ft EA~United States . tIIIf Environmental Protection

,.. Agency

Technical Approaches to

Characterizing and Clea'ning up

Brownfields Sites:

Railroad Yards

Site Profi Ie
EPA/625/R-02/007 

July 2002 

Technical Approaches to


Characterizing and Cleaning up


Brownfields Sites:


Railroad Yards


Site Profile 

7/15/02 

Technology Transfer and Support Division


National Risk Management Research Laboratory


Office of Research and Development


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


Cincinnati, OH 45268

 Notice 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of 

Research and Development funded and managed the research 

described here under Contract No. 68-C7-0011 to Science 

Applications International Corporation (SAIC). It has been 

subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and 

has been approved for publication as an EPA document. 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

ii 
Foreword 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s 

land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency 

strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human 

activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, 

EPA’s research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental 

problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological 

resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce risks in the 

future. 

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency’s center for investigation of 

technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and 

the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s research program is on methods for the 

prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of 

water quality in public water systems, remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and 

prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research is to catalyze 

development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; 

develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy 

decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective 

implementation of environmental regulations and strategies. 

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. 

It is published and made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the 

user community and to link researchers with their clients. 

E. Timothy Oppelt, Director


National Risk Management Research Laboratory 


iii 
Acknowledgments 

This document was prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory 

Technology Transfer and Support Division (TTSD) in the Office of Research and Development. 

Susan Schock of TTSD served as Work Assignment Manager. Tena Meadows O’Rear served as 

SAIC’s Project Manager. Participating in this effort were Arvin Wu, Joel Wolf, and Karyn Sper. 

Reviewers included Jan Brodmerkl of the USACE in Wilmington, NC, Margaret Aycock of the 

Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center at Lamar University in Beaumont Texas, 

Alison Benjamin of Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision, Detroit, Michigan, and from the 

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). 

Appreciation is given to EPA’s Office of Special Programs for guidance on the Brownfields 

Initiative. 

iv 
Contents 

Notice ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ........... ii


Foreword ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ....... iii


Acknowledgments ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ iv


Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v


Chapter 1. Introduction ........... . ........... . ........... . ........... . ......... 1


Background ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ..... 1


Purpose ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ......... 1


Chapter 2. Railroad Yard Brownfields ........... . ........... . ........... . ......... 4


Railyard Activities ............ ............ ............ ............ ........... 4


Contaminants Found at Railyards ............ ............ ............ ........... 5


Railyard Site Remediation ............ ............ ............ ............ ..... 5


Chapter 3. Phase I Site Assessment and Due Diligence ........... . ........... . ....... 7


Background Information ............ ............ ............ ............ ...... 7


Role of EPA and State Government ............ ............ ............ ......... 8


Performing A Phase I Site Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9


Due Diligence ........... . ........... . ........... . ........... . ........... . . 14


Conclusion ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ... 17


Chapter 4. Phase II Site Investigation ........... . ........... . ........... . ......... 19


Background ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ... 19


Setting Data Quality Objectives ............ ............ ............ ........... 21


Establish Screening Levels ............ ............ ............ ............ ... 21


Conduct Environmental Sampling and Data Analysis ............ ............ ...... 22


Chapter 5. Contaminant Management ........... . ........... . ........... . ........ 25


Background ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ... 25


Evaluate Remedial Alternatives ............ ............ ............ ........... 26


Develop Remedy Implementation Plan ............ ............ ............ ..... 26


Remedy Implementation ............ ............ ............ ............ ..... 28


Chapter 6. Conclusion ........... . ........... . ........... . ........... . ......... 30


Appendix A. Acronyms ........... . ........... . ........... . ........... . ....... 31


Appendix B. Glossary ........... . ........... . ........... . ........... . ......... 33


Appendix C. Testing Technologies ........... . ........... . ........... . .......... 45


Appendix D. Cleanup Technologies ........... . ........... . ........... . .......... 51


Appendix E. Works Cited ........... . ........... . ........... . ........... . ...... 71


v 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Background 

Many communities across the country have 

brownfields sites, which the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) defines as abandoned, 

idle, and under-used industrial and commercial 

facilities where expansion or redevelopment is 

complicated by real or perceived environmental 

contamination. Concerns about liability, cost, and 

potential health risks associated with brownfields 

sites may prompt businesses to migrate to 

"greenfields" outside the city. Left behind are 

communities burdened with environmental 

contamination, declining property values, and 

increased unemployment. The EPA established 

the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment 

Initiative to enable states, site planners, and other 

community stakeholders to work together in a 

timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, 

and sustainably reuse brownfields sites. 

The cornerstone of EPA's Brownfields Initiative is 

the Brownfields Pilot Program. Under this 

program, EPA is funding more than 200 

brownfields assessment pilot projects in states, 

cities, towns, counties, and tribal lands across the 

country. The pilots, each funded at up to $200,000 

over two years, are bringing together community 

groups, investors, lenders, developers, and other 

affected parties to address the issues associated 

with assessing and cleaning up contaminated 

brownfields sites and returning them to 

appropriate, productive use. In addition to the 

hundreds of brownfields sites being addressed by 

these pilots, many states have established 

voluntary cleanup programs to encourage 

municipalities and private sector organizations to 

assess, clean up, and redevelop brownfields sites. 

The EPA has a website where information on 

brownfields redevelopment can be found. The 

address is www.epa.gov/brownfields. 

Purpose 

EPA has developed a set of technical guides, 

including this document, to assist communities, 

states, municipalities, and the private sector to 

better address brownfields sites. Currently, six 

guides in the series are available: 

� Technical Approaches to Characterizing and 

Cleaning up Iron and Steel Mill Sites under 

the Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/007, 

December 1998. 

� Technical Approaches to Characterizing and 

Cleaning up Automotive Repair Sites under 

the Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/008, 

December 1999. 

