and, depending on site-specific conditions, as 

“provid[ing] limited spatial resolution”35. 

Fortunately, on the assessment side, although 

this report uncovered no full-scale field 

screening or on-site analysis applications for 

aquatic CS, better versions of the core samplers 

themselves will enter the market soon. 

Combined with the wide range of bench-scale 

screening technologies and improving lab 

analysis instruments, at least the cost of 

assessment will fall, while its effectiveness rises. 

2.5 Emerging field screening and sampling 

technology for CS

Rapid Sediment Screens, developed and tested 

by the USACE, could save money and provide a 

more accurate description of the contamination 

zone for CS. Though the technology relies on 

an extraction step that must occur in a lab, it still 

saves money by signaling non-detect samples, 

providing a chance for additional coring near 

positively identified contamination. Like most 

screening technologies, the methods work only 

for single sediment contaminants (i.e., 

biomarkers for dioxin in CS), and, unfortunately, 

their use remains unacceptable under CFR. The 

Corps has also expressed concerns about its 

ability to transfer sediment screening 

technologies from its labs, and would do well to 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

15 

follow the example <http://www.greenstart.org/ 

efc9/reports /id9_m.htm> set by the Bay Area 

National Laboratories and the Region 9 

Environmental Finance Center36. 

The AMS Split Core Sampler <http://www.amssamplers.com/> for Submerged Sediments, 

recently demonstrated under the SITE 

Monitoring and Measuring Technology 

program, collects cylindrical cores to a 

maximum depth of 36 inches below the surface. 

AMS created the tool by modifying its existing 

Split Core Sampler for soils. Two key 

differences between its design and that of 

conventional sediment corers allow it to provide 

a higher quality sample. A ball check valve in 

the top cap allows water to exit during 

submersion and creates a vacuum to hold 

sediment in during retrieval. The modified 

coring tip contains a basket retainer to hold 

sediment within the interlocking split core cups. 

AMS hopes that these modifications will address 

concerns about conventional coring and lead to 

more sampling of undisturbed zones not 

sampled through grabs or dredging. For more 

information, see the Contacts table or SITE 

Program Demonstration Bulletin EPA/600/F99/008. 

The ARI Russian Peat Borer 

<http://www.aquaticresearch.com/ 

sediment.htm>, originally used for collecting 

microorganisms in pond sediment, was also 

recently demonstrated under the SITE program. 

Along with the AMS Sampler, it successfully 

collected PCB and arsenic impacted sediments 

from the Fox River and Dothan Park in 

Wisconsin and Mystic Lake and Woburn in 

Massachusetts. The Peat Borer can operate in 

water depths up to 15 feet, and can collect 

samples as large as one liter as far down as 65 

feet below sediment surface. Borer materials are 

lightweight, durable, corrosion resistant, and 

strong. Used in parallel, two borers provide a 

complete, continuous sediment core, with little 

surface disturbance and no sediment entry 

during the driving process. For more 

information, see the Contacts table or SITE 

Program Demonstration Bulletin EPA/600/F99/008. 

3. Current Application of 

Innovative Characterization 

Technology at Waterfront 

Voluntary Sites 

3.1 Methods of data collection

Site specific information 

To gather site-specific technology application 

data on brownfields and VCP properties, one 

must rely almost exclusively on intragovernmental documentation and chain-ofcommand interviewing. Factors limiting the 

effectiveness of this approach include time, 

resources, and access to the decision-makers 

involved. 

Unlike Superfund and RCRA, brownfields 

technology use for both characterization and 

remediation is generally not subject to 

documentation requirements. Public records of 

NRC Report <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5292.html> comments on site characterization needs for CS 

Problems 

- Accurate characterization essential for cost effective CS management and risk assessment (p. 8) 

- High cost limits precision of defined CS zones; impacts remediation work (p. 9) 

Recommendations 

- With more research, acoustic profiling may provide for cost effective remote surveying with high precision 

(p. 9) 

- Chemical sensors may work for sediment as they have in soil and groundwater (p. 9) 

- “Improved site assessment capabilities need to be developed and implemented to enhance overall cost 

effectiveness” (p. 169) 

- “The EPA and USACE should conduct joint research and development projects to advance the state of the art in 

site assessment technologies.” (p. 172)
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

16 

decision (RODs) do not exist for these projects, 

and EPA headquarters does not keep regular tabs 

on individual federal pilots. Most of that 

information resides at the regional level of the 

Agency or with individual project managers. 

While state VCPs must track individual parcels 

by the nature of their programs, most do not 

track technology use. Finally, large amounts of 

information remain confidential to non-agency 

and non-government employees. 

Therefore, access to documentation on 

technology use largely depends upon the lead 

agency and the researcher’s relationship to it. 

The following points summarize the common 

information access paths used in this report: 

3.1a National Brownfields Assessment Pilot 

(Federal Pilot) properties 

• Organization: At the EPA’s regional level, a 

Brownfields team operates out of the main 

office, under the Superfund program. For 

each region, one person serves as the 

Regional Brownfields Coordinator. 

However, this person tends to have limited 

or focused day to day work with individual 

pilot management. Depending on the region 

and the municipality receiving the grant, 

project managers will oversee a particular 

pilot locally or from the main office. Main 

office oversight remains more common, as 

managers are often charged with overseeing 

several pilots in multiple states at one time. 

In some cases, however, the EPA has found 

it more efficient to hire a liaison locally to 

coordinate the pilot, typically when 

municipalities lack other support agencies to 

fill that need. 

• Reporting Requirements: Local government 

contacts must file quarterly reports to the 

EPA regions, but these reports seldom, if 

ever, contain technical information. Instead, 

they tend to reflect the focus of their writers 

as “process intensive,” since the bulk of 

Brownfields grant funds are provided for the 

purpose of coalition-building, education, and 

leveraging future cleanups. Additionally, 

some regions have been slow to press for 

this information. The lack of technical 

information contained, however, appears 

only to parallel the aversion of “process” 

types to such material, since no policy 

mandates the report’s content. 

• Federal Documentation Sources: Record 

keeping methods vary widely among the 

pilots and regions, complicated further by 

state-federal and municipal-federal control 

issues. For a property targeted under the 

pilot, access to technical information 

typically runs through the regional project 

manager. 

• Local Documentation Sources: In many 

more cases, however, property is 

municipally owned, so local governments 

will keep additional records and take the 

lead on the project. In this situation, cities 

will contract out to engineering firms, 

sometimes with more technical (city 

engineer) staff serving as contacts. Often, 

however, a city will have only an economic 

development agency representing it in the 

redevelopment process, with all technical 

services contracted out. This does not mean 

that the city or redevelopment agency lacks 

such records on the project. It does, 

however, tend to signify that efficient 

retrieval of this information, short of 

personal visits to sift through files, is better 

left to the engineering firm contact. 

Therefore, despite the federal nature of the 

pilot, the only easily accessible records may 

rest with a private firm―a more efficient yet 

harder to track approach. 

3.1b State voluntary cleanup and 

brownfields programs

• Organization: As with the federal 

Brownfields program, state VCP and 

Brownfields programs usually run under the 

state’s Superfund program. Management 

and resource commitments vary widely 

among states, but project managers typically 

handle more cases than feasible and cannot 

commit large portions of time to 

investigating or advocating innovative 

technologies. 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

17 

• Reporting requirements: Again, these vary 

among states. Theoretically, for the EPA to 

issue a NFA letter, and for the state to 

declare closure, an assessment report must 

be generated. This leads to the question of 

document repositories and sources. The 

most efficient means of storing this data 

would be in a publicly available database, 

which a few states have begun placing 

online. Still though, many states do not 

include assessment information (other than 

phase I-II-III progress) in these databases or 

GIS sources. The recently published 

Kensington Report provides the best 

available contact info for state brownfield 

and VCP programs, as well as their 

databases37. 

• State documentation sources: Given the 

large legal ramifications of site 

characterization conducted under a VCP or 

brownfields program, results should remain 

in the public record within the state agency 

responsible. Finding this information, 

however, demands time and persistence. In 

many cases, documentation on site 

characterization tools and methods may not 

exist within the state agency (see below), but 

instead with local governments. 

• Local documentation sources: Reporting 

requirements depend on contamination. In 

some states, when contamination does not 

reach a further action level, reporting on 

technical details like characterization tools 

may stop at the agency-regional, county or 

city level. This level of recording would be 

almost impossible to survey on a national 

scale, and, as above, contracting firms may 

provide the most efficient means of access. 

 

• Hazards: Since the state rarely has the 

resources necessary to provide 

comprehensive oversight, it is often left to 

the firm to 1) provide the range of 

technology alternatives, and 2) to self-police 

and ensure that the tools are used correctly. 

The first tendency presents a hazard because 

the firm may artificially limit choices to 

excessively complex sampling plans, to 

conventional tools already at its disposal, 

and to higher cost options than necessary. 

Despite competitive bidding procedures, this 

information may be lost on or unavailable to 

local decision-makers. The second tendency 

also presents a hazard, because firms may 

promise widespread application of 

innovative tools to cut costs in the bidding 

process, but then perform shoddy work due 

to field problems or poor planning. 

3.1c General exceptions and advisories for 

data collection

Since characterization and remediation phases 

are usually bid separately, this creates the 

possibility of two or more firms holding 

information on a single redevelopment project. 

Fortunately, the remediation contractor ends up 

with data from the assessors, and may obtain 

reports from surrounding properties depending 

on the requirements and professional quality of 

the job. If, however, the property is under 

consideration for mandated corrective action, 

assessment contractors usually will not share 

characterization information for confidentiality 

reasons. 

3.2 Decision making in the characterization 

tool selection process

The final decision to use field portable 

technologies in the voluntary setting usually 

rests with the agency project manager, who 

usually relies on the consulting engineer. This 

reliance may manifest itself in an “enhanced 

review process,” but no amount of streamlining 

will compensate for an overly rigid policy that 

hinders field tool application. The several sets 

of factors noted above constantly impact, dilute 

authority among, and affect the decision-making 

within this relationship. The overall approach 

presents several problems. 

First, the project manager is often over-reliant 

on the engineer. Workload and lack of 

technical expertise, as well as hesitancy to 

deviate from standard procedure, causes the 

agency representative to assume an 

approve/disapprove posture. If the consulting 

engineers can show that their sampling plan 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

18 

meets agency policy requirements, regardless of 

whether or not it may provide the best quality, 

most efficient, or most appropriate data, then it 

satisfies the firm’s burden. Keep in mind that 

data quality objectives or other means to ensure 

quality control are relatively new to some states. 

From a documentation perspective, the process 

of devising a characterization plan and selecting 

tools and technology remains relatively opaque. 

Some observers at the federal level have noted 

that the informational and creative burden on the 

firm not only proves efficient amidst limited 

agency resources, but helps deflect 

accountability as well. Any mistake or 

undetected contamination becomes the fault of 

the contractor. 

The firm, which may have its own motives and 

those of its voluntarily acting client to contend 

with, is left to advocate its plan before the 

regulators (known as “providing a deliverable”). 

Unfortunately, some firms hesitate to apply 

innovative characterization technologies, either 

due to poor cost/benefit information for the 

client or an uncertain performance perception. 

Without an open policy that efficiently permits 

and effectively promotes innovative alternatives 

from the start, the state regulators will end up 

approving plans that meet their conventional 

sampling criteria. Less than effective and less 

than efficient site characterization results from 

this cycle, particularly in light of the unique 

needs of waterfront property and brownfields 

stakeholders. 

Agency attempts to push an innovative 

technology at the approval stage―with 

inadequate resources to review each plan, select 

the proper technologies, and incorporate data 

quality objectives that may not have been 

designed with innovative tools in mind―would 

only draw out the process and alienate VCP 

participants. Unfortunately, in the voluntary and 

brownfield process, most states do not get 

involved until this point, leaving the assessment 

work to the client and firm. This places the 

burden on them to step forward and “claim” a 

status for their property, whereupon the state 

determines the necessity of and verifies cleanup 

actions. 

3.3 Baseline assumptions

Due to this market’s preferences noted above, 

and despite state pressures, field portable tools 

should theoretically appear frequently 

throughout the dataset. Longtime observers of 

brownfields and the environmental assessment 

technology market, however, know all too well 

the problems with the above statement. These 

problems include overly rigid state policies 

regarding innovative technology, as well as 

traditional obstacles noted in Section 1.6. 

Because of the national nature of this project, it 

seems futile to explicitly predict if field-based 

characterization tools will experience more or 

less application than conventional tools. The 

distribution and concentration of sites among the 

states would skew the data and mask the large 

impact of state agency policies on sediment 

assessment and technology use. Without 

explicitly comparing every state and EPA 

regional policy, it remains difficult to predict 

whether the pilot sites or VCP sites will exhibit 

greater use of these tools. 

The voluntary waterfront redevelopment setting, 

with its tight budgets and short time frames, 

lacks tolerance for technical mistakes. 

Therefore, the data on innovative 

characterization tool application for this setting 

should support a few conclusions: 

1. Any innovative characterization 

technology used should have available 

cost and performance data for the 

suspected contaminants involved. No site 

will try a tool straight out of the lab. 

2. Field screening technologies will see far 

greater deployment than on-site analysis 

tools, as on-site analysis has yet to gain 

the widespread acceptance of screening 

tools, both among firms and states. 

3. Sampling of aqueous sediment will only 

occur if a state or local agency has 

employed an area-wide approach to 

characterization, for the purpose of 

examining groundwater issues or for 

identification of PRPs under a potential 

state or federal Superfund scenario. No 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

19 

other regulatory incentive, aside from 

USACE dredging, compels an agency to 

examine aqueous sediment for waterfront 

voluntary or brownfield properties. 

3.4 Results

A large percentage of information in the data 

tables, specifically the Contact data tables, 

contain hyperlinks to web pages or email. This 

was by design, as the data tables are meant to 

serve as a resource for researchers in addition to 

simply providing information for this project. A 

stable dataset compiled over time is necessary to 

both accurately gauge progress and identify 

problem areas with voluntary cleanup programs. 

For our waterfront subset, it provides the 

opportunity to test the impact of various policy 

programs, redevelopment theories, and political 

proposals. With finer examination, it also shows 

a great deal about the organizational structure 

behind implementing these programs, how it 

works, and where connections need to be made 

or strengthened. More work needs to be done, 

and with scarce information on site specifics for 

the voluntary market, these tables represent a 

starting point that researchers will hopefully 

build on, cite, and communicate their ideas with. 

Data collected directly support assumptions one 

and two, and with few exceptions, also support 

the third assumption. 

Data Tables (Appendix A): Data Matrix, 

Contact List, and data tables for 115 sites on the 

following topics: Oversight, Progress, Field 

Tool Application, Contaminants, Remediation, 

Sediment Assessment, and proximity to NPL.

A large percentage of information in the data 

tables, specifically the Contact data tables, 

contain hyperlinks to web pages or email. This 

was by design, as the data tables are meant to 

serve as a resource for researchers in addition to 

simply providing information for this project. 

More work needs to be done, and with scarce 

information on site specifics for the voluntary 

market, these tables represent a starting point 

Figure 2. Contaminant classes at selected waterfront voluntary sector properties 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

20 

that researchers will hopefully build on, cite, and 

communicate their ideas with. 

Site selection 

Waterfront location was the primary criteria for 

site inclusion. Secondary criteria included 

planned or completed work and identification as 

a targeted property under a Brownfield pilot. 

Inclusion was slightly biased to collect as much 

information about properties that had completed 

phase II work in as short a time as possible. 

Since properties were followed up on 

immediately once identified―the dataset had to 

be created from scratch within a 12-week time 

constraint―it seems obvious that waterfront 

sites with complete site characterizations would 

prove of more interest than those without. For 

that reason, this paper does not provide a 

nationwide “universal status report” on all 

waterfront voluntary properties. 

Contacts 

Most information for this project was collected 

over the phone or via email. The idea of 

voluntary submission via a web-based form, 

database, and possibly GIS seemed appealing; 

however, the State of Pennsylvania has tried 

exactly this approach for gathering less technical 

information than contained in this report. Their 

result, 21 sites, has been supported by a grant 

program that pays local government entities 

$1,000 per brownfield they submit to the 

voluntary database38. 

At the time this project began, the EPA 

volunteered no centralized nationwide contact 

list for brownfields project managers, and one 

may not exist. Contacts listed on the scant fact 

sheets were at times out of date and rarely the 

best persons for the information sought here. 

Nearly all of the site contacts listed with this 

report were contacted over the phone and/or via 

email. As this was in some ways an on-the-job 

learning process, there were no “standardized” 

questions, though certain topic headings always 

were covered depending on the contact’s 

expertise and access to relevant site 

information―these comprise the data tables. A 

fair amount of information not included in this 

report was also collected, as project managers 

and engineers tend to relate background 

knowledge and unique challenges facing their 

sites as well. 

Below the site contacts are a list of other 

contacts, all experts in their particular field 

whose insight was invaluable in shaping 

portions of this report. The contacts file also 

includes a linked list of online state databases 

explicitly containing or searchable for voluntary 

properties. One of the major drawbacks of the 

Kensington Report was its failure to include a 

list similar to this. Finally, the contacts file 

concludes with contact info for firms and others 

that deal extensively with voluntary industrial 

cleanups. 

Progress 

One large drawback with this table involved 

groundwater testing; because the project’s intent 

focused on obtaining information field-based 

characterization tools, some sites focused their 

information-providing efforts on soils and 

sediments. Though data gaps exist with regard 

to media, it seems clear from industry protocol 

that the vast majority of sites that have sampled 

soils have probably also sampled their 

groundwater. With additional time, a firmer 

correlative link could have been established 

between sites sampling (or not sampling) 

groundwater and sites sampling (or not 

sampling) sediment. In this way, analysis of the 

groundwater leaching contaminant pathway 

could occur. 

Field-portable tool application frequency 

Clearly, from the descriptions above, 

determining a progress of a site proved many 

orders of magnitude easier than accessing field 

tool information. However, 21 sites did apply 

field-portable screening or analysis technology, 

and an additional five used only Geoprobe or 

direct push methods, which still fit the definition 

of field tools despite their non-innovative 

qualities and established market position. 

Among the sites applying innovative methods, 

handheld photoionization devices (PIDs) and 

soil gas samplers, both screening tools used to 

better define regions of contamination, were the 

most common choices. A total of 15 PIDs, used 

mainly to detect VOCs, and six soil gas 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

21 

samplers, were employed. Four sites chose to 

use on-site labs, including one private site 

outside of the New Orleans federally funded 

demonstration, a former explosives plant in 

DuPont, Washington. The Navy, with its sizable 

in-house research division, has taken the lead in 

applying innovative field technologies to its 

sites―though even under base-closure 

conditions, it operates under a different set of 

funding and market parameters. 

In time, additional follow-ups or data 

contributions will allow us to obtain a more 

accurate picture of exactly how many sites 

nationwide employ field tools and for which 

purposes (screening or analysis). For now, due 

to state policies and communication gaps 

regarding on-site analysis’ reliability, screening 

tools experience far more widespread 

application. Screening frequency with the tools 

noted is consistent with the high number of sites 

reporting VOCs, though the high number of sites 

reporting heavy metals would lead one to expect 

high frequency in XRF application as well, to 

counter the large cost of soil removal. XRF, 

however, saw rather limited application in the 

waterfront voluntary setting. 

 

Contaminants

No particular type of waterfront industry was 

targeted by this report; as a result, the dataset 

reflects a wide variety of contaminant classes 

from many different industrial and, at times, 

non-industrial sources. The most prevalent 

contaminants in sediments, however, included 

traditionally common materials such as PCBs, 

PAHs, pesticides (dioxin in particular). VOCs, 

metals, and TPH were the dominant contaminant 

classes in landward soils. Where groundwater 

information was available, TPH appeared to be 

the primary contaminant. 

Remediation 

A few innovative remediation projects 

eventually appeared among the 115 sites. As 

one can determine by comparing the number of 

phase II completions to the number of completed 

remedial projects, however, most voluntary and 

brownfield projects that might take advantage of 

such technologies have not yet reached this 

stage. Presently, two conventional SVE 

projects, as well as one combined 

bioremediation and thermal desorption project, 

are operating in Portland, Oregon. Several 

natural remedies provide hope for cost-effective, 

low-impact solutions on the horizon―plans for 

wetlands at Pittsburgh’s Duquesne Slag, and 

plans for phytoremediation at Brownfields pilots 

in Danbury, CT and Hennepin County, MN. 

Sediments 

The sediment data makes clear that CS 

assessment is, in most voluntary cases, directly 

supported by a public funding source. This is 

consistent with its status as a common resource 

and the lack of a viable cost recovery option 

through the liability law, for reasons cited in 

Section 2. The vast majority of properties with 

known sediment assessment work accomplished 

it through a CERCLA investigation (13) or with 

assistance from the USACE (8). The two 

Danbury properties, the Stockton property, and 

the Pittsburgh property had municipal assistance 

with the cost recovery. The Harlan, OR and 

White City, OR properties participated in a 

Targeted Brownfields Assessment sponsored by 

EPA Region 10. The two Bellingham properties 

were part of an innovative partnership that seeks 

to address CS and other pollution issues 

surrounding Bellingham Bay. One site has 

applied for state funding. Only two properties 

uncovered in this report―ASARCO in Omaha 

and the Lake Union Steam Plant in 

Seattle―show evidence of voluntary, privately 

funded sediment assessment work. 

As for the sites that did not assess, some had 

their reasons. The New Orleans Brownfields 

pilot, for instance, suspected only TPH in the 

groundwater at its sites, based on earlier phase I 

information39. Pacific Bell Park in San 

Francisco, although built on a waterfront site 

with an industrial past, needed only to address 

lead contamination associated with fill material 

in the soil. Other sites, like those in St. Joseph, 

MI, await funding from state and federal 

sources. Still others, like the properties in 

Channelview, TX or Shreveport, LA, were not 

part of a wider redevelopment plan or 

cooperative partnership similar to St. Joseph’s, 

and therefore had no incentive to investigate 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

22 

what is likely an extensive multiple source CS 

problem in their heavily industrialized areas. 

3.5 Cases

Due to the variety of field-based characterization 

tool application found in this report, as well as 

the divergent needs of environmental 

professionals, those seeking further background 

for case studies should consult the dataset 

(Appendix A) and contact the sites of interest to 

them. In addition, it would be advisable to note 

the future research needs listed in Section 3.6. 

Case studies were compiled for sites that 

addressed area-wide concerns (most often CS), 

because of the potential market for field-portable 

sediment assessment tools and the ability of 

cooperative partnerships to expedite assessment 

while confronting multiple environmental and 

financial issues. 

Confronting area-wide concerns 

Bellingham, WA 

<http://www.portofbellingham.com/environment>

A cooperative partnership in Bellingham, 

Washington has provided an example of how 

area-wide sediment assessment might occur 

under the current regulatory framework. A 3-

year effort among 14 state and federal 

government and industry partners has recently 

produced a draft EIS identifying sediment 

cleanup alternatives for Bellingham Bay. 

Included in the partnership are several industries 

responsible for sediment pollution in the bay, 

including Georgia Pacific West. 

The partnership seeks to streamline the 

necessary sediment cleanup, but also address 

wider issues associated with the health of the 

bay. These issues include source control, habitat 

restoration, and plans for future surface water 

and shoreline land use. 

Under a CERCLA-mandated cleanup decision, 

sediment problems would eventually be 

addressed, although wider watershed concerns 

might not. The advantage of PRP liability 

would reimburse taxpayers, but probably over a 

longer time frame. The Bellingham Bay 

partnership provides a way to address aquatic 

sediment problems more quickly by supplying 

the most important element needed for sediment 

assessment―a secure source of funding. For 

this pilot project, a variety of agencies, including 

EPA and the Washington State Department of 

Ecology, provided grants. 

It should also be noted that one shoreline 

property―the Olivine Property―had sediment 

assessment undertaken for in water construction 

at a Coast Guard base. The Coast Guard paid 

for the work on that project, and is also a 

member of the Bay partnership. 

Significantly, Washington State remains one of 

the only states with sediment quality standards. 

Projects like the one in Bellingham Bay may 

illustrate how such standards lead to addressing 

wider watershed environmental problems. From 

a decision making perspective, Ecology knew 

that bay sediments were likely contaminated 

with a variety of contaminants from several 

sources―and that some areas probably exceeded 

the standards. Community support for 

rehabilitating the waterfront and preserving 

existing employment opportunities was strong; 

however, the process driver―environmental 

assessment to determine what actions were 

needed―was missing until Ecology stepped 

forward with the grant. Both the Bellingham 

Bay Demonstration and the Bellingham EPA 

Brownfields Pilot have been notable for their 

public and private stakeholder involvement. As 

a result of this cooperation, sediment assessment 

was conducted in less time than on average, and 

necessary cleanup to a defined standard will 

commence soon. When the sediment project 

and Brownfields pilot conclude, the wider bay 

ecosystem will fare much better than it has over 

the past half-century and the city will have a 

cleaner, revitalized waterfront. 

 

The only limitation on this type of cooperative 

agreement remains the policy question of having 

the taxpayers assume the burden for pollution 

caused by a multitude of responsible parties, 

only some of which the liability process can 

identify and distinguish relative culpability 

among. In terms of end results, however, the 

Bellingham project, by addressing shared 

concerns and multiple interests―from wildlife 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

23 

to redevelopment―has produced an effective 

model. 

Seattle, WA―Multi-User Disposal Sites 

(MUDS) 

<http://www.wa.gov/ecology/sea/smu/muds.htm>

Another innovative sediment project from 

Washington’s Department of Ecology involves 

disposal sites for dredged material. The Seattle 

office of the USACE is working with EPA and 

Ecology to study aquatic, nearshore (cap/fill), 

and upland disposal sites. USACE has 

particular interest in this project since, as 

discussed above, it has wide authority to address 

CS in and around navigable waters. The most 

innovative part of the project, however, allows 

both public and private dredging projects to use 

and pay for the disposal sites. Though the 

overall financing and cost sharing requires more 

discussion, the concept of establishing a 

permanent, safe, and accessible disposal option 

looks promising. Though in situ treatment 

would provide a more guaranteed environmental 

outcome (rather than transporting the problem 

and dealing with dredging’s inadequacies), it 

remains undesirable from a cost, permitting, and 

practicability standpoint for multiple 

stakeholders. For the present needs of the area, 

which involve known CS and needed―perhaps 

even mandated―dredging, the MUDS project 

appears appropriate. 

Emeryville, CA―Soil and Groundwater 

<http://209.150.161.6/emeryville> 

Emeryville has undertaken an area-wide 

approach to assessing soil and groundwater by 

sampling and monitoring throughout the city and 

the near-shore region of San Francisco Bay. 

Though comprehensive sediment assessment did 

not occur, near-shore groundwater monitoring 

well and grab samples were taken to determine 

if contaminated water might threaten the Bay. 

Because of the large number of brownfields and 

potential contamination sources, transcending 

the property line approach was made easier in 

this case. However, aquifers are always 

common property resources that transcend 

property boundaries, and Emeryville’s 

willingness to take the area-wide approach 

illustrates once again the driving forces behind 

environmental cleanup. 

The city’s action only appears exceptional 

because it occurred under a process that 

emphasizes property lines for the sake of 

redevelopment. The fundamental ideals behind 

revitalizing and redeveloping Brownfield parcels 

break down, though, if the contamination issues 

associated with them multiply among or impact 

a large area. To clarify, this is not so much a 

problem with the program itself, but with the 

resources presently committed and available to 

redevelopment entities―specifically 

municipalities. Cities in general view the legacy 

of contamination as a property-specific problem 

that disappears when the land is remediated. 

They cannot usually commit to investigating 

common property resources like aquifers or 

aqueous sediment, because they lack either 

statutory authority or adequate funds to do so. 

Private redevelopment entities, clearly, have 

little interest in becoming tied to a problem with 

an unclear definition of responsible parties. 

Additionally, because other municipalities may 

have contributed to the problem, the issue falls 

to the states―who, for reasons of their own, as 

in the case of CS, have established funding 

priorities (see the Clean Michigan Initiative 

criteria, Section 2.1). 

In that light, Emeryville’s initiative appears 

particularly remarkable. Adequate funding 

served as the key driving force, allowing the 

project to assist rapid redevelopment, as an 

entirely clean city proves more attractive than 

one with only a clean section or a clean corridor. 

Portland, OR 

<http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cleanup/PortlandHarbor/plan/ 

contents.html>

In Portland, ODEQ completed area-wide 

sediment sampling because of CERCLA-related 

concerns about several sites along the 

Willamette River. For more information, please 

refer to the linked Portland Harbor Sediment 

Management Plan linked above. 

Interim Action 

Hennepin County, MN―Chemical Marketing 

Corporation

If emergency-response requiring contamination 

does not exist on a site, utilizing pre-emptive 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

24 

phytoremediation may improve its market value. 

Often, a site owner cannot pay to clean up 

contamination and must rely on a buyer to steer 

the property through voluntary cleanup. 

However, the owner usually does not want to 

abandon the property and would like to receive 

some compensation for giving up the land. 

Planting trees and plants, and removing debris, 

can dramatically increase the attractiveness to a 

buyer, while helping to remediate some metals 

and providing a higher sale price for the owner. 

Admirable public involvement and education 

has occurred as a result of this federal pilot. 

Additionally, unlike some pilot locations, the 

community has chosen to address a more 

difficult State Superfund site and take a large 

step, rather than a tiny one, to generate 

momentum in their brownfield redevelopment 

process. 

Beneficial Reuse Demonstrations

WRDA Sediment Decontamination Project

A shortage of aquatic disposal facilities caused 

several agencies with responsibility for the New 

York/New Jersey Harbor area to investigate 

beneficial reuse treatment technologies. These 

technologies would treat CS unsuitable for open 

water or CADF disposal. With support from the 

1992 and 1996 Water Resources Development 

Acts, the USACE, EPA Region 2, and NY/NJ 

Port Authority will evaluate the BioGenesis 

Sediment Washing, IGT Thermal Cement Lock, 

and Westinghouse Vitrification methods in a 

series of four demonstrations. The BioGenesis 

pilot-scale projects, for one example, range in 

size from 500cy to 500,000cy and will conclude 

around 2002. The consortium hopes that the 

WRDA project will eliminate a sizable part of 

the harbor’s CS problem, while the port deepens 

channels that will allow the area to compete for 

deep-draft container ship traffic. The port has 

set a cost ceiling of $35 per cubic yard for 

treatment, a large reduction from the average 

$200 per cubic yard, guaranteeing that the 

technologies emerging from the program will 

provide a good turnaround on investment. 

Source: ODEQ Portland Harbor Sediment Management Plan 

<http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cleanup/PortlandHarbor/plan/phplansec5fig-1.ppt>
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

25 

Detroit River, MI―EPA Region 5 and Michigan 

DEQ 

<http://www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/gleas/docs/seds/tctreat/trenton.htm>

Following an initial bench scale study of five 

remediation technologies applicable to both 

inorganic and organic contaminants, Michigan 

DEQ ended up satisfied with the same 3 

methods as the WRDA New York/New Jersey 

project. From these three, Michigan selected the 

Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) Thermal 

Cement Lock process as the most marketable 

technology with the greatest potential for reuse, 

and has partnered with EPA Region 5 for 

upcoming pilot scale work with that process. 

IGT received a grant of $200,000 to find a site 

for its 30,000-cubic yard kiln apparatus along 

the Black Lagoon/Trenton Channel adjacent to 

the Detroit River. No viable PRP exists for this 

location, no redevelopment is anticipated due to 

the severe contamination, and institutional 

controls such as fish advisories remain the only 

actions taken at this particular location. 

However, Region 5’s R/V Mudpuppy completed 

extensive sediment assessment work on this 

stretch of the river, adding to a 20-year store of 

CS knowledge. Officials remain very optimistic 

that the beneficial reuse prospects for dredged 

material will allow them to recover costs that the 

absence of a PRP would otherwise prevent. 

Additionally, they hope that the turnaround 

value of the process will prove attractive in the 

voluntary setting, as the IGT process can handle 

a wide variety of wastes, from TOSCA material 

to brownfield soil. 

3.6 Future research needs

3.6a Cost/benefit analysis needs

For landward soil characterization technologies, 

most of the technical information (e.g., how the 

tool works, why it works) is available from the 

references listed in the Contacts or Verification 

tables accompanying this document. Some of 

the technologies are recognized as 

fundamentally sound by other scientific 

disciplines, such as gas chromatography, while 

others have experienced at least limited 

application in a setting where one could record 

cost information. The balance of the landward 

tools, as well as all of the sediment assessment 

tools, remain in the bench or pilot scale stage. 