� Technical Approaches to Characterizing and 

Cleaning Metal Finishing Sites under the 

Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-98/006, 

December 1999. 

� Technical Approaches to Characterizing and 

Cleaning up Brownfields Sites, EPA/625/R00/009, December 2000. 

� Technical Approaches to Characterization 

and Cleanup of Automotive Recycling 

Brownfields, EPA/625/R-02/001, January 

2001. 

� Technical Approaches to Characterizing and 

Redeveloping Brownfields: Municipal 

Landfills and Illegal Dumps, EPA/625/R02/002, January 2002. 

These guides are comprehensive documents that 

cover the key steps to redeveloping brownfields 

sites for their respective industrial sector. In 

addition, a supplementary guide contains 

information on cost-estimating tools and resources 

for brownfields sites (Cost Estimating Tools and 

Resources for Addressing Sites Under the 

Brownfields Initiative, EPA/625/R-99/001, 

January 1999). 

EPA developed a general guide (listed above) to 

provide decision makers with a better 

understanding of the common technical issues 

involved in assessing and cleaning up brownfields 

sites. This industry specific profile supplements 

that general guide. 

1

2

Exhibit 1-1. Flow Chart of the Brownfields Redevelopment Process
Typical Brownfield Redevelopment Process 

The typical brownfields redevelopment process 

begins with a Phase I site assessment and due 

diligence, as shown in Exhibit 1-1. The site 

assessment and due diligence process provides 

an initial screening to determine the extent of 

the contamination and possible legal and 

financial risks. If the site assessment and due 

diligence process reveals no apparent 

contamination and no significant health or 

environmental risks, redevelopment activities 

may begin immediately. If the site seems to 

contain unacceptably high levels of 

contamination, a reassessment of the project’s 

viability may be appropriate. 

A Phase II site investigation samples the site to 

provide a comprehensive understanding of the 

contamination. If this investigation reveals no 

significant sources of contamination, 

redevelopment activities may commence. 

Again, if the sampling reveals unacceptably 

high levels of contamination, the viability of the 

project should be reassessed. 

Should the Phase II site investigation reveal a 

manageable level of contamination, the next 

step is to evaluate possible remedial 

alternatives. If no feasible remedial alternatives 

are found, the project viability would have to be 

reassessed. Otherwise, the next step would be 

to select an appropriate remedy and develop a 

remedy implementation plan. Following remedy 

implementation, if additional contamination is 

discovered, the entire process is repeated. 

Organization of this Document 

This document is organized as follows: 

� Chapter 2 – Railroad Yard Brownfields 

� Chapter 3 – Phase I Site Assessment and 

Due Diligence 

� Chapter 4 – Phase II Site Investigation 

� Chapter 5 – Contaminant Management 

� Chapter 6 – Conclusion 

� Appendix A – Acronyms 

� Appendix B – Glossary 

� Appendix C – Testing Technologies 

� Appendix D – Cleanup Technologies 

� Appendix E – Works Cited 

3

Chapter 2


Railroad Yard Brownfields


On February 28, 1827, the State of Maryland 

chartered the Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) Railroad. 

This was the beginning of the nation’s rail system. 

Since then, the railroad industry has laid over 

300,000 miles of railroad track, connecting almost 

every locale, rural or urban, throughout the United 

States. When railroad lines meet industrial areas, 

railroad yards result. Railroad yards are areas 

where railcars and locomotives are maintained, 

stored, and coupled to form trains. Rail yards are 

in effect the “garage” of rail lines, a central 

location in a region where railroad companies can 

work on their rolling stock and dispatch trains to 

locations around the country. Almost any large 

town or city, especially ones with industry, are 

likely to have a rail yard of some size. The 

smallest ones can be as simple as track sidings 

where rail cars can be stored until needed, while 

the largest ones can be in the hundreds of acres. 

(EPA 1997). 

Today, railroads are experiencing a decline, as 

trucks out-compete railroads for freight traffic. As 

a result, more and more rail yards are laying 

unused or closed. These rail yards many times 

qualify as “brownfields”. 

This section discusses railroad yards, the typical 

types of contaminants that can be found at a site, 

and possible remediation strategies. 

Railyard Activities 

A wide variety of activities take place at a railroad 

yard that can result in environmental problems. 

These activities can be broken down into roughly 

four areas (EPA August, 1999). These areas are: 

� Locomotive maintenance


� Railcar refurbishing and maintenance


� Track maintenance


� Transportation operations


Locomotive Maintenance 

There are numerous activities associated with 

locomotive maintenance that can result in 

environmental problems. Activities that may 

have contributed contaminants to the area in 

the past are: changing oil and oil filters, 

painting and paint stripping, hydraulic system 

repair, locomotive coolant disposal, metal 

machining, used battery disposal and general 

cleaning of engine parts and the locomotive 

car (EPA 1997). Asbestos can be present 

from the insulation around the boilers of 

steam locomotives, old structures, or from old 

brake shoes that were not properly disposed 

of. Brake repair, large- and small-scale 

equipment cleaning, and metal machining can 

be part of maintenance. Each of these 

activities can contribute to environmental 

problems. 

� Railcar Refurbishing and Maintenance 

Railcar refurbishing and maintenance consist 

of cleaning the interiors and exteriors of the 

railcars, stripping and painting the railcars, 

and other maintenance such as brake and 

wheel set repair (EPA 1997). Environmental 

problems can result from all these activities. 

In addition, anything that the railcars carry or 

pass over (i.e., creosote) may wash off and 

contaminate the surrounding soil or water. 

Refurbishing railcars entails the removal of 

old paint and the application of new paint. 

Both of these activities can result in soil or 

water contamination. The paint removal 

process can result in paint chips and grit. 

These chips and grit can cause soil or water 

contamination. When the new paint is applied 

there is also the chance that some of the new 

paint could end up in the surrounding soil or 

water. Exhibit 2-1 lists the processes, material 

4

inputs and wastes associated with railcar 

refurbishing and maintenance. 

� Track Maintenance 

Environmental problems from track 

maintenance can result from two areas. First, 

the wood ties are treated with a wood 

preserver such as creosote, which can leach 

into the soil and groundwater. Second, the 

gravel and stone mixtures upon which the 

tracks are built usually contain heavy metals. 

These heavy metals tend to be from the stone 

mixture or “slag”, which is often the residual 

left over from copper mining. These can also 

leach into surrounding soil and groundwater 

(EPA 1999). 

� Transportation Operations 

Transportation operations can create 

environmental problems from three areas: 

fueling, hazardous material transport, and oil 

and coolant release during transport (EPA 

1997). With fuel operations there can be 

spillage or fuel leakages. It is also important 

to determine if the fuel storage tanks and 

piping were above ground or below ground If 

the tanks and piping were below ground there 

could be an increased chance of groundwater 

contamination. 

� Associated Industrial Activities 

Other industries, such as tank car cleaning, 

have frequently grown up around the rail 

industry. There may be contamination from 

these kinds of activities. Also, while 

hazardous wastes from the site are usually 

drummed and shipped off site, there may be 

unidentified waste-containing drums left at the 

site. Therefore, the areas and buildings 

surrounding the railyard may need to be 

considered. 

Contaminants Found at Railyards 

Various types of contaminants can result from the 

railroad yard operations described above. Each 

contaminant is a risk to both soil and groundwater 

quality. 

Contaminants resulting from locomotive and 

engine maintenance are degreasing solvents, 

PCBS (poly-chlorinated biphenyls), and heavy 

metals. Solvents and heavy metal-based paints 

can be found in the area surrounding railcar 

refurbishing and maintenance operations. Further 

environmental problems can result from creosote 

and Pentachlorophenol (PCP) from the rail ties. 

The “slag” base for the railroad ties can contribute 

to heavy-metal contamination. Finally, 

contamination from the transportation operations 

can be from diesel fuel associated with fueling as 

well as possible contamination from spillage or 

leakage of hazardous cargo during transport. 

Typical Contaminants Found at 

a Railroad Yard 

• Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

• waste acids and alkalies 

•	 paints contaminated with 

heavy metals 

• VOCs 

• BTEX 

• Solvents and paint thinners 

• Fuels 

• Oil and grease 

• Lead 

• PCBs 

• used coolants 

“Guide to Contaminants Found at Typical 

Brownfields Sites, Appendix A.” Undated. 

http://cluin.org/PRODUCTS/ROADMAP/appenda.htm. 

Exhibit 2-1. Typical Railyard Contaminants 

Railyard Site Remediation 

5

Remediation of railyards depends, as with any 

other brownfield, on the contaminants present, 

their concentration, and the media they are 

affecting (soil or water). In addition, selecting a 

remediation strategy also involves an in-depth 

analysis of the costs associated with development. 

For ease of discussion, we will group the 

remediation strategies by media to be treated. 

Soil Remediation 

There are two major classes of soil remediation; 

ex situ, where soil is removed off site for 

treatment, and in situ, where soil is treated on site. 

For the most part, any technique that is performed 

on site can be performed off site, and vice-versa. 

Some soil treatment techniques include: 

� Bioremediation 

This remediation strategy involves using 

microorganisms such as bacteria, yeast, or 

fungi to break down hazardous substances to 

less-toxic or non-toxic substances. 

� Phytoremediation 

For sites where it is appropriate, 

phytoremediation may be used both to remove 

contaminants and to establish greater 

confidence on the part of the community. 

� Thermal Desorption 

Thermal desorption is a remediation technique 

that can be performed on contaminated soils, 

both in-situ and ex-situ. In this process, soils 

are heated to temperatures up to 1000°F to 

break down and destroy contaminants. The 

volatilized contaminants are then collected 

and treated by a registered waste disposal 

facility. This treatment technology works best 

on compounds with high VOCs and PAHs. 

� Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) 

In this remediation technique the soil is usually 

excavated and moved ex-situ, but it can sometimes 

be treated in-situ. The method involves exerting a 

vacuum through the soil formation to extract 

vapors. It is especially valuable for treating soils 

with high levels of VOCs and SVOCs. 

Groundwater Remediation 

� Treatment Walls 

This passive remediation strategy is very 

popular at sites where the hazard is not acute 

(thus not warranting more expensive methods) 

but where groundwater contamination needs 

to be contained. Construction involves 

excavating a trench perpendicular to the 

direction of groundwater flow and installing a 

wall made of a material with the ability to 

absorb contaminants while letting water flow 

through naturally. This strategy is only for 

contaminated groundwater. 

� Groundwater Extraction/Injection 

This method of treating contaminated 

groundwater involves drilling numerous wells 

into and around contaminated groundwater. 

Once completed, the wells can extract 

contaminated water for treatment. Treated 

water is then reinjected into the aquifer. This 

method of treatment can take years to work, 

depending on the size of the aquifer, because 

groundwater withdrawal/injection rates must 

be monitored closely so as not to cause ground 

subsidence or other hydrogeological 

problems. This technique can be used to treat 

most groundwater problems, including heavy 

metal and VOC contamination. 

Each site will have a unique set of contaminants 

and those contaminants will be present in unique 

concentrations. Successful remediation depends 

on the ability of the developers to create unique 

treatment plans for that site, while observing any 

economic constraints. 

6

Chapter 3 


Phase I Site Assessment and Due Diligence


Background Information 

This portion of the guide is more general and is 

put here in case a user does not have the general 

document. Each portion of the information is 

relevant to railroad yards, and should be 

considered in their redevelopment. 