Most of the cost information remains 

inaccessible, however, since that type of 

documentation exists only between the client 

and the firm. An agency would not keep track 

of that data unless it was paying for the work 

through a grant or targeted assessment program. 

It seems clear that the case for innovative site 

characterization technologies would receive a 

large boost if more cost/benefit analysis 

occurred, with comparison to conventional 

characterization methods. The best-cited 

examples so far, however―the Expedited Site 

Characterization Demonstration properties in 

New Orleans, LA, Brownfields pilot―faced 

their own field problems, which had little to do 

with the accuracy of the instruments40. One may 

also find the following generalized data useful41

:

This project could not collect cost information 

on a national scale in such a short time frame. 

Because of the difficulty in even identifying 

useful properties for cost/benefit analysis, that 

task became the primary focus of the research. 

Those familiar with the EPA will note that 

preparing case study reports can be left to 

research contractors, once the identification and 

investigation ends. More useful at this stage is 

an expandable dataset that can provide tool 

Item General Sampling Cost 

Labor rate and Handling costs $35/hr plus $10 per sample, respectively 

Soil Collection $10 per sample (hand); $600 per day + $30 per 

sample (Geoprobe) 

Groundwater Sampling >$40/sample plus well installation costs 

Sediment Sampling $30/sample (shallow), + equip. cost (deep water) 

Lab Analysis for all samples listed above $27 (assay) - $1200/sample , depending on 

contaminant 

Source: US EPA-ORD NRMRL
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

26 

application information on a nationwide scale. 

From this, trends may appear that include: 

• Geographic concentration of assessment tool 

use (particularly by state, once additional 

VCP data is collected) 

• A clearer picture of the market 

fragmentation and contaminant breakdown 

among brownfields and voluntary sites 

• Clear differences in innovative tool 

application and pricing between firms 

• Overall cost savings for innovative sites 

versus those using conventional technology 

(comparing within media and contaminant 

categories). 

• Cross-regulatory comparisons of assessment 

tool use between voluntary and 

mandated/enforcement-type programs. 

 

None of this information—from which an 

analyst could identify exactly which policies 

were not working and the reasons why; and from 

which a technology “consumer” could gain 

valuable insight—will be available without a 

solid dataset of properties. In this case, 

waterfront properties comprise the dataset focus 

for their unique policy issues discussed above, 

and also to limit the scope slightly. 

3.6b Additional research needs

• Inter-State regulation comparisons on fieldportable technology use 

• Intra-State field tool application frequency 

comparisons between regulatory programs 

• Cost of inter-state regulation differences to 

field-portable technology vendors 

• Cost-benefit analysis on how much a 

municipality would save by pursuing a 

cooperative approach to sediment 

assessment 

• Cost-benefit analysis on field-based 

sediment assessment tools 

• Analysis of the groundwater leaching 

pathway―how do areawide or property line 

assessments of groundwater impact 

sediment assessment? 

4. Conclusions 

Gorte notes that, “the pressure to find cheaper 

and more effective technologies for assessment 

and cleanup of brownfields will continue to 

build”42. Without a baseline to compare to, 

these results at least show some promise for 

field-portable tools. Behind the results, 

however, lies the stifling atmosphere of multiple 

agency policies, multiple permitting processes, 

and inconsistent acceptance of verification and 

certification data. Despite the powerful driver of 

waterfront property’s resale value, no amount of 

cost/benefit work for the property owner will 

sway regulators resistant to integrating field 

tools―particularly on-site analysis tools―into 

their programs. 

Potentially, lessons learned from developing and 

applying field tools to soils could be used to 

prevent similar mistakes and obstacles with the 

field screening and field analysis tools in 

development for sediments. With a few 

exceptions among the most financially supported 

and most advanced state environmental 

agencies, however, this seems unlikely. Most 

field tools, aside from PIDs and soil gas 

samplers, remain in the middle or stuck at the 

start of their quest for acceptance. Field 

screening and analysis tools for sediments face 

an additional collective action problem among 

their prospective waterfront clients. Enhanced 

cooperation among waterfront regulators and 

property owners has proven its ability to 

expedite sediment assessment and cleanup, and 

therefore provides an emerging opportunity for 

technology transfer. 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

27 

Other References and Recommended 

Reading 

EPA Publications 

Brownfields Pilot Locations and Fact Sheets, 

Series 500-F-97 and 500-F-98. Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, 

Washington, DC. 

Tool Kit of Information Resources for 

Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup 

(EPA/542/B-97/001). Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, EPA, Washington, DC. 

Road Map to Understanding Innovative 

Technology Options for Brownfields 

Investigation and Cleanup (EPA/542/B-97/002). 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 

EPA, Washington, DC. 

Field Analytical and Site Characterization 

Technologies (with out of date tables) 

(EPA/542/R-97/011). Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response―TIO, EPA, Washington, 

DC. November, 1997. 

Quality Assurance Guide for Conducting 

Brownfields Site Assessments (EPA/540/R98/038). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, EPA, Washington, DC. September 

1998. 

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: 

Annual Status Report (9th Ed.) (EPA/542/R99/001). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response―TIO, EPA, Washington, DC. April 

1999. 

National Conference on Management and 

Treatment of Contaminated Sediments: Cleanup 

Technologies and Management Strategies 

(5/13/97―Conference Slide Handout 

EPA/600/Q-97/001). Office of Research and 

Development, EPA, Washington, DC, May 

1997. 

National Conference on Management and 

Treatment of Contaminated Sediments: Cleanup 

Technologies and Management Strategies 

(EPA/625/R-98/001). Office of Research and 

Development, EPA, Washington, DC, August 

1998. 

Realizing Remediation: A Summary of 

Contaminated Sediment Remediation Activities 

in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes National 

Program Office, March 1998. 

EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Management 

Strategy (EPA/823/R-98/001). Office of Water, 

EPA, Washington, DC, April 1998. 

Other publications―technology 

Accelerated Site Characterization Team 

Workplan for Subtask III. Consortium for Site 

Characterization Technology―ITRC 

Partnership (10/4/96). 

Defining “The End” of Technology Testing 

(3/96). Downloaded 7/6/99. 

Operations Plan for the Rapid 

Commercialization Initiative. RCI Working 

Group (6/96). 

Broetzman, Gary G., et al. Case Studies of 

Selected States Voluntary Cleanup/Brownfields 

Programs. ITRC Work Group and Colorado 

Center for Environmental Management, May 

1997. 

Broetzman, Gary G. Activities for Approving 

and Encouraging Innovative Environmental 

Technologies. Colorado Center for 

Environmental Management, December 1996. 

Wesnousky, John, et al. ITRC Guidance 

Document―Multi-state Evaluation of an 

Expedited Site Characterization Technology: 

SCAPS-LIF. ITRC Workgroup―Cone 

Penetrometer Task group, May 1996. 

Environmental Technology Transfer Charrette 

White Paper. Environmental Finance Center, 

Region 9, 1997. 

Catalog of Environmental Technology 

Verification Programs in North America. 

Pacific Rim Enterprise Center and Colorado 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

28 

Center for Environmental Management, January 

1999. 

ASTM Standard Provisional Guide for 

Accelerated Site Characterization (ASC). 

American Society for Testing and Materials, 

1997. 

Other publications―policy 

Bartsch, Charlie and Christine Anderson. 

Matrix of Brownfield Programs by State. 

Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC, 

September 1998. 

Bouges, Maureen. “Oregon Hail: Portland’s 

Pioneering Ways.” Brownfields. Volume 3, 

Issue 3, June 1999.

 

1

 Internal Document: “Expediting the Site Characterization Process at Three Brownfields Sites in New Orleans, 

Louisiana: Case Study”. Prepared for U.S. EPA by Tetra Tech EM, Inc, Sherry Gernhofer, Work Assignment 

Manager, December 12, 1997, Table 6-4. 

See also Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for Addressing Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative (EPA/625/R99/001). Office of Research and Development, EPA, Washington, DC, April 1999. 2

 Refer to the “Oversight” data in this paper. City Redevelopment Agencies and Economic Development 

Authorities traditionally serve as middlemen in the resale process, allowing them to recover costs for cleanup. 3

 Superfund: Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment (GAO/RCED-96-125). General Accounting Office, 

Washington, DC, June 1996, p. 2. 4

 An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998 Update. Environmental Law Institute, 

Washington, DC, 1998. 

5

 Ibid. 

6

 Superfund: Barriers, p. 9 7

 Gorte, Julie F. Marketing Brownfield Cleanup Technologies. Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC, 

February 1999. 8

 Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Ed.) (EPA/542/R-96/005). Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response-TIO, EPA, Washington, DC, April 1997, Sections 9.3-9.4. 

9

 Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Ed.) (EPA/542/R-96/005). Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response-TIO, EPA, Washington, DC, April 1997, Sections 9.3-9.4. 10 Internal Document: “Brownfields Data Collection Sources.” Report for EPA-OSWER Outreach and Special 

Projects Staff. Kensington Systems, Inc., Los Angeles, CA. March 1999. 11 Ibid. 

12 An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 1998 Update. Environmental Law Institute, 

Washington, DC, 1998, p. 20. 13 Ibid. 

14 Personal Communication, Dr. Thomas DeKay, EPA-TIO 

15 Clean Michigan Initiative. Michigan DEQ, Lansing, MI, 1997. 

16 Personal Communication, Mr. Chad Howell, City of Kalamazoo, MI. June 1999. 

17 The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States - Volume 1: 

National Sediment Quality Survey (EPA/823/R-97/006). Office of Science and Technology, EPA, Washington, 

DC, April 1997. 18 Brannon, J.M.; McFarland, V.A. Technical Considerations for Sediment Quality Criteria. Miscellaneous Paper 

W-96-1. Water Quality '96: Proceedings of the Corps of Engineers 11th Seminar on Water Quality, Feb. 26th-Mar 

1st, 1996, Seattle, Washington. USACE-WES, Vicksburg, MS, 1996, pgs. 346-352. 

19 Personal Communication, Mr. Art Ostaszewski, Michigan DEQ. 

20 For two very different perspectives on dredging, consult the USACE E2-D2 page and GE's HudsonWatch page. 

21 Clean Michigan Initiative. Michigan DEQ, Lansing, MI, 1997, p. 8 of online edition. 

22 NRC Report: Contaminated Sediments in Ports and Waterways: Cleanup Strategies and Technologies. 

Bokuniewicz, Henry, et al. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1997, p. 5. 23 For more on state-federal cost recovery issues, see the Testimony of Ms. Claudia Kerbwy, ASTSWMO, March 

23, 1999, before the House Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials. 24 NRC Report, p. 1. 

25 Personal Communication, Mr. Tommy E. Myers, Ph.D., June 29, 1999. 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

29 

 26 NRC Report, p. 171. 

27 Internal Document: “Special Report: Funding Brownfield Remediation with the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund.” Report from Kristin S. Kenausis, Communications Specialist, State Revolving Fund Branch, EPA Office 

of Water, July 1999. 28 Ibid. 

29 Personal Communication, Ms. Jennifer Millet, EPA-OSPS, meeting with Mr. Andrew Kreider and EPA-TIO 

representatives, June 1999. 30 These and preceding statistics in paragraph from “Special Report: Funding Brownfield Remediation with the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund.” 31 NRC Report, p. 42. 

32 Ibid., p. 42. 

33 See American Trucking Associations vs. U.S. EPA, May 14, 1999, and the Federal Response 

34 See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/whatissf/cercla.htm 

35 NRC Report, p. 73. 

36 Personal Communication, Mr. Tommy E. Myers, Ph.D., June 29, 1999. 

37 See “Brownfields Data Collection Sources.” 

38 See PDEP Brownfields Inventory Grants 

39 Internal Document: “Expediting the Site Characterization Process at Three Brownfields Sites in New Orleans, 

Louisiana: Case Study”. Prepared for U.S. EPA by Tetra Tech EM, Inc, Sherry Gernhofer, Work Assignment 

Manager, December 12, 1997, p. 5. 40 Ibid., p. 6 and Table 6-4. 

41 Cost Estimating Tools and Resources for Addressing Sites Under the Brownfields Initiative (EPA/625/R-99/001). 

Office of Research and Development, EPA, Washington, DC, April 1999, pgs. 21-22. 42 Gorte, p. 2. 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

A-1 

Appendix A. Data Matrix, Contact List, and data tables for 115 sites on the 

following topics: Oversight, Progress, Field Tool Application, Contaminants, 

Remediation, Sediment Assessment, and proximity to NPL 
EPA 

Reg. City Site I II III Ownership VOCs SVOCs PCBs PAHs Cl. Solv TPH

Unsp 

Metals, 

Inorganics

Cr Pb As Ni Zn CN, FeCN Hg Be Pesticides or dioxin TBT PCP, phenols 

1 Bridgeport, CT Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark X M1 Danbury, CT Kohanza Brook Property X XX M X X X 1 Danbury, CT Mallory Hat Factory X XX M XX X 

1 Middletown, CT Peterson Oil Company XX M X1 Middletown, CT Portland Chemical X MX X X1 Norwich, CT Falls Ave. Mill, Thames River M1 Norwich, CT Marina XX M 

1 Chicopee, MA Foundry w/ lead contamination P1 Chicopee, MA Dac Hur/Hamden Steel X P

1 Lawrence, MA Oxford Paper Company X MX X X1 Lawrence, MA Everett Mills X M1 Lawrence, MA Atlantic Power X M1 Lawrence, MA Lawrence Textile X M1 Lowell, MA Davison Street Lots I1 Lowell, MA Baseball Stadium X M 

1 Lowell, MA Tsongas Arena XM X 1 Lynn, MA Beacon Chevrolet X M X XX 1 New Bedford, MA Sites to be determined I2 Buffalo, NY LTV Steel hydroponic tomato X P XX

2 Buffalo, NY Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal X XX M X X X X X X 

2 Buffalo, NY Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal area X X X M, U X X X

2 Glen Cove, NY Captains Cove Condominiums X XX M X X X X 

2 Glen Cove, NY Bona-Fide Ready Mix PX X 

2 Glen Cove, NY A-1 Carting PX X 2 Glen Cove, NY Gladsky Marine Salvage PX X 2 Glen Cove, NY Hawkins Cove (Doxey) PX X2 Ogdensburg, NY Municipal Arena XX M 

2 Ogdensburg, NY Diamond International Site XX M X X 

2 Ogdensburg, NY Lighthouse Point XX M 2 Ogdensburg, NY Former tank farm XX M X X 2 Yonkers, NY Alexander Street Waterfront M

3 Cape Charles, VA Town Parcel X M, C 

3 Pittsburgh, PA LTV South Side Steel works X X E X X X XXXX X 

3 Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels XX E 3 Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels XX E X X X X 3 Pittsburgh, PA Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run X X E XX 

3 Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Tech Center XX E X 4 Charleston, SC Sites to be determined I

4 East Point, GA Cotton Mill waste lagoon XX M X X 

4 Clearwater, FL Stevenson Creek junkyard M XX X X X 

4 Jacksonville, FL Sites to be determined I

5 East Moline, IL City landfill XX M X X X X 5 Waukegan, IL Madison Street properties I5 Kalamazoo, MI Auto Ion Area, Mills Street XX M X X

5 Kalamazoo, MI Consumers Power North M XX

5 Kalamazoo, MI Riverfront BRI Site (CP South) XX M 

5 Muskegon, MI Shoreline Project - multiple properties I

5 St. Joseph, MI Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1S) X XX M X X X 

5 St. Joseph, MI Whirlpool Property X P XXX 

5 Benton Harbor, MI Former Superior Steel M* X X X X 

5 Benton Harbor, MI Malleable Site M* X X X X 

5 Benton Harbor, MI CSX Railway Site M* 5 Benton Harbor, MI Lk MI Coll Tech Center XX E

5 Traverse City, MI Traverse City Iron Works XM X

5 Hennepin County, MN Chemical Marketing Corp - StSfund P XX

5 Girard, OH Ohio Leather Company M5 Southern Ohio Port Author Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac) XX A X X X X 

5 Southern Ohio Port Author Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels) XX A5 Tallmadge, OH Simcox Steel and Grinding Co. X P5 Toledo, OH Chevron Refinery X P5 Youngstown, OH Six mile riparian corridor I

5 Youngstown, OH 34 acre industrial park I5 Youngstown, OH 40-acre res/light commercial I5 Youngstown, OH 29-acre vacant ind park I5 Youngstown, OH 30-acre former steel mill I5 Kenosha, WI Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler XM X 