Site assessment and due diligence provide initial 

information regarding the feasibility of a 

brownfields redevelopment project. A site 

assessment evaluates the health and 

environmental risks of a site and the due 

diligence process examines the legal and 

financial risks. These two assessments help the 

planner build a conceptual framework of the site, 

which will develop into the foundation for the 

next steps in the redevelopment process. 

Site assessment and due diligence are necessary 

to fully address issues regarding the 

environmental liabilities associated with 

property ownership. Several federal and state 

programs exist to minimize owner liability at 

brownfields sites and facilitate cleanup and 

redevelopment. Planners and decision makers 

should contact their state environmental or 

regional EPA office for further information. 

The Phase I site assessment is generally 

performed by an environmental professional. 

Cost for this service depends upon size and 

location of the site, and is usually around $2,500. 

A site assessment typically identifies: 

� Potential contaminants that remain in and 

around a site; 

� Likely pathways through which the 

contaminants may move; and 

� Potential risks to the environment and human 

health that exist along the migration pathways. 

Due diligence typically identifies: 

� Potential legal and regulatory requirements 

and risks; 

� Preliminary cost estimates for property 

purchase, engineering, taxation and risk 

management; and 

� Market viability of redevelopment project. 

This chapter begins with background information 

on the role of the EPA and state government in 

7

brownfields redevelopment. The remainder of the 

chapter provides a description of the components 

of site assessment and the due diligence process. 

Role of EPA and State Government 

A brownfields redevelopment project is a 

partnership between planners and decision makers 

(both in the private and public sector), state and 

local officials, and the local community. State 

environmental agencies are often key decision 

makers and a primary source of information for 

brownfields projects. In most cases, planners and 

decision-makers need to work closely with state 

program managers to determine their particular 

state's requirements for brownfields development. 

Planners may also need to meet additional federal 

requirements. While state roles in brownfields 

programs vary widely, key state functions include: 

� Overseeing the brownfields site assessment 

and cleanup process, including the 

management of voluntary cleanup programs; 

� Providing guidance on contaminant screening 

levels; and 

� Serving as a source of site information, as 

well as legal and technical guidance. 

The EPA works closely with state and local 

governments to develop state Voluntary Cleanup 

Programs (VCP) to encourage, assist, and expedite 

brownfields redevelopment. The purpose of a state 

VCP is to streamline brownfields redevelopment, 

reduce transaction costs, and provide liability 

protection for past contamination. Planners and 

decision-makers should be aware that state 

cleanup requirements vary significantly; 

brownfields managers from state agencies should 

be able to clarify how their state requirements 

relate to federal requirements. 

EPA encourages all states to have their VCPs 

approved via a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) whereby EPA transfers control over a 

brownfields site to that state (Federal Register 

97-23831). Under such an arrangement, the EPA 

does not anticipate becoming involved with 

private cleanup efforts that are approved by 

federally recognized state VCPs (unless the 

agency determines that a given cleanup poses an 

imminent and substantial threat to public health, 

welfare or the environment). EPA may, however, 

provide states with technical assistance to support 

state VCP efforts. 

To receive federal certification, state VCPs must: 

� Provide for meaningful community 

involvement. This requirement is intended to 

ensure that the public is informed of and, if 

interested, involved in brownfields planning. 

While states have discretion regarding how 

they provide such opportunities, at a minimum 

they must notify the public of a proposed 

contaminant management plan by directly 

contacting local governments and community 

groups and publishing or airing legal notices 

in local media. 

� Ensure that voluntary response actions 

protect human health and the environment. 

Examples of ways to determine protectiveness 

include: conducting site-specific risk 

assessments to determine background 

contaminant concentrations; determining 

maximum contaminant l eve ls f or 

groundwater; and determining the human 

health risk range for known or suspected 

carcinogens. Even if the state VCP does not 

require the state to monitor a site after 

approving the final voluntary contaminant 

management plan, the state may still reserve 

the right to revoke the cleanup certification if 

there is an unsatisfactory change in the site's 

use or additional contamination is discovered. 

� Provide resources needed to ensure that 

voluntary response actions are conducted 

in an appropriate and timely manner. State 

VCPs must have adequate financial, legal, and 

technical resources to ensure that voluntary 

cleanups meet these goals. Most state VCPs 

are intended to be self-sustaining. Generally, 

state VCPs obtain their funding in one of two 

ways: planners pay an hourly oversight charge 

8

to the state environmental agency, in addition 

to all cleanup costs; or planners pay an 

application fee that can be applied against 

oversight costs. 

� Provide mechanisms for the written 

approval of voluntary response action plans 

and certify the completion of the response in 

writing for submission to the EPA and the 

voluntary party. 

� Ensure safe completion of voluntary 

response actions through oversight and 

enforcement of the cleanup process. 

� Oversee the completion of the cleanup and 

long-term site monitoring. In the event that 

the use of the site changes or is found to have 

additional contamination, states must 

demonstrate their ability to enforce cleanup 

efforts via the removal of cleanup certification 

or other means. 

Performing a Phase I Site Assessment 

The purpose of a Phase I site assessment is to 

identify the type, quantity, and extent of potential 

contamination at a brownfields site. Financial 

institutions typically require a site assessment 

prior to lending money to potential property 

buyers to protect the institution's role as mortgage 

holder. In addition, parties involved in the 

transfer, foreclosure, leasing, or marketing of 

properties recommend some form of site 

evaluation. A site investigation should include:1 

� A review of readily available records, such as 

former site use, building plans, records of any 

prior contamination events; 

� A site visit to observe the areas used for 

various industrial processes and the condition 

of the property; 

1 The elements of a site assessment presented here 

� Interviews with knowledgeable people, such 

as site owners, operators, and occupants; 

neighbors; local government officials; and 

� A report that includes an assessment of the 

likelihood that contaminants are present at the 

site. 

A site assessment should be conducted by an 

environmental professional, and may take three to 

four weeks to complete. Information on how to 

review records, conduct site visits and interviews, 

and develop a report during a site assessment is 

provided below. 

Review Records 

A review of readily available records helps 

identify likely contaminants and their locations. 

This review provides a general overview of the 

brownfields site, likely contaminant pathways, and 

related health and environmental concerns. 

Facility Information 

Facility records are often the best source of 

information on former site activities. If past 

owners are not initially known, a local records 

office should have deed books that contain 

ownership history. Generally, records pertaining 

specifically to the site in question are adequate for 

site assessment review purposes. In some cases, 

however, records of adjacent properties may also 

need to be reviewed to assess the possibility of 

contaminants migrating from or to the site, based 

on geologic or hydrogeologic conditions. If the 

brownfields property resides in a low-lying area, 

in close proximity to other industrial facilities or 

formerly industrialized sites, or downgradient 

from current or former industrialized sites, an 

investigation of adjacent properties is warranted. 

In addition to facility records, American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 1527 

identifies other useful sources of information such 

as historical aerial photographs, fire insurance 

maps, property tax files, recorded land title 

records, topographic maps, local street directories, 

building department records, zoning/land use 

are based in part on ASTM Standards 1527 and 1528. 

9

records, maps and newspaper archives (ASTM, 

1997). 

State and federal environmental offices are also 

potential sources of information. These offices 

may provide information such as facility maps that 

identify activities and disposal areas, lists of 

stored pollutants, and the types and levels of 

pollutants released. State and federal offices may 

provide the following types of facility level data: 

� The state offices responsible for industrial 

waste management and hazardous waste 

should have a record of any emergency 

removal actions at the site (e.g., the removal 

of leaking drums that posed an "imminent 

threat" to local residents); any Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

permits issued at the site; notices of violations 

issued; and any environmental investigations. 

� The state office responsible for discharges of 

wastewater to water bodies under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) program will have a record of any 

permits issued for discharges into surface 

water at or near the site. The local publicly 

owned treatment works (POTW) will have 

records for permits issued for indirect 

discharges into sewers (e.g., floor drain 

discharges into sanitary drains). 

� The state office responsible for underground 

storage tanks may also have records of tanks 

located at the site, as well as records of any 

past releases. 

� The state office responsible for air emissions 

may be able to provide information on 

potential air pollutants associated with 

particular types of onsite contamination. 

� EPA's Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System (CERCLIS) of potentially 

contaminated sites should have a record of 

any previously reported contamination at or 

near the site. For information, contact the 

Superfund Hotline (800-424-9346). 

� EPA Regional Offices can provide records of 

sites that have released hazardous substances. 

Information is available from the Federal 

National Priorities List (NPL); lists of 

treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) 

facilities subject to corrective action under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA); RCRA generators; and the 

Emergency Response Notification System 

(ERNS). Contact EPA Regional Offices for 

more information. 

� State environmental records and local library 

archives may indicate permit violations or 

significant contamination releases from or 

near the site. 

� Residents who were former employees may be 

able to provide information on waste 

management practices. These reports should 

be substantiated. 

� Local fire departments may have responded to 

emergency events at the facility. Fire 

departments or city halls may have fire 

insurance maps2

 or other historical maps or 

data that indicate the location of hazardous 

waste storage areas at the site. 

� Local waste haulers may have records of the 

facility's disposal of hazardous or other 

wastes. 

� Utility records. 

� Local building permits. 

Requests for federal regulatory information are 

governed by the Freedom of Information Act 

2 Fire insurance maps show, for a specific 

property, the locations of such items as UST’s, buildings, and 

areas where chemicals have been used for certain industrial 

processes. 

10

(FOIA), and the fulfilling of such requests 

generally takes a minimum of four to eight weeks. 

Similar freedom of information legislation does 

not uniformly exist on the state level; one can 

expect a minimum waiting period of four weeks to 

receive requested information (ASTM, 1997). 

Identifying Contaminant Migration Pathways 

Off site migration of contaminants may pose a risk 

to human health and the environment. A site 

assessment should gather as much readily 

available information on the physical 

characteristics of the site as possible. Migration 

pathways, such as soil, groundwater, and air, 

depend on site-specific characteristics such as 

geology and the physical characteristics of the 

individual contaminants (e.g., mobility, solubility, 

and density). Information on the physical 

characteristics of the general area can play an 

important role in identifying potential migration 

pathways and focusing environmental sampling 

activities, if needed. 

Topographic, soil and subsurface, and 

groundwater data are particularly important: 

Topographic Data. Topographic information 

helps determine whether the site may be subject to 

contamination from or the source of 

contamination to adjoining properties. 

Topographic information will help identify 

low-lying areas of the facility where rain and 

snowmelt (and any contaminants in them) may 

collect and contribute both water and 

contaminants to the underlying aquifer or surface 

runoff to nearby areas. The U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) of the Department of the Interior 

has topographic maps for nearly every part of the 

country. These maps are inexpensive and available 

through the following address: 

USGS Information Services


Box 25286


Denver, CO 80225


[http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to_order.hmtl]


Local USGS offices may also have topographic 

maps. 

Soil and Subsurface Data. Soil and subsurface 

soil characteristics determine how contaminants 

move in the environment. For example, clay soils 

limit downward movement of pollutants into 

underlying groundwater but facilitate surface 

runoff. Sandy soils, on the other hand, can 

promote rapid infiltration into the water table 

while inhibiting surface runoff. Soil information 

can be obtained through a number of sources: 

� The Natural Resource Conservation Service 

and Cooperative Extension Service offices of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

are also likely to have soil maps. 

� Local planning agencies should have soil 

maps to support land use planning activities. 

These maps provide a general description of 

the soil types present within a county (or 

sometimes a smaller administrative unit, such 

as a township). 

� Well-water companies are likely to be familiar 

with local subsurface conditions, and local 

water districts and state water divisions may 

have well-logging and water testing 

information. 

� Local health departments may be familiar with 

subsurface conditions because of their interest 

in septic drain fields. 