6 New Orleans, LA Saratoga Street XX M X X X X X X X 

6 New Orleans, LA Powers Junction XX M X X X X X X X 6 New Orleans, LA Hendree Court XX M X X X X X X X 6 Shreveport, LA Fairgrounds Parcels X MX X 

6

Baytown, TX

EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station XP X

6 Channelview, TX Hutchison-Hayes International X P XX

6 Channelview, TX Zapata Offshore Property XX P 

6 Channelview, TX KOCH Refining Terminal XP X 6 Corpus Christi, TX Keeper's Locker, Inc. XP X

6 Galena Park, TX Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston XP X

Table A-1. Matrix

Table A-1 A-2 
EPA 

Reg. City Site I II III Ownership VOCs SVOCs PCBs PAHs Cl. Solv TPH

Unsp 

Metals, 

Inorganics

Cr Pb As Ni Zn CN, FeCN Hg Be Pesticides or dioxin TBT PCP, phenols 

6 Galveston, TX Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility X P

6 Galveston, TX SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site X PX6 Houston, TX Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility X P X XX

6 Houston, TX Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site XX P X X X6 Houston, TX Foster Products Corporation XX P X X X 

6 Ingleside, TX Ingleside Offshore Services Property XP X

6 Lynchburg, TX Channel Shipyard, Inc. X P XX

6 Port Isabel, TX Amerada Hess Refinery X P X XX

7 Omaha, NE City Dock Board M XX X X

7 Omaha, NE ASARCO X X P X X X XX X X X 

7 Omaha, NE Freedom Park Landfill M XX X

7 Kansas City, MO Riverfront Port Authority Park Project X X X M, A 

7 Cedar Rapids, IA Meat rendering and other facilities I

7 Coralville, IA Iowa River Power Plant and Assoc. Parcels I

9 Richmond, CA Terminal I - Petromark XX M X X X X 

9 Richmond, CA Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards XX E X X9 Richmond, CA Point Molate Naval Fuel Station XX N X X X X 

9 Stockton, CA Weber Block X XX M 

9 San Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park X M X 

10 Falls City, OR Atlas Mill X M XX X X X XX 

10 Harlan, OR Old Harlan Mill X X M X X X X X X XX 

10 Portland, OR Willamette Cove M XX X X 

10 Portland, OR U.S. Government Moorings U X X XX 

10 Portland, OR Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel X X P X XX X X X 

10 Portland, OR Port of Portland Terminal 4 X XX A X X X 

10 Portland, OR GASCO/NWNG X XX P X X 10 Portland, OR Elf Atochem X XX P X X 

10 Portland, OR Portland Shipyard X X A XX X X X 

10 Portland, OR North Marine Drive X M X 

10 Portland, OR Time Oil Company XX P X 10 Portland, OR Mobil Oil XX P X 

10 Portland, OR Gunderson XX P X X X X X 10 Portland, OR Moody Avenue Property X P XX X X X 

10 White City, OR Former Whetstone Landfill XX M X X X X 

10 Bellingham, WA Olivine Property XX A X X X X X X X 

10 Bellingham, WA Roeder Avenue Landfill X X A X X XX X X X 10 DuPont, WA Former Du Pont Explosives Plant X P X XX X X X 

10 Seattle, WA Lake Union Steam Plant X X P X X X 10 Tacoma, WA Thea Foss Wtwy - multiple properties I

10 Ketchican, AK Pulp Mill X XP X X X 

Totals 116 Sites 76 25 18 34 22 25 22 11 39 46 8 10 5 2 3 3 6 2 13 4 3 Key

Headings I - Phase II characterization complete for soils  II - Phase II characterization complete for groundwater  III - Phase II characterization complete for aqueous sediment Ownership M - Municipal P - Private A - Port Authority U - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers I - Inconclusive (usually still in identification stage) E - Local Economic Development Authority M* - Muncipality in process of acquiring N - Navy or Navy Base Realignment and Closure Commission C - County 

Contaminant classes of concernFor some sites, these contaminants are presumptive based on past land use. Not all sites provided or knew all of their contaminants. See the Contaminants table to distinguish between known and suspected pollutants, as well as the best available information on the media they were located in.VOCs - Volatile organic compounds SVOCs - Semi-volatile organic compounds PCBs - Polychlorinated biphenyls PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons Cl. Solvents - Chlorinated Solvents TPH - Total petroleum hydrocarbons Unsp. Metals - Contamination due to unspecified metals Cr- Chromium Pb - Lead As - Arsenic Ni - Nickel Zn - Zinc CN - Cyanide, FeCN - Ferrous Cyanide Hg - Mercury Be - Beryllium Pesticides - may include DDT, DDE, DDD, dieldrin, others TBT - Tribuytlytin PCP - Pentachlorophenol 

F.T. (Field-portable Tool) Use?Y - denotes known application of field portable tools and technologies at this site G - denotes known application of Geoprobe as only field portable tool N - denotes known non-application of field portable tools and technologies at this sites (Blank) - indicates incomplete information. See "Tool data" table for an explanation of why data quality control precluded some sites with possible or probable field portable tool use was not indicated here. Totals: Y/G/NSed sample? (Was aqueous sediment sampled at or around this site?)Y - denotes known sediment sampling N - denotes a known case of non-sampling (Blank) - indicates incomplete information. See "Sediment" section for an explanation of why data quality control precluded some sites with possible or probable field portable tool use was not indicated here. Totals: Y/N

Table A-1 A-3 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

City Site Contact Affiliation Phone

Bridgeport, CT Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark Mr. Steve Tyliszczak City of Bridgeport 203-576-7221

Kohanza Brook Mr. Jack Kozuchowski City Health Dept 203-797-4625

Mallory Hat Factory Mr. Jack Kozuchowski City Health Dept 203-797-4625

Peterson Oil Company Mr. Jim Sipperlee City Planning Dept 860-344-3425

Mr. Jim Olsen Marin Env. Services 860-345-4578

Portland Chemical Mr. Jim Sipperlee City Planning Dept 860-344-3425

Mr. Steve Holtman Woodward & Curran 203-271-0379

Riverfront Mill, Thames River Ms. Kelly Stackowicz City Econ Develop 860-823-3822

Marina Ms. Kelly Stackowicz City Econ Develop 860-823-3822

Foundry w/ lead contamination Mr. Carl Dietz City of Chicopee 413-594-4711

Dac Hur/Hamden Steel Mr. Carl Dietz City of Chicopee 413-594-4711

Oxford Paper Company Ms. Kim Pisa EPA Region 1 liaison 888-372-7341

Everett Mills Ms. Kim Pisa EPA Region 1 liaison 888-372-7341

Atlantic Power Ms. Kim Pisa EPA Region 1 liaison 888-372-7341

Lawrence Textile DEP Northeast Region State of Massachusetts 978-661-7677

Davison Street Lots Mrs. Carol Tucker City Planning Dept 978-970-4274

Baseball Stadium Mrs. Carol Tucker City Planning Dept 978-970-4274

Tsongas Arena Mrs. Carol Tucker City Planning Dept 978-970-4274

Lynn, MA Beacon Chevrolet Mr. James Chow EPA Region 1 617-918-1394

New Bedford, MA Sites to be determined Ms. Molly Fontaine City of New Bedford 508-979-1485

LTV Steel hydroponic tomato Mr. Dennis Sutton City Ofc of the Env 716-851-4852

Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal Mr. Dennis Sutton City Ofc of the Env 716-851-4852

Mr. Steve Golyski USACE-Buffalo

716-879-4104 

x4228

Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal area Mr. Joe Giambria City Public Works 716-851-5636

Captains Cove Condominiums Mr. Robert Benrubi Econ Develop Agency 516-676-1625 x100

Bona-Fide Ready Mix Mr. Robert Benrubi Econ Develop Agency 516-676-1625 x100

A-1 Carting Mr. Robert Benrubi Econ Develop Agency 516-676-1625 x100

Gladsky Marine Salvage Mr. Robert Benrubi Econ Develop Agency 516-676-1625 x100

Hawkins Cove (Doxey) Mr. Robert Benrubi Econ Develop Agency 516-676-1625 x100

Municipal Arena Mr. Martin Murphy City Planning Dept 315-393-7150

Mr. John Blaum Camp,Dresser&McKee 518-482-3000

Diamond International Site Mr. John Blaum Camp,Dresser&McKee 518-482-3000

Lighthouse Point Mr. John Blaum Camp,Dresser&McKee 518-482-3000

Former tank farm Mr. John Blaum Camp,Dresser&McKee 518-482-3000

Yonkers, NY Alexander Street Waterfront Ms. Chelsea Albucher EPA Region 2 212-637-4360

Cape Charles/Northampton 

County, VA

Town Parcel Mrs. Josie Matsinger EPA Region 3 215-814-3132

LTV South Side Steel works Dr. Deborah Lange Carneige-Mellon/TBC 412-268-7121

Mr. Jim Nairn

Civil and Environmental 

Consultants 800-365-2324

Washington's Landing/Herr Island 

parcels 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Dr. Deborah Lange Carneige-Mellon/TBC 412-268-7121

ICF-Kaiser Pittsburgh, PA 412-497-2000

Washington's Landing/Herr Island 

parcels 10, 11south, 12 Dr. Deborah Lange Carneige-Mellon/TBC 412-268-7121

GAI Consultants Monroeville, PA 412-856-6400

Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run Dr. Deborah Lange Carneige-Mellon/TBC 412-268-7121

Pittsburgh Tech Center Dr. Richard Luthy Carneige-Mellon/TBC 412-268-7121

Sites to be determined Mrs. Barbara Dick EPA Region 4 404-562-8923

Mrs. Geona Johnson Enterprise Community 803-973-7285

East Point, GA Cotton Mill waste lagoon Mr. John Dwyer Chemron 404-636-0928

Glen Cove, NY

Ogdensburg, NY

Pittsburgh, PA

Charleston, SC

Chicopee, MA

Lawrence, MA

Lowell, MA

Buffalo, NY

Table A-2. Contacts

Danbury, CT

Middletown, CT

Norwich, CT

Table A-2 A-4 Contacts
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

Clearwater, FL Stevenson Creek junkyard Mr. Miles Ballogg City of Clearwater 727-562-4023

Jacksonville, FL Sites to be determined Mrs. Beverly Williams EPA Region 4 404-562-8493

East Moline, IL City landfill Mrs. Jane Neumann EPA Region 5 312-353-2000

Waukegan, IL Madison Street properties Mrs. Jan Pels EPA Region 5 312-886-3009

Auto Ion Area, Mills Street Mr. Chad Howell Econ Dev and Planning 616-337-8044

Consumers Power North Mr. Chad Howell Econ Dev and Planning 616-337-8044

Riverfront BRI Site (CP South) Mr. Chad Howell Econ Dev and Planning 616-337-8044

Muskegon, MI

Shoreline Project - multiple properties Mr. Scott Miller Superior Environmental 616-677-5255

All DEQ-WMD or voluntary CMI Contacts for all sites Contacts for all sites Contacts for all 

Auto Specialties Site Ms. Lorrie Thomas DEQ-Plainville Office 616-692-2688

Whirlpool Property Mrs. Keary Cragan EPA Region 5 313-353-5669

Former Superior Steel Mr. Evan LeDuc Cornerstone Alliance 616-925-6100 x212

Malleable Site

Mr. Dale Corsi - 

Malleable only Snell Environmental Gp 517-374-6800

CSX Railway Site

Traverse City, MI Traverse City Iron Works Mr. Randy Smith Traverse Group, Inc 734-747-9300

Chemical Marketing Corp - StSfund

Mrs. Catherine GeislerKisch Hennepin County 612-348-4949

Mr. Dan Dickel City of Chanhassen 612-472-7536

Girard, OH Ohio Leather Company Ms. Trish Nuskievicz Trumbull Cty Planning 330-545-3879

Southern Ohio Port 

Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill Mr. Ross Powers EPA Region 5 734-692-7681

Tallmadge, OH Simcox Steel and Grinding Co. Ms. Gerri Cauley Ohio VAP 614-644-2924

Toledo, OH Chevron Refinery Ms. Gerri Cauley Ohio VAP 614-644-2924

Six mile riparian corridor Brownfields Coordinator Economic Development 330-744-1708

34 acre industrial park Brownfields Coordinator Economic Development 330-744-1708

40-acre res/light commercial Brownfields Coordinator Economic Development 330-744-1708

29-acre vacant ind park Brownfields Coordinator Economic Development 330-744-1708

30-acre former steel mill Brownfields Coordinator Economic Development 330-744-1708

Kenosha, WI Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler Mr. Mick Warner RMT, Inc. (sediments) 608-662-5243

Saratoga Street Mrs. Monica Smith EPA Region 6 214-665-6780

Powers Junction Mrs. Monica Smith EPA Region 6 214-665-6780

Hendree Court Mrs. Monica Smith EPA Region 6 214-665-6780

Shreveport, LA Fairgrounds parcels Dr. Roy Dowling ALTEC Environmental 888-772-5832

EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer 

Station Mr. Peter Wehner TNRCC 512-239-4133

(VCP ID 593) Mr. Brian Magruder Exxon Pipeline Co. 713-656-2190

Hutchison-Hayes International Mr. Peter Wehner TNRCC 512-239-4133

(VCP ID 387) Ms. Lisa Edwards Hutchison-Hayes 619-544-5242

Mr. Steve Neely

Harding Lawson 

Associates 713-974-9611

Zapata Offshore Property Ms. Pat Fontenot TNRCC 512-239-2132

(VCP ID 489) Mr. Keith Van Hook EMCON 713-861-6877

KOCH Refining Terminal Mr. Richard Scharlach TNRCC 512-239-1787

(VCP ID 574) Mr. Mark Aebi Koch Refining Co. 316-828-6304

Mr. Allen Walzel

Finch Energy & Env. 

Services 512-592-9810

Keeper's Locker, Inc. Mr. Raymond Hillis TNRCC 512-239-1096

(VCP ID 556) Mr. Jack Smitherman Everest Environmental 512-883-2831

Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston Mr. Byron J. Ellington TNRCC 512-239-2253

(VCP ID 162) Ms. Laura Fiffick Port of Houston 713-670-2438

Mr. Paul Stephen ERM-Southwest 281-579-8999

Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility Mr. Byron J. Ellington TNRCC 512-239-2253

(VCP ID 330) Mr. Mark Urback Lanier and Associates 504-895-0368

SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site Mr. Otu Ekpo-Otu TNRCC 512-239-2445

(VCP ID 977) Mr. Peter J. Gagnon ERM-Southwest 281-579-8999

Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility Mr. Byron J. Ellington TNRCC 512-239-2253

Galena Park, TX

Galveston, TX

Houston, TX

New Orleans, LA

Baytown, TX

Channelview, TX

Corpus Christi, TX

Kalamazoo, MI

St. Joseph, MI

Hennepin County, MN

Youngstown, OH

Table A-2 A-5 Contacts
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

(VCP ID 315) Mr. William Voshell Lafarge 810-948-1201

Mr. Steve Haverl Brown and Caldwell 303-750-3983

Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site Ms. Pat Fontenot TNRCC 512-239-2132

(VCP ID 401) Mr. J. Rick Renshaw

Fairfield Financial 

Group, Inc. 713-871-2080

Foster Products Corporation (ID 989) Mr. Peter Wehner TNRCC 512-239-4133

Ingleside Offshore Services Property Mr. Raymond Hillis TNRCC 512-239-1096

(VCP ID 488) Mr. Jack Smitherman Everest Environmental 512-883-2831

Channel Shipyard, Inc. Ms. Diane Coker TNRCC 512-239-4670

(VCP ID 317) Mr. Troy Mefferd Geo-Basics 318-433-8300

Amerada Hess Refinery Ms. Phyllis Primrose TNRCC 512-239-0730

(VCP ID 483) Mr. Stephen Freeman Amerada Hess 713-609-5955

City Dock Board Mrs. Susan Klein EPA Region 7 913-551-7786

ASARCO Mrs. Susan Klein EPA Region 7 913-551-7786

Freedom Park Landfill Mrs. Susan Klein EPA Region 7 913-551-7786

Kansas City, MO Riverfront Port Authority Park Project Mrs. Debi Morey EPA Region 7 913-551-7593

Cedar Rapids, IA Meat rendering and other facilities Mr. Jim Halverson City Development 319-286-5045

Coralville, IA

Iowa River Power Plant/Assoc. Parcels Brownfields Coordinator City of Coralville 319-351-9069

Terminal I - Petromark Mr. Wally Woo EPA Region 9 415-744-1207

Mr. Kent Kitchingman EPA Region 9 510-620-6704

Marina Bay - WWII shipyards Mr. Kent Kitchingman EPA Region 9 510-620-6704

Point Molate Naval Fuel Station Mr. Ken Spielman US Navy 650-244-2539

Weber Block Mr. Tom Mix EPA Region 9 415-744-2378

Mr. Jim Bradford Black and Veatch 925-246-8000

San Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park Public Relations CalEPA DTSC 916-322-0476

Falls City, OR Atlas Mill Mr. Gil Wilstar Oregon DEQ-Portland 503-229-5512

Harlan, OR Old Harlan Mill Mr. Gil Wilstar Oregon DEQ-Portland 503-229-5512

Contacts for all sites Contacts for all sites Contacts for all 

Willamette Cove Mr. Chip Humphrey EPA Region 10 503-326-2678

U.S. Government Moorings Mr. Mike Rosen ODEQ Portland Sed. 503-229-6712

Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel Mr. Doug MacCourt Private Sector 503-226-1191

Port of Portland Terminal 4

GASCO/NWNG

Elf Atochem 

Portland Shipyard

North Marine Drive

Time Oil Company

Mobil Oil

Gunderson

Moody Avenue Property Mr. Ken Novack Schnitzer Corporation 503-224-9900

White City, OR

Former Whetstone Landfill Ms. Claudia Johansen Oregon DEQ-Medford 541-776-6010 x228

Roeder Avenue Landfill Mr. Mike Stoner Port of Bellingham 360-676-2500

Olivine Property Mr. Mike Stoner Port of Bellingham 360-676-2500

DuPont, WA Former Du Pont Explosives Plant Mr. Doug Hillman Hart Crowser 800-858-9530

Seattle, WA Lake Union Steam Plant Mr. Chuck Whittlesey Hart Crowser 800-858-9530

Tacoma, WA Thea Foss - multiple properties Mr. Charlie Solverson City of Tacoma 253-591-5017

Ketchikan, AK Pulp Mill Ms. Marcia Combes EPA Region 10 AK 206-553-1352

Other Contacts Purpose Name Affiliation Phone

AMS Samplers New sediment sampler, ETV program Mr. Brian Anderson Art's Manf. And Supply 608-643-4913

SITE Program Verification of sed tech for Superfund Dr. Stephen Billets US-EPA NERL 702-798-2232

SITE Program Verification of sed tech for Superfund Dr. Brian Schumacher US-EPA NERL 702-798-2242

SW 846 Revisions Impact of federal guidance, changes Mr. Ollie Fordham US-EPA OSW 703-308-0493

ORD Brownfields Work Site specific bfield and cost reports Mrs. Joan Colson US-EPA ORD 513-569-7501

Amer Assoc of Port Auth Brownfield work conducted by P.Auth Mr. Tom Chase AAPA 703-706-4715

Brownfields Initiative General overview of bfields and ?s Mr. Andrew Kreider US-EPA OSPS 202-260-9192

Brownfields Initiative Revolving Loan Fund Ms. Jennifer Millet US-EPA OSPS 202-260-6454

Market Obstacles to tech Identify tech transfer and vendor probs Mrs. Julie Gorte NE/MW Institute 202-544-5200

Redevelopment obstacles Identify redevelopment obstacles Mrs. Ann Goode NE/MW Institute 202-544-5200

Region 5 Sediments Team Sediment issues facing Great Lks area Mrs. Bonnie Elleder EPA Region 5 312-886-4885

ARCS/Mudpuppy Sediment issues facing Great Lks area Mr. Marc Tuchman ERA Region 5 GLNPO 312-353-1369

Commencement Bay, WA Sediment issues facing Puget Sound Ms. Christine Psyk EPA Region 10 - TFW 206-553-1748

Stockton, CA

Portland, OR

Bellingham, WA

Lynchburg, TX

Port Isabel, TX

Omaha, NE

Richmond, CA

Ingleside, TX

Table A-2 A-6 Contacts
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

Commencement Bay, WA Sediment issues facing Puget Sound Ms. Mary Henley City of Tacoma 253-502-2113

Bruker Analytical X-ray Sys. S4 Explorer XRF Mr. Bill Daub Bruker-AXS NJ Office 201-930-0359

ORD Brownfields Work Ongoing Research Mr. Edwin Barth US-EPA ORD 513-569-7669

Data Collection CMI Project Manager Contacts Ms. Susan Sandell Michigan DEQ

231-775-

3960x6312

Saint Paul Port Auth. Work Brownfield work conducted by P.Auth Mrs. Lorrie Lauder SPPA 651-224-5686x236

Saint Paul Port Auth. Work Waterfront redevelopment Mr. Steve Hardie SPPA 651-224-5686x240

21M-squared Meas & Mon

Measuring and Monitoring Tech 

Development Mr. Dan Powell US-EPA TIO 703-603-7196

Other Known Projects Purpose Name Affiliation Phone

Port of NY/NJ Beneficial Reuse of Aquatic Sediments Mr. Eric Stern EPA Region 2 212-637-3806

Detroit River, MI Beneficial Reuse of Aquatic Sediments Mr. Marc Tuchman EPA Region 5 312-353-1369

Detroit River, MI Beneficial Reuse of Aquatic Sediments Mr. Art Ostaszewski Michigan DEQ 517-335-4491

Newark, NJ Federal Brownfields Mr. James Hacklar EPA Region 2 732-321-6730

Newark, NJ Federal Brownfields Mr. Bill Libruzzi Project Manager 973-802-1946

Trenton, NJ Federal Brownfields Ms. Nuria Morese EPA Region 2 217-637-4302

Port of Chicago, IL Harbours Golf Course No contact No contact No contact

VCP and State Haz. Site 

Databases Online Program/URL State - Agency Site info, # of proj Contaminant info

Redevelopment Projects

FY 99 Clean Michigan Initiative

<http://www.deq.state.mi.us/erd/fy99/CMI/fy99propa.html> Michigan-DEQ ERD Yes, 85 No

Imminent Danger Projects 

FY 99 Clean Michigan Initiative

<http://www.deq.state.mi.us/erd/fy99/CMI/fy99propb.html> Michigan-DEQ ERD Yes, 5 No

SAP/SAF Projects 

Precursor to Clean MI Initiative

<ftp://ftp.deq.state.mi.us/pub/erd/siterec/rptnews.pdf> Michigan-DEQ ERD Minimal, ~100 No

Haz. Site Database 

Environmental Response Division

<ftp://ftp.deq.state.mi.us/pub/erd/sites/sitedb.exe> Michigan-DEQ ERD Yes, 2857 Yes

Site Database All programs - VCP-type is "Tier II"

<http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/dep/bwsc/sites/report.htm> Massachusetts DEP Minimal, ~5000 No

Brownfields Directory

Land Recycling

<http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/Landrecy/Inv

entory/Sites.htm> Pennsylvania DEP Yes, 21 No

VCP Database

VCP

<http://sirb.awm.dnrec.state.de.us/REPORTS/vcp.txt> Delaware DNREC Minimal, 63 No

Brownfield Successes

VCP

<http://sirb.awm.dnrec.state.de.us/brown_success.htm> Delaware DNREC Minimal, 10 No

Brownfields Inventory

Superfund Division

<http://wastenot.ehnr.state.nc.us/SFHOME/bf-inv.HTM> North Carolina DEHNR Minimal, 9 No

Haz. Site Inventory Hazardous Waste Mgmt Branch

<http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/gaenviro/> Georgia DNR EPD Yes, 426 Yes

Brownfield Areas 

Department of Waste Management

<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/dwm/programs/brownfields/processes/ar

eas.pdf> Florida DEP Minimal, 9 No

State Grant Recipients 

Brownfields

<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/dwm/programs/brownfields/grants/flrecip

.pdf> Florida DEP Minimal, 11 No

SEIDS 

Site Environmental Info Data System

<http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/seids/> Illinois EPA SRP Minimal, ~400 No

Case Study List 

Brownfields

<http://www.state.in.us.idem/oer/brownfields/case_studies/case_st.h

tml> Indiana DEM OER Yes, 31 Yes

VRP Site List Voluntary Remediation Program Indiana DEM OER Minimal, 230 No

VIC Site List Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup

<http://blue.pca.state.mn.us/pca/vicsearch.html> Minnesota PCA Minimal, >125 No

NFA List

In 1998 Governor's Report

<http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/vap/gov_rept/vapgov.pdf> Ohio EPA VAP Minimal, ~40 No

Haz. Site Inventory - "a" list

Remediation and Redevelopment Div

<http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/rr/archive/pubs/SW504.zip> Wisconsin DNR Minimal, >100 No

VCP Database 

Texas VCP

<http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/waste/pcd/vcp/vcpdb.zip> TNRCC Yes, 893 Yes

One Stop Shop GIS 

Brownfields

<http://209.150.161.6/emeryville> City of Emeryville, CA Yes, >200 Yes

ECSI List Site Assessment Program

<http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cleanup/ecsintro.htm> Oregon DEQ Minimal, 2000 No

Haz. Site Inventory Waste Management and Cleanup Div

<http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/cleanup/inv-list.htm> Oregon DEQ Yes, 214 Yes

Facility/Site ID System

Information Services Section

 <www3.dis.wa.gov\FSWEB\> Washington DOE Yes, 512 in VCP No

Table A-2 A-7 Contacts
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

Persons not contacted for 

this paper Purpose Name Affiliation Phone

Redevelopment Projects Chicago Office Mr. Scott Anderson Black and Veatch 312-683-7834

Redevelopment Projects Kansas City Office Mr. Mark Snyder Black and Veatch, R7 913-458-6526

Firm Main Office No contact Roy F. Weston 1-800-7Weston

Firm Northeast Region No contact Maxy 800-695-7771

Firm Main Office No contact URS Greiner 415-774-2700

Firm MA Office/Env. Consulting for KEERA William Duvel, Ph.D. ENSR-KEERA 978-635-9500

Firm Main Office No contact Ogden Environmental 703-488-3700

AAPA Session Participant Port/Harbor Brownfields Ms. Helene Takemoto USACE-Honolulu 808-438-6931

AAPA Session Participant ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller Mr. Steve Brusee ARCADIS 510-233-3200

Table A-2 A-8 Contacts
Application of 

City Site Ownership Site Assessment Funding 

Publicly owned properties (65)Bridgeport, CT Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark City City -pilot -EDA/PPP $8-$9 million PDanbury, CT Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court City City -pilotDanbury, CT Mallory Hat Factory City City -pilotMiddletown, CT Portland Chemical City City -pilotMiddletown, CT Peterson Oil Company City City

Norwich, CT Marina City CityLawrence, MA Oxford Paper Company City StateLawrence, MA Atlantic Power City City -pilotLowell, MA Baseball Stadium City City -pilotLowell, MA Tsongas Arena City City -pilotLynn, MA Beacon Chevrolet City City -pilotBuffalo, NY Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal City City -State bond, City -pilotBuffalo, NY Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal area City City -USACE Wetlands creaGlen Cove, NY Captains Cove Condominiums City State Sfund, City -State bond, City -pilotOgdensburg, NY Municipal Arena City State DOT, VCP, City -pilotOgdensburg, NY Diamond International Site City City -pilotOgdensburg, NY Lighthouse Point City City -pilotOgdensburg, NY Former tank farm City City -pilotCape Charles/Northampton County, VA Town Parcel City/County City/County -pilotPittsburgh, PA LTV South Side Steel works EDA VCP -EDAPittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island 

parcels 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

EDA VCP -EDA

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island 

parcels 10, 11south, 12

EDA VCP -EDA

Pittsburgh, PA Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run EDA VCP -EDA/pilot EDA (Urban RPittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Tech Center EDA VCP -EDAEast Point, GA Cotton Mill waste lagoon City State (now City -pilot, State)East Moline, IL City landfill City City -pilotKalamazoo, MI Auto Ion Area, Mills Street City (2 non-NPL 

parcels)

City -pilot, State-EPA

Kalamazoo, MI Riverfront BRI Site (CP South) City State-EPASt. Joseph, MI Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1S) City City -State bond, EDA -pilot EDA (CornersBenton Harbor, MI Lk MI Coll Tech Center EDA EDA -State-EPA, City -CDBGTraverse City, MI Traverse City Iron Works City City -State bond, EDA Grant from staSouthern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac) Port Authority VCP, Port AuthoritySouthern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels) Port Authority Port Authority -pilot, VCPKenosha, WI Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler City City -pilot

Kansas City, MO Riverfront Park Port Authority Project City, Port Authority City, Port Auth -State, -USACE Wideranging p

commercial de

New Orleans, LA Saratoga Street City City -pilot, ESC demo projectNew Orleans, LA Powers Junction City City -pilot, ESC demo projectNew Orleans, LA Hendree Court City City -pilot, ESC demo project

Table A-3. Funding

Table A-3 A-9 
Application of 

City Site Ownership Site Assessment Funding 

Shreveport, LA Fairgrounds parcels City City -pilotRichmond, CA Terminal I - Petromark City City -pilot, seeking TBARichmond, CA Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards EDA City -EDARichmond, CA Point Molate Naval Fuel Station U.S. Navy Navy BRAC Former base u

Stockton, CA Weber Block City City -pilotSan Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park City City - State, VCPFalls City, OR Atlas Mill City EPA TBA - State State conductHarlan, OR Old Harlan Mill County EPA TBA - State State conductPortland, OR North Marine Drive City City -Federal DOT/FHWA Unique case oPortland, OR Port of Portland Terminal 4 Port Authority Port Auth, State EPA-DEQ are

Portland, OR Portland Shipyard Port Authority Port Auth, State EPA-DEQ areWhite City, OR Former Whetstone Landfill City of Medford EPA TBA - State State conduct

Bellingham, WA Olivine Property Port Authority Port Auth - pilot, VCP, state EPA and State Bellingham, WA Roeder Avenue Landfill Port Authority Port Auth - pilot, VCP -owner assessment aNorwich, CT Falls Ave. Mill, Thames River City City -pilotYonkers, NY Alexander Street Waterfront (22 ac) City City -pilot

Clearwater, FL Stevenson Creek junkyard City City -pilot, USACE Kalamazoo, MI Consumers Power North City State State gives Br

authority monenvironmenta

Benton Harbor, MI Former Superior Steel City seeking to 

acquire

State, EDA, CDBG All St. Joe/Be

Edgewater, Gplans

Benton Harbor, MI Malleable Site City seeking to 

acquire

State, EDA, CDBG

Benton Harbor, MI CSX Railway Site City seeking to 

acquire

State, EDA, CDBG

Girard, OH Ohio Leather Company City City - pilotOmaha, NE City Dock Board City, USACE City -pilot, USACE Omaha, NE Freedom Park Landfill City CityCedar Rapids, IA Meat rendering and other facilities City City -pilotPortland, OR Willamette Cove Park City (Transit Auth) City Area to be prePortland, OR U.S. Government Moorings USACE VCP - USACE, StatePrivately owned properties (38)

Chicopee, MA Dac Hur/Hamden Steel Private VCP

Lawrence, MA Lawrence Textile Private VCPLawrence, MA Everett Mills Private City - pilot

Buffalo, NY LTV Steel hydroponic tomato Private VCP -pilot

St. Joseph, MI Whirlpool Property Private VCP - ownerTallmadge, OH Simcox Steel and Grinding Co. Private VCP

Toledo, OH Chevron Refinery Private VCP - operator

Baytown, TX EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station Private VCP - operator Rejected from Channelview, TX Hutchison-Hayes International Private VCP - purchaser

Channelview, TX Zapata Offshore Property Private VCP - operator Withdrew from 

Channelview, TX KOCH Refining Terminal Private VCP - operator

Table A-3 A-10 
Application of 

City Site Ownership Site Assessment Funding 

Corpus Christi, TX Keeper's Locker, Inc. Private VCP - seller

Galena Park, TX Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston Private VCP - operator

Galveston, TX Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility Private VCP - purchaser Withdrew from 

Galveston, TX SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site Private VCP - operator

Houston, TX Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility Private VCP - operatorHouston, TX Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site Private VCP - operatorHouston, TX Foster Products Corporation Private VCP - operatorIngleside, TX Ingleside Offshore Services Property Private VCP - operatorLynchburg, TX Channel Shipyard, Inc. Private VCP - operatorPort Isabel, TX Amerada Hess Refinery Private VCP - operatorOmaha, NE ASARCO Private VCP - operator Smelter close

lawsuit.