� Local construction contractors are likely to be 

familiar with subsurface conditions from their 

work with foundations. 

Soil characteristics can vary widely within a 

relatively small area, and it is common to find that 

the top layer of soil in urban areas is composed of 

fill materials, not native soils. Geotechnical 

survey reports are often required by local 

authorities prior to construction. While the 

purpose of such surveys is to test soils for 

compaction, bedrock, and water table, general 

information gleaned from such reports can support 

the environmental site assessment process. 

Though local soil maps and other general soil 

information can be used for screening purposes 

11

such as in a site assessment, site-specific 

information will be needed in the event that 

cleanup is necessary. 

Groundwater Data. Planners should obtain 

general groundwater information about the site 

area, including: 

� State classifications of underlying aquifers; 

� Depth to the groundwater tables; 

� Groundwater flow direction and rate; 

� Location of nearby drinking water and 

agricultural wells; and 

� Groundwater recharge zones in the vicinity of 

the site. 

This information can be obtained from several 

local sources, including water authorities, welldrilling companies, health departments, and 

Agricultural Extension and Natural Resource 

Conservation Service offices. 

Identifying Potential Environmental and Human 

Health Concerns 

Identifying possible environmental and human 

health risks early in the process can influence 

decisions regarding the viability of a site for 

cleanup and the choice of cleanup methods used. 

A visual inspection of the area will usually suffice 

to identify onsite or nearby wetlands and water 

bodies that may be particularly sensitive to 

releases of contaminants during characterization 

or cleanup activities. Planners should also review 

available information from state and local 

environmental agencies to ascertain the proximity 

of residential dwellings, industrial/commercial 

activities, or wetlands/water bodies, and to 

identify people, animals, or plants that might 

receive migrating contamination; any particularly 

sensitive populations in the area (e.g., children; 

endangered species); and whether any major 

contamination events have occurred previously in 

the area (e.g., drinking water problems; 

groundwater contamination). 

Such general environmental information may be 

obtained by contacting the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, state environmental agencies, local 

planning and conservation authorities, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, and the USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service. State and local 

agencies and organizations can usually provide 

information on local fauna and the habitats of any 

sensitive and/or endangered species. 

For human health information, planners can 

contact: 

� State and local health assessment 

organizations. Organizations such as health 

departments, should have data on the quality 

of local well water used as a drinking water 

source, as well as any human health risk 

studies that have been conducted. In addition, 

these groups may have other relevant 

information, such as how certain types of 

contaminants might pose a health risk during 

site characterization. Information on 

exposures to particular contaminants and 

associated health risks can also be found in 

health profile documents developed by the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR). In addition, ATSDR may 

have conducted a health consultation or health 

assessment in the area if an environmental 

contamination event occurred in the past. 

Such an event and assessment should have 

been identified in the site assessment records 

review of prior contamination incidents at the 

site. For information, contact ATSDR's 

Division of Toxicology (404-639-6300). 

� Local water and health departments. During 

the site visit (described below), when visually 

inspecting the area around the facility, 

planners should identify any residential 

dwellings or commercial activities near the 

facility and evaluate whether people there may 

come into contact with contamination along 

one of the migration pathways. Where 

groundwater contamination may pose a 

problem, planners should identify any nearby 

waterways or aquifers that may be impacted 

by groundwater discharge of contaminated 

water, including any drinking water wells 

12

downgradient of the site, such as a municipal 

well field. Local water departments will have 

a count of well connections to the public 

water supply. Planners should also pay 

particular attention to information on private 

wells in the area downgradient of the facility 

because they may be vulnerable to 

contaminants migrating offsite even when the 

public municipal drinking water supply is not 

vulnerable. Local health departments often 

have information on the locations of private 

wells. 

Both groundwater pathways and surface water 

pathways should be evaluated because 

contaminants in groundwater can eventually 

migrate to surface waters and contaminants in 

surface waters can migrate to groundwater. 

Conducting a Site Visit 

In addition to collecting and reviewing available 

records, a site visit can provide important 

information about the uses and conditions of the 

property and identify areas that warrant further 

investigation (ASTM, 1997). During a visual 

inspection, the following should be noted: 

� Current or past uses of abutting properties that 

may affect the property being evaluated; 

� Evidence of hazardous substances migrating 

on site or off site; 

� Odors; 

� Wells; 

� Pits, ponds, or lagoons; 

� Surface pools of liquids; 

� Drums or storage containers; 

� Stained soil or pavements; 

� Corrosion; 

� Stressed vegetation; 

� Solid waste; 

� Drains, sewers, sumps, or pathways for offsite migration; and 

� Roads, water supplies, and sewage systems. 

Conducting Interviews 

Interviewing the site owner, site occupants, and 

local officials can help identify and clarify the 

prior and current uses and conditions of the 

property. They may also provide information on 

other documents or references regarding the 

property. Such documents include environmental 

audit reports, environmental permits, registrations 

for storage tanks, material safety data sheets, 

community right-to-know plans, safety plans, 

government agency notices or correspondence, 

hazardous waste generator reports or notices, 

geotechnical studies, or any proceedings involving 

the property (ASTM, 1997). Personnel from the 

following local government agencies should be 

interviewed: the fire department, health agency, 

and the agency with authority for hazardous waste 

disposal or other environmental matters. 

Interviews can be conducted in person, by 

telephone, or in writing. 

ASTM Standard 1528 provides a questionnaire 

that may be appropriate for use in interviews for 

certain sites. ASTM suggests that this 

questionnaire be posed to the current property 

owner, any major occupant of the property (or at 

least 10 percent of the occupants of the property if 

no major occupant exists), or "any occupant likely 

to be using, treating, generating, storing, or 

disposing of hazardous substances or petroleum 

products on or from the property" (ASTM, 1996). 