Portland, OR Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel Private VCP - purchaser, State State formed cPortland, OR GASCO/NWNG Private VCP - operator, State several industPortland, OR Elf Atochem Private VCP - operator, State an attempt to Portland, OR Time Oil Company Private VCP - operator, State Portland HarbPortland, OR Mobil Oil Private VCP - operator, State performed arePortland, OR Gunderson Private VCP - operator, StatePortland, OR Moody Avenue Property Private VCP - purchaser

DuPont, WA Former Du Pont Explosives Plant Private VCP - sellerSeattle, WA Lake Union Steam Plant Private VCP - purchaserKetchican, AK Pulp Mill Private VCP - owner, City -pilotChicopee, MA Foundry w/ lead contamination Private VCP - purchaserGlen Cove, NY Bona-Fide Ready Mix Private VCP, State

Glen Cove, NY A-1 Carting Private VCP, State

Glen Cove, NY Gladsky Marine Salvage Private VCP, State

Glen Cove, NY Hawkins Cove (Doxey) Private VCP, State

Hennepin County, MN Chemical Marketing Corporation Private State Sfund - pilotIndeterminate Ownership (13) These cities a

selecting sites funds

Lowell, MA Davison Street Lots Indeterminate City - VCP

New Bedford, MA Sites to be determined Indeterminate City -pilot, addtl state, fed projectsCharleston, SC Sites to be determined Indeterminate EDA -pilot

Jacksonville, FL Sites to be determined Indeterminate City -pilot

Waukegan, IL Madison Street properties Indeterminate City -pilotMuskegon, MI Shoreline Project - multiple properties Indeterminate State bond

Youngstown, OH Six mile riparian corridor Indeterminate City -pilotYoungstown, OH 34 acre industrial park Indeterminate City -pilotYoungstown, OH 40-acre res/light commercial Indeterminate City -pilotYoungstown, OH 29-acre vacant ind park Indeterminate City -pilot

Youngstown, OH 30-acre former steel mill Indeterminate City -pilotCoralville, IA Iowa River Power Plant/Assoc. Parcels Indeterminate City -pilotTacoma, WA Thea Foss Wtwy - multiple properties Indeterminate EDA -pilot

Table A-3 A-11 
Application of 

City Site Ownership Site Assessment Funding 

Keypilot - EPA National Brownfields Assessment pilotTBA - EPA Targeted Brownfields AssessmentESC - EPA funded Expedited Site CharacterizationCDBG - Federal Community Development Block GrantUSACE - U.S. Army Corps of EngineersDOT - Department of Transportation (State/Federal noted)FWHA - Federal Highway AdministrationBRAC - Base Realignment and Closure CommissionVCP - State Voluntary Cleanup Program (for funding, represents tax credits and reimbursements resulting from program enrollment)State - Agency grant funds paid for assessmentState bond (NY, MI only) - State environmental bond funds usedState Sfund - Previous characterization work for state superfund purposesEDA -Local Economic Development or Urban Redevelopment AuthorityPPP -Public/Private PartnershipEPA - EPA Regional Superfund Program Grant to the StateItems following dashes - represent primary funding sourcesi.e. "City -pilot" denotes that while the city actually paid for the assessment, the federal pilot served as the primary funding source.

Table A-3 A-12 
Application of Field-B

in the 

Soils 

Publicly owned properties (65)Bridgeport, CT Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark Jun-94 phase II complete x

Danbury, CT Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court Jul-97 phase II complete x 

Danbury, CT Mallory Hat Factory Jul-97 phase II complete x 

Middletown, CT Portland Chemical phase II complete x

Middletown, CT Peterson Oil Company Jul-98 phase II complete x 

Norwich, CT Marina phase II complete x 

Lawrence, MA Oxford Paper Company Mar-96 phase II complete x

Lawrence, MA Atlantic Power Mar-96 phase II complete x

Lowell, MA Baseball Stadium Jan-96 phase II complete x

Lowell, MA Tsongas Arena Jan-96 phase II complete x

Lynn, MA Beacon Chevrolet Apr-97 phase II complete x

Buffalo, NY Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal Sep-95 phase II complete x 

Buffalo, NY Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal area phase II complete x 

Glen Cove, NY Captains Cove Condominiums Jun-97 phase II complete x 

Ogdensburg, NY Municipal Arena May-98 phase II complete x 

Ogdensburg, NY Diamond International Site May-98 phase II complete x 

Ogdensburg, NY Lighthouse Point May-98 phase II complete x 

Ogdensburg, NY Former tank farm May-98 phase II complete x 

Cape Charles/Northampton County, VA Town Parcel Sep-95 phase II complete x

Pittsburgh, PA LTV South Side Steel works Feb-95 phase II complete x 

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island 

parcels 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Feb-95 phase II complete x 

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island 

parcels 10, 11south, 12 Feb-95 phase II complete x 

Pittsburgh, PA Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run Feb-95 phase II complete x 

Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Tech Center Feb-95 phase II complete x 

East Point, GA Cotton Mill waste lagoon Jul-98 phase II complete x 

East Moline, IL City landfill Jul-98 phase II complete x 

Kalamazoo, MI Auto Ion Area, Mills Street Oct-96 phase II complete x 

Kalamazoo, MI Riverfront BRI Site (CP South) Oct-96 phase II complete x 

St. Joseph, MI Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1S) Jul-98 phase II complete x 

Benton Harbor, MI Lk MI Coll Tech Center phase II complete x 

Table A-4. Progress

Me

City Site Pilot Start or VCP entry Progress

Table A-4 A-13 
Application of Field-B

in the 

Soils 

Me

City Site Pilot Start or VCP entry Progress

Traverse City, MI Traverse City Iron Works 1996 phase II complete x

Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac) Feb-96 phase II complete x 

Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 pilot parcels) Jul-98 phase II complete x 

Kenosha, WI Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler Jul-98 phase II complete x

Kansas City, MO Riverfront Park Port Authority Project phase II complete x 

New Orleans, LA Saratoga Street Sep-95 phase II complete x 

New Orleans, LA Powers Junction Sep-95 phase II complete x 

New Orleans, LA Hendree Court Sep-95 phase II complete x 

Shreveport, LA Fairgrounds parcels Sep-96 phase II complete x

Richmond, CA Terminal I - Petromark Sep-96 phase II complete x 

Richmond, CA Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards phase II complete x 

Richmond, CA Point Molate Naval Fuel Station phase II complete x 

Stockton, CA Weber Block Mar-96 phase II complete x 

San Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park 1997 phase II complete x

Falls City, OR Atlas Mill 1997 phase II complete x

Harlan, OR Old Harlan Mill Apr-98 phase II complete x 

Portland, OR North Marine Drive phase II complete x

Portland, OR Port of Portland Terminal 4 Jul-98 phase II complete x 

Portland, OR Portland Shipyard 1989 phase II complete x 

White City, OR Former Whetstone Landfill Nov-96 phase II complete x 

Bellingham, WA Olivine Property Sep-96 phase II complete x 

Bellingham, WA Roeder Avenue Landfill Sep-96 phase II complete x 

Norwich, CT Falls Ave. Mill, Thames River May-98 phase II incompleteYonkers, NY Alexander Street Waterfront (22 ac) May-98 phase II incompleteClearwater, FL Stevenson Creek junkyard Sep-96 phase II incompleteKalamazoo, MI Consumers Power North Oct-96 phase II incompleteBenton Harbor, MI Former Superior Steel phase II incompleteBenton Harbor, MI Malleable Site phase II incompleteBenton Harbor, MI CSX Railway Site phase II incompleteGirard, OH Ohio Leather Company Mar-99 phase II incompleteOmaha, NE City Dock Board Jul-98 phase II incompleteOmaha, NE Freedom Park Landfill Jul-98 phase II incompleteCedar Rapids, IA Meat rendering and other facilities Jul-98 phase II incompletePortland, OR Willamette Cove Park phase II incompletePortland, OR U.S. Government Moorings Jun-98 phase II incomplete

Table A-4 A-14 
Application of Field-B

in the 

Soils 

Me

City Site Pilot Start or VCP entry Progress

Privately owned properties (38)Chicopee, MA Dac Hur/Hamden Steel phase II complete x

Lawrence, MA Lawrence Textile Mar-96 phase II complete x

Lawrence, MA Everett Mills Mar-96 phase II complete x

Buffalo, NY LTV Steel hydroponic tomato Sep-95 phase II complete x

St. Joseph, MI Whirlpool Property phase II complete x

Tallmadge, OH Simcox Steel and Grinding Co. phase II complete x

Toledo, OH Chevron Refinery phase II complete x

Baytown, TX EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station 01-Aug-97 phase II complete x

Channelview, TX Hutchison-Hayes International 31-Oct-96 phase II complete x

Channelview, TX Zapata Offshore Property 18-Mar-97 phase II complete x 

Channelview, TX KOCH Refining Terminal 24-Jul-97 phase II complete x

Corpus Christi, TX Keeper's Locker, Inc. 27-Jun-97 phase II complete x

Galena Park, TX Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston 10-Jan-96 phase II complete x

Galveston, TX Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility 30-Aug-96 phase II complete x

Galveston, TX SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site 11-May-99 phase II complete x

Houston, TX Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility 13-Aug-96 phase II complete x

Houston, TX Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site 14-Nov-96 phase II complete x 

Houston, TX Foster Products Corporation 09-Jun-99 phase II complete x 

Ingleside, TX Ingleside Offshore Services Property 10-Mar-97 phase II complete x

Lynchburg, TX Channel Shipyard, Inc. 13-Aug-96 phase II complete x

Port Isabel, TX Amerada Hess Refinery 06-Mar-97 phase II complete x

Omaha, NE ASARCO 1997 phase II complete x 

Portland, OR Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel May-97 phase II complete x 

Portland, OR GASCO/NWNG Dec-93 phase II complete x 

Portland, OR Elf Atochem Aug-98 phase II complete x 

Portland, OR

Time Oil Company 1991

phase II complete (multiple investigations) x 

Portland, OR Mobil Oil Jan-92 phase II complete x 

Portland, OR

Gunderson Apr-94

phase II complete (multiple investigations) x 

Portland, OR Moody Avenue Property Aug-89 phase II complete x

Table A-4 A-15 
Application of Field-B

in the 

Soils 

Me

City Site Pilot Start or VCP entry Progress

DuPont, WA Former Du Pont Explosives Plant phase II complete x 

Seattle, WA Lake Union Steam Plant phase II complete x

Ketchican, AK Pulp Mill Sep-97 phase II complete x

Chicopee, MA Foundry w/ lead contamination phase II incompleteGlen Cove, NY Bona-Fide Ready Mix phase II incompleteGlen Cove, NY A-1 Carting phase II incompleteGlen Cove, NY Gladsky Marine Salvage phase II incompleteGlen Cove, NY Hawkins Cove (Doxey) phase II incompleteHennepin County, MN Chemical Marketing Corporation May-98 phase II incomplete

Indeterminate Ownership (13)Lowell, MA Davison Street Lots Jan-96 phase II incomplete

New Bedford, MA Sites to be determined Apr-97 phase II incomplete

Charleston, SC Sites to be determined May-98 phase II incompleteJacksonville, FL Sites to be determined Apr-97 phase II incomplete

Waukegan, IL Madison Street properties Jul-98 phase II incompleteMuskegon, MI Shoreline Project - multiple properties phase II incompleteYoungstown, OH Six mile riparian corridor Jul-98 phase II incompleteYoungstown, OH 34 acre industrial park Jul-98 phase II incompleteYoungstown, OH 40-acre res/light commercial Jul-98 phase II incompleteYoungstown, OH 29-acre vacant ind park Jul-98 phase II incompleteYoungstown, OH 30-acre former steel mill Jul-98 phase II incompleteCoralville, IA Iowa River Power Plant/Assoc. Parcels Jul-98 phase II incompleteTacoma, WA Thea Foss Wtwy - multiple properties May-97 phase II incompleteKey 

Federal pilots whose funding has run out are listed in italics. Pilot funding typically lasts for 2 years but may be extended. Existing pilots and VCP participants appear in standard type. To identify which sites received federal demonstration pilot grants, refer to "Funding".Media sampled data represents only best available information.

Table A-4 A-16 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

City Site Known Field-Portable Tools

Assessed public properties (52)

Bridgeport, CT Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark None

Danbury, CT Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court PID

Danbury, CT Mallory Hat Factory

Middletown, CT Portland Chemical

Middletown, CT Peterson Oil Company

Norwich, CT Marina None

Lawrence, MA Oxford Paper Company

Lawrence, MA Atlantic Power

Lowell, MA Baseball Stadium

Lowell, MA Tsongas Arena

Lynn, MA Beacon Chevrolet PID+FID 

Buffalo, NY Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal None

Buffalo, NY Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal area

Glen Cove, NY Captains Cove Condominiums Soil gas samplers

Ogdensburg, NY Municipal Arena None

Ogdensburg, NY Diamond International Site None

Ogdensburg, NY Lighthouse Point None

Ogdensburg, NY Former tank farm None

Cape Charles/Northampton County, 

VA

Town Parcel PID

Pittsburgh, PA LTV South Side Steel works None

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels 1, 2a, 

2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 None

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels 10, 

11south, 12 None

Pittsburgh, PA Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run Soil gas samplers

Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Tech Center None

East Point, GA Cotton Mill waste lagoon PID

East Moline, IL City landfill None

Kalamazoo, MI Auto Ion Area, Mills Street

Kalamazoo, MI Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)

St. Joseph, MI Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1S)

Benton Harbor, MI Lk MI Coll Tech Center

Traverse City, MI Traverse City Iron Works

Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac)

Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels)

Kenosha, WI Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler Soil gas samplers (CH4)

Kansas City, MO Riverfront Park Port Authority Project

New Orleans, LA Saratoga Street On site lab (GC w/ FID and ECD, XRF, Kit), 

Foxboro OVA-1000 PID

New Orleans, LA Powers Junction On site lab (GC w/ FID and ECD, XRF, Kit), 

Foxboro OVA-1000 PID

New Orleans, LA Hendree Court On site lab (GC w/ FID and ECD, XRF, Kit), 

Foxboro OVA-1000 PID

Shreveport, LA Fairgrounds Parcels PID

Richmond, CA Terminal I - Petromark Draeger tubes, PID, Gore Sorber soil gas 

sampler

Richmond, CA Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards

Richmond, CA Point Molate Naval Fuel Station SCAPS-ROST, XRF, 3-D electromagnetic 

tool, Waterloo Profiler, Geoviz CPT fiberoptic 

GW monitoring, LIBS for metals

Stockton, CA Weber Block PID

San Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park None

Falls City, OR Atlas Mill None

Harlan, OR Old Harlan Mill None

Portland, OR North Marine Drive

Portland, OR Port of Portland Terminal 4 None

Portland, OR Portland Shipyard

White City, OR Former Whetstone Landfill None

Bellingham, WA Olivine Property PID

Table A-5. Tool data

Table A-5 A-17

Tool data
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

City Site Known Field-Portable Tools

Bellingham, WA Roeder Avenue Landfill PID

Private assessed properties (32)

Chicopee, MA Dac Hur/Hamden Steel

Lawrence, MA Lawrence Textile

Lawrence, MA Everett Mills

Buffalo, NY LTV Steel hydroponic tomato 

St. Joseph, MI Whirlpool Property HNU, others known but not reported

Tallmadge, OH Simcox Steel and Grinding Co.

Toledo, OH Chevron Refinery

Baytown, TX EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station

Channelview, TX Hutchison-Hayes International

Channelview, TX Zapata Offshore Property OVA (soil vapor)

Channelview, TX KOCH Refining Terminal PID

Corpus Christi, TX Keeper's Locker, Inc.

Galena Park, TX Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston

Galveston, TX Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility

Galveston, TX SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site

Houston, TX Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility

Houston, TX Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site 

Houston, TX Foster Products Corporation GasTech GT400 Soil gas monitor (CH4), PID

Ingleside, TX Ingleside Offshore Services Property

Lynchburg, TX Channel Shipyard, Inc.