A user's guide accompanies the ASTM 

questionnaire to assist the investigator in 

conducting interviews, as well as researching 

records and making site visits. 

Developing a Report 

Toward the end of the site assessment, planners 

should develop a report that includes all of the 

important information obtained during record 

reviews, the site visit, and interviews. 

Documentation, such as references and important 

exhibits, should be included, as well as the 

credentials of the environmental professional who 

conducted the environmental site assessment. The 

report should include all information regarding the 

presence or likely presence of hazardous 

substances or petroleum products on the property 

and any conditions that indicate an existing, past, 

or potential release of such substances into 

property structures or into the ground, 

13

groundwater, or surface water of the property 

(ASTM, 1997). The report should include the 

environmental professional's opinion of the impact 

of the presence or likely presence of any 

contaminants, and a findings and conclusion 

section that either indicates that the environmental 

site assessment revealed no evidence of 

contaminants in connection with the property, or 

discusses what evidence of contamination was 

found (ASTM, 1997). 

Additional sections of the report might include a 

recommendations section for a site investigation, 

if appropriate. Some states or financial institutions 

may require information on specific substances 

such as lead in drinking water or asbestos. 

Due Diligence 

The purpose of the due diligence process is to 

determine the financial viability and extent of 

legal risk related to a particular brownfields 

project. The concept of financial viability can be 

explored from two perspectives, the marketability 

of the intended redevelopment use and the 

accuracy of the financial analysis for 

redevelopment work. Legal risk is determined 

through a legal liability analysis. Exhibit 3-2 

represents the three-stage due diligence process. 

Market Analysis 

To gain an understanding of the marketability of 

any given project, it is critical to relate envisioned 

use(s) of a redeveloped brownfields site to the 

state and local communities in which it is located. 

Knowing the role of the projected use of the 

redevelopment project in the larger picture of 

economic and social trends helps the planner 

determine the likelihood of the project’s success. 

For example, many metropolitan areas are 

adopting a profile of economic activity that 

parallels the profile of the Detroit area dominated 

by the auto manufacturing industry. New York, 

Northern Virginia and Washington, for example, 

are becoming known as telecommunications hubs 

(Brownfields Redevelopment: A Guidebook for 

Local Governments & Communities, International 

City/County Management Association, 1997). 

Ohio is asserting itself as a plastics research and 

development center, and even smaller 

communities, such as Frederick, Maryland, a 

growing center for biomedical research and 

technology are marketing themselves with a 

specific economic niche in mind. 

The benefits of co-locating similar and/or 

complementary business activities can be seen in 

business and industrial parks, where collaboration 

occurs in such areas as facility use, joint business 

ventures, employee support services such as onsite childcare, waste recycling and disposal, and 

others. For the brownfields redevelopment 

planner, this contextual information provides 

opportunities for creative thinking and direction 

for collaborative planning related to various 

possible uses for a particular site and their 

likelihood of success. 

The long-term zoning plan of the jurisdiction in 

which the brownfields site is located provides an 

important source of information. Location of 

existing and planned transportation systems is a 

key question for any redevelopment activity. 

Observing the site’s proximity to other amenities 

will flesh out the picture of the attraction potential 

for any given use. 

Assessing the historic characteristics of the site 

that may influence the project is an important 

consideration at the neighborhood level. Gaining 

an understanding of the historic significance of a 

particular building might lead the community 

developer toward rehabilitation, rather than new 

construction on the site. Sensitivity regarding 

local affinities toward existing structures can go 

far to win a community’s support of a 

redevelopment project. 

Understanding what exists and what is planned 

provides part of the marketability picture. 

Particularly for smaller brownfields projects, 

knowing what is missing from the local 

community fabric can be an equally important 

aspect of the market analysis. Whether the “hub” 

of the area’s economic life is light industry or an 

14

office complex or a recreational facility, numerous 

other services are needed to support the fabric 

of community. 

Restaurants and delicatessens, for instance, 

complement many larger, more central attractions, 

as do many other retail, service and recreational 

endeavors. A survey of local residents will inform 

the planner of local needs. 

Financial Analysis 

The goal of a financial analysis is to assess the 

financial risks of the redevelopment project. A 

Phase I Site Assessment will give the planner 

some indication of the possible extent of 

environmental contamination to the site. 

Financial information continues to unfold with a 

Phase II Site Investigation. The process of 

establishing remedial goals and screening 

remedial alternatives requires an understanding of 

associated costs. Throughout these processes 

increasingly specific cost information informs the 

planner’s decision-making process. The planner’s 

financial analysis should, therefore, serve as an 

ongoing “conversation” with development plans, 

providing an informed basis for the planner to 

determine whether or not to pursue the project. 

Ultimately the plan for remediation and use 

should contain as few financial unknowns as 

possible. 

While costs related to the environmental aspects 

of the project need to be considered throughout 

the process, other cost information is also critical, 

including the price of purchase and establishment 

of legal ownership of the site, planning costs, 

engineering and architectural costs, hurdling 

zoning issues, environmental consultation, 

taxation, infrastructure upgrades, and legal 

consultation and insurance to help mitigate and 

manage associated risks. 

In a property development initiative, where “time 

is money,” scheduling is a critical factor 

influencing the financial feasibility of any 

development project. The timeframe over which 

to project costs, the expected turnaround time for 

attaining necessary permit approvals, and the 

schedule for site assessment, site investigation and 

actual cleanup of the site, are some aspects of the 

overall schedule of the project. Throughout the 

life of the project, the questions: “how much will 

it cost” and “how long will it take” must be 

tracked as key interacting variables. 

Financing brownfields redevelopment projects 

presents unique difficulties. Many property 

transactions use the proposed purchase as 

collateral for financing, depending upon an 

appraiser’s estimate of the property’s current and 

projected value. In the case of a brownfields site, 

however, a lending institution is likely to hesitate 

or simply close the door on such an arrangement 

due to the uncertain value and limited resale 

potential of the property. Another problem that 

the developer may face in seeking financing is that 

banks fear the risk of additional contamination 

that might be discovered later in the development 

process, such as an underground plume of 

groundwater contamination that travels 

unexpectedly into a neighboring property. 