Port Isabel, TX Amerada Hess Refinery

Omaha, NE ASARCO

Portland, OR Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel

Portland, OR GASCO/NWNG

Portland, OR Elf Atochem 

Portland, OR Time Oil Company

Portland, OR Mobil Oil

Portland, OR Gunderson

Portland, OR Moody Avenue Property

DuPont, WA Former Du Pont Explosives Plant

On site lab (GC w/ FID and ECD, XRF, Kit), 

PID and other field screening tools

Seattle, WA Lake Union Steam Plant

Ketchican, AK Pulp Mill PID

Key

Field Screening tools

PID: Photoionization detector*

FID: Flame Ionization Detector (part of PID)

Draeger tubes

Soil gas monitors

HNU: Type of soil gas monitor 

OVA: Type of soil gas monitor

CPT: Fiberoptic groundwater monitor

*- while still field screening devices, PIDs were invented in the 1970s

On-site Analysis tools

GC: Gas Chromatography unit

FID: Flame Ionization Detector (part of GC)

ECD: Electron Capture Detector (part of GC)

XRF: X-ray fluorescence spectrometry unit

Kit: Immunoassay Kit for a specific contaminant

SCAPS-ROST: Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System-Rapid Optical Screening Tool

LIBS: Laser-induced spectroscopy

Table A-5 A-18

Tool data
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Setting

City Site Contaminants (Suspected in Italics)

Publicly owned properties (65)

Bridgeport, CT Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark

Danbury, CT Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court Metals, Hg, TPH plume from off-site

Danbury, CT Mallory Hat Factory Soil: Hg, asbestos, Pb, As. GW: TPH

Middletown, CT Portland Chemical Cl Solvents, VOCs, PCBs

Middletown, CT Peterson Oil Company BTEX, other hydrocarbons

Norwich, CT Marina

Lawrence, MA Oxford Paper Company Cl Solvents, dioxin, furans

Lawrence, MA Atlantic Power

Lowell, MA Baseball Stadium Coal tar ash

Lowell, MA Tsongas Arena Coal tar ash, TPH

Lynn, MA Beacon Chevrolet Soil, GW: PAH, TPH, metals

Buffalo, NY Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal Soil: SVOCs, inorganics, PCBs, VOCs. GW: 

Inorganics, VOCs. Sed: not tested.

Buffalo, NY Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal area VOCs, SVOCs, metals

Glen Cove, NY Captains Cove Condominiums Soil: PCBs, VOCs, inorganics. Sed: SVOCs, 

metals, phthalates

Ogdensburg, NY Municipal Arena 

Ogdensburg, NY Diamond International Site Solvents, VOCs, SVOCs, asbestos

Ogdensburg, NY Lighthouse Point

Ogdensburg, NY Former tank farm TPH, metals

Cape Charles/Northampton County, 

VA

Town Parcel

Pittsburgh, PA LTV South Side Steel works Soil: As, Cr, Ni, Pb, Zn, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH. 

GW: contaminated

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels 

1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

No contamination

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels 

10, 11south, 12

Soil: VOC, SVOC, PCBs, PAHs

Pittsburgh, PA Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run Cr, metals, sewage discharge

Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Tech Center Soil: FeCN plume at 25ft depth, tar

East Point, GA Cotton Mill waste lagoon VOCs, PCBs

East Moline, IL City landfill Soil: VOC, SVOC, PCBs, PAHs

Kalamazoo, MI Auto Ion Area, Mills Street CN, Cr

Kalamazoo, MI Riverfront BRI Site (CP South) TPH, metals

St. Joseph, MI Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1S) TPH, dissolved/undissolved metals, PAHs

Benton Harbor, MI Lk MI Coll Tech Center

Traverse City, MI Traverse City Iron Works Metals

Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac) Asbestos, Pb, metals, PCBs, petroleum

Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels)

Kenosha, WI Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler Asbestos, PCBs

Kansas City, MO Riverfront Park Port Authority Project

New Orleans, LA Saratoga Street VOCs: BTEX, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; 2,3,5-

trimethylbenzene; MTBE; TPH. SVOCs: PAH 

and diesel. PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans, 

and metals 

New Orleans, LA Powers Junction VOCs: BTEX, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; 2,3,5-

trimethylbenzene; MTBE; TPH. SVOCs: PAH 

and diesel. PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans, 

and metals 

New Orleans, LA Hendree Court VOCs: BTEX, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; 2,3,5-

trimethylbenzene; MTBE; TPH. SVOCs: PAH 

and diesel. PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans, 

and metals 

Shreveport, LA Fairgrounds parcels TPH, VOCs

Richmond, CA Terminal I - Petromark VOCs, PCB, metals

Richmond, CA Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards VOCs, metals, acids

Table A-6. Contaminants

Table A-6 A-19 Contaminants
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Setting

City Site Contaminants (Suspected in Italics)

Richmond, CA Point Molate Naval Fuel Station TPH, metals, PCBs, solvents

Stockton, CA Weber Block

San Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park Pb

Falls City, OR Atlas Mill As, Be, PAH, PCB, solvents, pesticides

Harlan, OR Old Harlan Mill Ba, Be, Cr, Mn, Ni, VOCs, SVOCs, TPH, 

pesticides, PCBs

Portland, OR North Marine Drive Pesticides

Portland, OR Port of Portland Terminal 4 TPH, metals, PAHs

Portland, OR Portland Shipyard TPH, PCBs, TBT, metals, PAHs

White City, OR Former Whetstone Landfill Dioxin, benzo(b)fluoranthene, other PAH, metal, 

VOC

Bellingham, WA Olivine Property Soil: PAHs, VOCs, phthalates, TPH. GW: Cr. 

Sed in Bay: Hg, 4-methylphenol, phenol

Bellingham, WA Roeder Avenue Landfill Soil: VOCs, Pb, Zn, Cu. GW: Cr. Sed in Bay: 

Hg, 4-methylphenol, phenol

Norwich, CT Falls Ave. Mill, Thames River

Yonkers, NY Alexander Street Waterfront (22 ac)

Clearwater, FL Stevenson Creek junkyard Soil (suspected): VOCs, SVOCs, metals. Sed: 

PAHs, pesticides

Kalamazoo, MI Consumers Power North TPH, metals

Benton Harbor, MI Former Superior Steel Soil (suspected): Metals, acids, VOCs, SVOCs. 

GW: free TPH 

Benton Harbor, MI Malleable Site Prev baseline survey uncovered TCE plume, 

FeCN, Hg, Cr

Benton Harbor, MI CSX Railway Site

Girard, OH Ohio Leather Company

Omaha, NE City Dock Board TPH, PCBs, metals, PAHs

Omaha, NE Freedom Park Landfill VOCs, SVOCs, metals

Cedar Rapids, IA Meat rendering and other facilities

Portland, OR Willamette Cove Park Prev baseline survey disc metals, tributyltin, 

PAHs, PCBs

Portland, OR U.S. Government Moorings Prev baseline survey disc PAHs, pesticides, 

metals, tributyltin

Privately owned properties (38)

Chicopee, MA Dac Hur/Hamden Steel TPH plume into river

Lawrence, MA Lawrence Textile

Lawrence, MA Everett Mills

Buffalo, NY LTV Steel hydroponic tomato TPH

St. Joseph, MI Whirlpool Property Pb, Cr, As

Tallmadge, OH Simcox Steel and Grinding Co.

Toledo, OH Chevron Refinery

Baytown, TX EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Station TPH

Channelview, TX Hutchison-Hayes International TPH, metals

Channelview, TX Zapata Offshore Property

Channelview, TX KOCH Refining Terminal BTEX, TPH

Corpus Christi, TX Keeper's Locker, Inc. BTEX, TPH

Galena Park, TX Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston TPH

Galveston, TX Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility

Galveston, TX SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site SVOCs

Houston, TX Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility TPH, PAHs, metals

Houston, TX Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site VOCs, metals, TCE plume

Houston, TX Foster Products Corporation Migrated TCE plume from Sandblasting site, 

metals, VOCs

Ingleside, TX Ingleside Offshore Services Property BTEX, TPH

Lynchburg, TX Channel Shipyard, Inc. TPH, chlorinated solvents

Port Isabel, TX Amerada Hess Refinery TPH, benzene, metals

Table A-6 A-20 Contaminants
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Setting

City Site Contaminants (Suspected in Italics)

Omaha, NE ASARCO Soil (susp): Metals, PAHs, PCBs. Sed (known): 

Pb (to 14000ppm), As, Hg, Ag, Zn, PCB, 

dieldrin

Portland, OR Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel PAHs, PCBs, TBT, TPH, VOCs, metals

Portland, OR GASCO/NWNG TPH and oil gasification byproducts

Portland, OR Elf Atochem DDT, DDD, DDE, chlorobenzene

Portland, OR Time Oil Company PCP

Portland, OR Mobil Oil TPH

Portland, OR Gunderson Metals, PCBs, TCA, toluene, TPH

Portland, OR Moody Avenue Property DDT, DDE, DDD, PAH, Pb, PCBs, TPH

DuPont, WA Former Du Pont Explosives Plant Pb, TPH, PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, metals

Seattle, WA Lake Union Steam Plant Asbestos, TPH, PCBs, Pb

Ketchican, AK Pulp Mill TPH, metals, VOCs

Chicopee, MA Foundry w/ lead contamination Pb (known), Metals, PCBs

Glen Cove, NY Bona-Fide Ready Mix

Glen Cove, NY A-1 Carting

Glen Cove, NY Gladsky Marine Salvage

Glen Cove, NY Hawkins Cove (Doxey)

Hennepin County, MN Chemical Marketing Corporation TPH, solvents

Indeterminate Ownership (13)

Lowell, MA Davison Street Lots

New Bedford, MA Sites to be determined

Charleston, SC Sites to be determined

Jacksonville, FL Sites to be determined

Waukegan, IL Madison Street properties

Muskegon, MI Shoreline Project - multiple properties Soils: varies by property. Previous sediment 

survey in Muskegon Lake: Metals, PAHs, PCBs

Youngstown, OH Six mile riparian corridor

Youngstown, OH 34 acre industrial park

Youngstown, OH 40-acre res/light commercial

Youngstown, OH 29-acre vacant ind park

Youngstown, OH 30-acre former steel mill Metals, acids, VOCs, SVOCs

Coralville, IA Iowa River Power Plant/Assoc. Parcels

Tacoma, WA Thea Foss Wtwy - multiple properties

Key

Contaminant data usually reflect soil media unless otherwise noted.

A few sites reported contaminants in all media - use professional judgement.

See matrix key for contaminant abbreviations.

S: soil

GW: groundwater

Sed: aqueous sediment

Table A-6 A-21 Contaminants
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

City Site Remediation Stage, Method

Publicly owned properties (65)

Bridgeport, CT Jenkins Isle/Bluefish ballpark complete, cap

Danbury, CT Kohanza Brook/Barnum Court planned, phytoremediation demo

Danbury, CT Mallory Hat Factory

Middletown, CT Portland Chemical

Middletown, CT Peterson Oil Company planned phase III

Norwich, CT Marina complete, dig/haul

Lawrence, MA Oxford Paper Company

Lawrence, MA Atlantic Power

Lowell, MA Baseball Stadium complete, cap

Lowell, MA Tsongas Arena complete, cap

Lynn, MA Beacon Chevrolet planned phase III

Buffalo, NY Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal planned

Buffalo, NY Squaw Isl. USACE dredge disposal arearemoval, natural recovery with wetlands

Glen Cove, NY Captains Cove Condominiums in progress, $4.9M state superfund, using innovative 

technologies

Ogdensburg, NY Municipal Arena 

Ogdensburg, NY Diamond International Site in progress, soil removal

Ogdensburg, NY Lighthouse Point

Ogdensburg, NY Former tank farm

Cape Charles/Northampton 

County, VA

Town Parcel planning stages

Pittsburgh, PA LTV South Side Steel works complete, cap and GW treat

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island 

parcels 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

none needed

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island 

parcels 10, 11south, 12

complete, cap, on site CDF

Pittsburgh, PA Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run planned, includes wetlands for stream

Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Tech Center none needed

East Point, GA Cotton Mill waste lagoon

East Moline, IL City landfill City

Kalamazoo, MI Auto Ion Area, Mills Street

Kalamazoo, MI Riverfront BRI Site (CP South) in progress

St. Joseph, MI Auto Specialties Site (parcel 1S) complete, dig/haul

Benton Harbor, MI Lk MI Coll Tech Center complete, dig/haul, bldg as cap

Traverse City, MI Traverse City Iron Works

Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (VCP 16.8 ac) complete, dig/haul, NFA

Southern Ohio Port Authority, OH Empire Detroit Steel Mill (3 parcels)

Kenosha, WI Harborpark Center - Fmr Chrysler complete, cap/dig

Kansas City, MO Riverfront Park Port Authority Project

New Orleans, LA Saratoga Street

New Orleans, LA Powers Junction

New Orleans, LA Hendree Court City

Shreveport, LA Fairgrounds parcels complete, bldg cap/dig

Richmond, CA Terminal I - Petromark

Richmond, CA Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyards completed sections, dig/haul

Richmond, CA Point Molate Naval Fuel Station

Stockton, CA Weber Block planning stages

San Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park complete, cdf, cap

Falls City, OR Atlas Mill complete, NFA

Harlan, OR Old Harlan Mill planning stages for UST, soils

Portland, OR North Marine Drive complete, cap with road

Portland, OR Port of Portland Terminal 4 in progress - completed sediment dredging; interim 

bioslurping ongoing

Portland, OR Portland Shipyard planning stages for soil and sed

White City, OR Former Whetstone Landfill planning stages

Bellingham, WA Olivine Property planning stages

Table A-7. Remediation

Table A-7 A-22 Remediation
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

City Site Remediation Stage, Method

Bellingham, WA Roeder Avenue Landfill planning stages

Norwich, CT Falls Ave. Mill, Thames River

Yonkers, NY Alexander Street Waterfront (22 ac)

Clearwater, FL Stevenson Creek junkyard

Kalamazoo, MI Consumers Power North

Benton Harbor, MI Former Superior Steel 

Benton Harbor, MI Malleable Site

Benton Harbor, MI CSX Railway Site

Girard, OH Ohio Leather Company

Omaha, NE City Dock Board

Omaha, NE Freedom Park Landfill City

Cedar Rapids, IA Meat rendering and other facilities

Portland, OR Willamette Cove Park

Portland, OR U.S. Government Moorings

Privately owned properties (38)

Chicopee, MA Dac Hur/Hamden Steel complete, GW pump/treat, Soil dig/haul

Lawrence, MA Lawrence Textile

Lawrence, MA Everett Mills

Buffalo, NY LTV Steel hydroponic tomato complete, dig/haul

St. Joseph, MI Whirlpool Property planned

Tallmadge, OH Simcox Steel and Grinding Co. complete, NFA

Toledo, OH Chevron Refinery complete, NFA

Baytown, TX EPC - Nitrogen Benzene Transfer Statio Rejected from VCP

Channelview, TX Hutchison-Hayes International complete, NFA

Channelview, TX Zapata Offshore Property Withdrew from VCP

Channelview, TX KOCH Refining Terminal

Corpus Christi, TX Keeper's Locker, Inc.

Galena Park, TX Woodhouse Terminal - Port of Houston complete, NFA

Galveston, TX Tatsumi USA/Todd Shipyard Facility Withdrew from VCP

Galveston, TX SPTCo Galveston Wharves Site

Houston, TX Lafarge - Clinton Drive Facility complete, NFA

Houston, TX Unoccupied Sandblasting/Painting Site 

Houston, TX Foster Products Corporation

Ingleside, TX Ingleside Offshore Services Property

Lynchburg, TX Channel Shipyard, Inc.

Port Isabel, TX Amerada Hess Refinery in progress

Omaha, NE ASARCO proposed cap, no gw remediation

Portland, OR Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel planning stages for soils

Portland, OR GASCO/NWNG

Portland, OR Elf Atochem planning stages for all media

Portland, OR Time Oil Company complete for soil: removal, slurry, incinerate

Portland, OR Mobil Oil in progress, SVE, sparging

Portland, OR Gunderson in progress, SVE

Portland, OR Moody Avenue Property complete, dig/haul, cap

DuPont, WA Former Du Pont Explosives Plant complete

Seattle, WA Lake Union Steam Plant complete

Ketchican, AK Pulp Mill

Chicopee, MA Foundry w/ lead contamination planned

Glen Cove, NY Bona-Fide Ready Mix

Glen Cove, NY A-1 Carting

Glen Cove, NY Gladsky Marine Salvage

Glen Cove, NY Hawkins Cove (Doxey)

Hennepin County, MN Chemical Marketing Corporation planned interim action, phytoremediation demo

Table A-7 A-23 Remediation
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

City Site Remediation Stage, Method

Key

Remediation listed is for soils unless otherwise noted.

SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction

CDF - Confined Disposal Facility

NFA - post-remediation, No Further Action required agreement between owner, state

Table A-7 A-24 Remediation
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

City Site Sediment sampling

Danbury, CT Kohanza Brook Property Complete, grab sampling

Danbury, CT Mallory Hat Factory Complete, grab sampling

Buffalo, NY Hanna Furnace/Union Ship Canal Ongoing, USACE channel work

Glen Cove, NY Captains Cove Condominiums Ongoing under separate USACE dredging program incorportated 

into redevelopment

Glen Cove, NY

Bona-Fide Ready Mix

Baseline areawide sed assess in channel, ongoing USACE work

Glen Cove, NY

A-1 Carting

Baseline areawide sed assess in channel, ongoing USACE work

Glen Cove, NY

Gladsky Marine Salvage

Baseline areawide sed assess in channel, ongoing USACE work

Glen Cove, NY

Hawkins Cove (Doxey)

Baseline areawide sed assess in channel, ongoing USACE work

Ogdensburg, NY Diamond International Site Planned, applied for funding

Pittsburgh, PA Duquesne Slag - 9 mile run Completed, grab and core

Clearwater, FL Stevenson Creek junkyard Planned, USACE channel work

Kalamazoo, MI

Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)

Completed under Superfund investigation of Kalamazoo River, 

USACE work also ongoing

Omaha, NE ASARCO Nearshore baseline grab sampling completed by owner 

Kansas City, MO Riverfront Port Authority Park Project USACE areawide assessment

Stockton, CA Weber Block Completed, grab and core sampling

Harlan, OR Old Harlan Mill Completed, grab and core sampling

Portland, OR Willamette Cove ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR U.S. Government Moorings ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR Triangle North Portland Yard/Riedel ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR Port of Portland Terminal 4 ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR GASCO/NWNG ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR Elf Atochem ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR Portland Shipyard ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR Time Oil Company ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR Mobil Oil ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR Gunderson ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

Portland, OR Linnton Oil Fire Training Grounds ODEQ investigation - areawide multimethod sediment assessment

White City, OR Former Whetstone Landfill Completed, grab sampling

Bellingham, WA Olivine Property Bellingham Bay Pilot - areawide sediment assessment

Bellingham, WA Roeder Avenue Landfill Bellingham Bay Pilot - areawide sediment assessment

Seattle, WA Lake Union Steam Plant Completed

Tacoma, WA Thea Foss Wtwy - multiple properties Completed under Superfund investigation of channel and bay

Known sediment non-samplers

Lynn, MA Beacon Chevrolet

Pittsburgh, PA LTV South Side Steel works

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels 

1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Pittsburgh, PA Washington's Landing/Herr Island parcels 

10, 11south, 12

Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Tech Center

East Point, GA Cotton Mill waste lagoon 

East Moline, IL City landfill

St. Joseph, MI* Auto Specialties Site * - Corps may assess in St. Joseph if their dredging project linked to

St. Joseph, MI* Whirlpool Property ongoing shoreline redevelopment is approved

St. Joseph, MI* Former Superior Steel 

St. Joseph, MI* Malleable Site

St. Joseph, MI* CSX Railway Site

New Orleans, LA Saratoga Street

New Orleans, LA Powers Junction

New Orleans, LA Hendree Court

Shreveport, LA Fairgrounds Parcels

Channelview, TX Zapata Offshore Property

Richmond, CA Terminal I - Petromark

San Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park

Falls City, OR Atlas Mill

Portland, OR North Marine Drive

Portland, OR Moody Avenue Property

DuPont, WA Former Du Pont Explosives Plant

Table A-8. Remediation

Table A-8 A-25 Remediation
Application of Field

in th

City Brownfield or VCP or Other Site Adj/Proximate NPL Site (5mi rad) that may also impact sediments NPL Site Contaminan

New Bedford, MA Sites to be determined New Bedford Harbor (sediment) PCBs, Cd, Pb, Cu, Cr 

Captains Cove Condominiums LiTungsten low-level rad, U, Ra, Th, PCBs, VOC

Mattiace Petrochemical VOCs, TCE, ethylbenzene, xylene, P

Charleston, SC Sites to be determined Koppers Co wood treatment PAHs, pentachlorophenol, dioxin, AsJacksonville, FL Sites to be determined Jacksonville Naval Air Station Soil/GW: TCE, DCE, TetraCE, PCB, 

Hg. Sed: Pb, Cr, Cd 

Waukegan, IL Madison Street properties Outboard Marine/Waukegan Harbor Soil/GW: PCB, PAH, NH3, As, pheno

Auto Ion Area, Mills Street Auto Ion Chemicals (State owned parcel) Soil: Cr, As, Cd, Pb, Ni, CN, PAH. S

Cl. GW: VOCs, As, Cr, Pb, Ni 

Consumers Power North Allied Paper/Portage Creek upstream pollution of Kalamazoo Riv. Sed: PCB 

Riverfront BRI Site (CP South)Auto Specialties SiteWhirlpool PropertyFormer Superior Steel Aircraft Components (Paw Paw Riv) Radioactive material Malleable SiteCSX Railway Site

Cedar Rapids, IA Meat rendering and other facilities Electro-Coatings, Inc. GW: Hexavalent Cr, Cd, Ni, VOCs 

Terminal I - Petromark United Heckathorn Co. Sed: PCB (DDT, dieldrin) Marina Bay Parcels - WWII shipyardsPoint Molate Naval Fuel Station Liquid Gold Oil Corp Soil: Pb, hydrocarbons 

San Francisco, CA Pacific Bell Park Hunters Point Naval Shipyard GW/SW and Sed: Fuels, PCBs, meta

all of previous and asbestos 

Willamette Cove Park McCormick and Baxter Creosoting Soil and Sed: metals, PAHs, PCP U.S. Government Moorings Gould, Inc GW: Pb, VOC/SVOC. Sed: VOC, Pb

Pb, Cd 

Triangle North Portland Yard/RiedelPort of Portland Terminal 4GASCO/NWNGElf Atochem Portland ShipyardNorth Marine DriveTime Oil CompanyMobil OilGundersonLinnton Oil Fire Training Grounds

Richmond, CAPortland, OR

Table A-9. NPL

Glen Cove, NYKalamazoo, MISt. Joseph, MI

Table A-9 A-26 
Application of Field

in th

City Brownfield or VCP or Other Site Adj/Proximate NPL Site (5mi rad) that may also impact sediments NPL Site Contaminan

Thea Foss - multiple properties Commencement Bay Near Shore - includes Thea Foss Waterway itself PAHs, pthalate, mercury, PCB 

Tacoma Tar Pits Tar-constituent contaminants 

Bellingham, WA Roeder Avenue Landfill Oeser Co Wood Treatment Soil: PCP, PAHs, carrier oil, dioxin. 

found in sed, but no cleanup reqd. 

Stockton, CA Weber Block Whatcom Waterway non-NPL site Hg, 4-methylphenol, phenol Tacoma, WA

Table A-9 A-27 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

B-1 

Appendix B. Certified, Verified, and Evaluated Site Characterization Tools 

CalEPA Pollution Tech. Certification Program 

Site Characterization Technologies Media Vendor Vendor Phone 

immunoassay 

BiMelyze Field Screening Assay S Bio Nebraska 402-470-2100 

EnSys PCB RISc Soil test kit S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

EnSys PETRO RISc Soil Test for HC S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

EnvrioGard Petrol. Fuel in soil S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

EnviroGard PCB S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

EnvrioGard TNT test S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

Ohmicron PAH RaPID ASSAY S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

Ohmicron PCB RaPID ASSAY for PCB S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

Ohmicron PCB RaPID ASSAY for PCP S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

Ohmicron Total BTEX RaPID ASSAY S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

Ohmicron TNT RaPID ASSAY S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

SDI PCB DTECH S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

SDI DTECH BTEX S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

SDI DTECH TNT S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

SDI DTECH RDX (cyclotrimethylenerinitramine) S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

 

Important Definitions

verify - to establish or prove the truth of the performance of a technology under specific, 

predetermined criteria or protocols and adequate data quality assurance procedures.

evaluate - to carefully examine and judge the efficacy of a technology; to submit technologies for 

testing under conditions of observation and analysis

certify - to guarantee a technology as meeting a standard or performance criteria into the future 

Source: EPA ETV Program 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

B-2 

cone penetrometer with laser induced flourometry 

Navy Cone Penetrometer (SCAPS-LIF) for TPH, PAH S 

Navy NraD/SPAWAR, San 

Diego, CA 619-553-1172 

 

EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) 

Note, verification differs from certification - read reports 

Site Characterization Technologies Media Vendor Vendor Phone 

cone penetrometer with laser induced flourometry 

Rapid Optical Screening Tool for TPH, PAH S 

Fugro Geosciences, Houston, 

TX 713-778-5580 

Navy Cone Penetrometer (SCAPS-LIF) for TPH, PAH S 

Navy NraD/SPAWAR, San 

Diego, CA 619-553-1172 

 

field analytical tools for PCBs 

L2000 PCB/Chloride Analyzer 

S, DF, 

Wp 

Dexsil Corporation, Hamden, 

CT 203-288-3509 

EST 4100 Vapor Detector S, Wp Electric Sensor Technology 805-480-1494 

Envirologix - PCB in Soil Tube Assay S Envirologix, Portland, ME 207-797-0300 

PCB Immunoassay Kit S 

Hach Company, Loveland, 

CO 800-227-4224 

SDI PCB DTECH S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

EnviroGard PCB S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

SDI RaPID ASSAY for PCB Analysis S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

 

portable GC/MS 

EM-640 W, S, SG 

Bruker-Daltonik Products, 

Germany 

49 (421) 22 05-

200 

SpectraTrak 672 W, S, SG 

Bruker-Daltonics, Billerca, 

MA 978-667-9580 

 

soil/soil gas sampling techniques 

AMS Dual Tube Liner Sampler S 

Art's Manuf. and Supply, Sauk 

City, WI 800-635-7330 

JMC Environmentalist's Soil Probe S 

Clements and Assoc., Newton, 

IA 515-792-8285 

Large Bore Soil Sampler (Geoprobe) S Geoprobe Systems, Salina, KS 

800-

GEOPROBE 

Emflux Soil Gas Investigation System S 

Beacon Env. Services, Forest 

Hill, MD 410-838-8780 

Core Barrel Sampler S 

SimulProbe Technologies, 

Novato, CA call NERL 

Gore-Sorber Screening Survey Passive SGS System S W.L. Gore and Associates 888-914-4673 

 

well-head monitoring for VOCs 

EST 4100 Vapor Detector W Electric Sensor Technology 805-480-1494 

HAPSITE W 

Inficon Inc., East Syracuse, 

NY 315-434-1100 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

B-3 

Type 1312 Multi-gas Monitor W 

Calif. Analytical Inst./Innova, 

Orange, CA 714-974-5560 

Voyager W Perkin-Elmer, Norwalk, CT 800-762-4000 

Scentograph Plus II W Sentex Systems, Fairfield, NJ 800-736-8394 

 

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) 

Note: evaluation differs from certification - read reports 

Site Characterization Technologies Media Vendor Vendor Phone 

sediment sampling devices 

Split Core Sampler for Submerged Sediments AS 

Art's Manuf. and Supply, Sauk 

City, WI 800-635-7330 

Russian Peat Borer AS 

Aquatic Rsrch Instruments, 

Lemhi, ID 800-320-9482 

 

field portable x-ray fluorescence 

SEFA-P Analyzer (now the XP1000) S HNU Systems, Newton, MA 617-964-6690 

X-MET 920-P S Metroex, Ewing, NJ 609-406-9000 

X-MET 920-MP S Metroex, Ewing, NJ 609-406-9000 

XL Spectrum Analyzer (300 Series) S 

Niton Corporation, Bedford, 

MA 800-875-1578 

MAP Spectrum Analyzer S 

C-Thru Technologies, 

Kennewick, WA 800-466-5323 

TN 9000 S TN Spectrace, Sunnyvale, CA 408-744-1414 

TN Pb Analyzer S TN Spectrace, Sunnyvale, CA 408-744-1414 

 

immunoassay 

BiMelyze Field Screening Assay S Bio Nebraska 402-470-2100 

Test Kit for Anodic Stripping Voltammetry for Mercury S Radiometer call NERL 

 

soil and soil gas sampler 

JMC Environmentalist's Soil Probe S 

Clements and Assoc., Newton, 

IA 515-792-8285 

 

pre-1995 SITE tests (some tools have been updated) 

cone penetrometer with laser induced flourometry 

Rapid Optical Screening Tool for TPH, PAH S 

Fugro Geosciences, Houston, 

TX 713-778-5580 

Navy Cone Penetrometer (SCAPS-LIF) for TPH, PAH S 

Navy NraD/SPAWAR, San 

Diego, CA 619-553-1172 

 

portable GC/MS 

Precursor of EM-640* S, W, SG 

Bruker-Daltonik Products, 

Germany 

49 (421) 22 05-

200 

FASP Method for PCB S, W U.S. EPA, OSWER-OERR 703-603-8831 

FASP Method for PCP S, W U.S. EPA, OSWER-OERR 703-603-8831 

 

spectrometers 

Long Path Fourier Transform Infared Spectrometer* S MDA Scientific call NERL 

Canister-based Sector Sampler SG Xontech, Van Nuys, CA 818-787-2593 

 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

B-4 

immunoassay 

L2000 PCB/Chloride Analyzer 

S, DF, 

Wp 

Dexsil Corporation, Hamden, 

CT 203-288-3509 

Clor-N-Soil PCB Test Kit S 

Dexsil Corporation, Hamden, 

CT 203-288-3509 

EnviroGard PCB S 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

Ohmicron PCB RaPID ASSAY for PCP S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

EnviroGard PCP S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

EnSys PCP RISc Soil test kit S, W 

Strategic Diagnostics, 

Newark, DE 302-456-6770 

PCP Test Kit S HNU Systems, Newton, MA 617-964-6690 

PCP Test Kit* S 

Westinghouse Gov't Env 

Services call NERL 

 

Env. Security Technology Certification Program 

Department of Defense 

Note: ETSCP does not confer a "certification". Results determine DoD application & commercialization prospects 

for the tool. 

Verified Site Characterization Technologies Media Vendor Vendor Phone 

Navy Cone Penetrometer (SCAPS-LIF) for TPH, PAH S, W 

Navy NraD/SPAWAR, San 

Diego, CA 619-553-2778 

 

ESTCP Projects in Progress Media Contact and affiliation Contact Phone 

Rapid Sediment Characterization AS Dr. James Leather, USN 619-553-6240 

Quantifying In Situ Contaminant Mobility in MarineSed AS Mr. Tom Hampton, USN 619-553-1172 

SCAPS Heavy Metal Sensors S Dr. Stephen Lieberman, USN 619-553-2778 

Tri-Service SCAPS Demonstration/Validation S, W Mr. George Robitaille, USA 410-612-6865 

In Situ Radiation Detection S Mr. Chris Dewitt, USAF 505-846-0053 

High Resolution Seismic Reflection (for DNAPLs) Subsurf. Mr. Nate Sinclair, USN 805-982-1005 

TNT and RDX-detecting immunosensors S Ms. Anne Kusterbeck, USN 202-404-6042 

Electromagnetic Surveys for 3D Imaging of Contam. Subsurf. Mr. Nate Sinclair, USN 805-982-1005 

 

Rapid Commercialization Initiative 

Federal Multi-Agency Cooperation 

Verified Site Characterization Technologies Media Vendor Vendor Phone 

Multisampling Suction Lysimeter S, W Bladon International Oak Brook, IL 

Portable Spectrometer for use with test kits S, W 

Hanby Environmental Lab, 

Inc 281-391-4257 

 

Useful phone numbers 

NERL - Research Triangle Park, NC: (919) 541-2106 

NERL - Las Vegas: (702) 798-2525 

NERL - Cincinnati: (513) 569-7577 

NRMRL - Washington, DC: (202) 564-3212 
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools 

in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting 

B-5 

Key

Media 

S-soil 

W-water (incl groundwater) 

G-soil gas (air) 

AS-aquatic sediment 

DF-dielectric fluids 

Wp- surface wipes 

*=report out of stock–“Media” represents only tested 

media