Finally, though recent legislative changes may 

soften these concerns, many banks fear that their 

connection with a brownfields project will put 

them in the “chain of title” and make them 

potentially liable for cleanup costs (Brownfields 

Redevelopment: A Guidebook for Local 

Governments & Communities, International 

City/County Management Association, 1997). 

A local appraiser can assist with estimation of 

property values before and after completion of the 

project, as well as evaluation of resale potential. 

Some of the more notable brownfields 

redevelopment successes have been financed 

through consortiums of lenders who agree to 

spread the risk. Public/private financing 

partnerships may also be organized to finance 

brownfields redevelopment through grants, loans, 

loan guarantees, or bonds. Examples of projects 

employing unique revenue streams, financing 

avenues, and tax incentives related to brownfields 

edevelopment are available in Lessons from the 

Field, Unlocking Economic Potential with an 

15

16

Exhibit 3-2. Flow Chart of the Due Diligence Process
Environmental Key, by Edith Perrer, Northeast 

Midwest Institute, 1997. Certain states, such as 

New Jersey, have placed a high priority on 

brownfields redevelopment, and are dedicating 

significant state funding to support such 

initiatives. By contacting the appropriate state 

department of environmental protection, 

developers can learn about opportunities related to 

their particular proposal. 

Legal Liability Analysis 

The purpose of legal analysis is to minimize the 

legal liability associated with the redevelopment 

process. The application and parameters of 

zoning ordinances, as well as options and 

limitations on use need to be clear to the 

developer. The need for a zoning variance and the 

political climate regarding granting of variances 

can be generally ascertained through discussions 

with the local real estate community. Legal 

counsel can help the developer clarify property 

ownership, and any legal encumbrances on the 

property, e.g. rights-of-way, easements. An 

environmental attorney can also assist the 

planner/developer to identify applicable regulatory 

and permitting requirements, as well as offer 

general predictions regarding the time frames for 

attaining these milestones throughout the 

development process. All of the above legal 

concerns are relevant to any land purchase. 

Special legal concerns arise from the process of 

redeveloping a brownfields site. Those concerns 

include reviewing federal and local environmental 

requirements to assess not only risks, but ongoing 

regulatory/permitting requirements. In recent 

years, several changes have occurred in the law 

defining liability related to brownfields site 

contamination and cleanup. New legislation has 

generally been directed to mitigating the strict 

assignment of liability established by the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or 

“Superfund”), enacted by Congress in 1980. 

While CERCLA has had numerous positive 

effects, it also represents barriers to redeveloping 

brownfields, most importantly the unknown 

liability costs related to uncertainty over the extent 

of contamination present at a site. Several 

successful CERCLA liability defenses have 

evolved and the EPA has reformed its 

administrative policy in support of increased 

brownfields redevelopment. In addition to 

legislative attempts to deal with the disincentives 

created by CERCLA, most states have developed 

voluntary cleanup or similar programs with 

liability assurances documented in agreements 

with the EPA (Brownfields Redevelopment: A 

Guidebook for Local Governments & 

Communities, International City/County 

Management Association, 1997). 

Another opportunity for risk protection for the 

developer is environmental insurance. Evaluation 

of the need and availability of environmental 

insurance policies that can be streamlined to 

satisfy a wide range of issues should be part of the 

analysis of legal liability. Understanding whether 

historical insurance policies have been retained, as 

well as the applicability of such policies, is also a 

dimension of the legal analysis. 

Understanding tax implications, including 

deductibility or capitalization of environmental 

remediation costs, is a feature of legal liability 

analysis. Also, federal, state or local tax or other 

financial incentives may be available to support 

the developer’s financing capacity. 

Conclusion 

If the Phase I site assessment and due diligence 

adequately informs state and local officials, 

planners, community representatives, and other 

stakeholders that no contamination exists at the 

site, or that contamination is so minimal that it 

does not pose a health or environmental risk, those 

involved may decide that adequate site assessment 

has been accomplished and the process of 

redevelopment may proceed. 

In some cases where evidence of contamination 

exists, stakeholders may decide that enough 

information is available from the site assessment 

and due diligence to characterize the site and 

17

determine an appropriate approach for site 

cleanup of the contamination. In other cases, 

stakeholders may decide that additional testing is 

warranted, and a Phase II site investigation should 

be conducted, as described in the next chapter. 

18

Chapter 4


Phase II Site Investigation


Background 

Data collected during the Phase I site assessment


may conclude that contaminant(s) exist at the site


and/or that further study is necessary to determine


the extent of contamination. The purpose of a


Phase II site investigation is to give planners and


decision-makers objective and credible data about


the contamination at a brownfields site to help


them develop an appropriate contaminant


management strategy. A site investigation is


typically conducted by an environmental


professional. This process evaluates the following


types of data:


� Types of contamination present;


� Cleanup and reuse goals;


� Length of time required to reach cleanup


goals; 

� Post-treatment care needed; and 

� Costs. 

A site investigation involves setting appropriate 

data quality goals based upon brownfields 

redevelopment goals, using appropriate screening 

levels for the contaminants, and conducting 

environmental sampling and analysis. 

Data gathering in a site investigation may 

typically include soil, water, and air sampling to 

identify the types, quantity, and extent of 

contamination in these various environmental 

media. The types of data used in a site 

investigation can vary from compiling existing site 

data (if adequate), to conducting limited sampling 

of the site, to mounting an extensive 

contaminant-specific or site-specific sampling 

effort. Planners should use knowledge of past 

facility operations whenever possible to focus the 

site evaluation on those process areas where 

pollutants were stored, handled, used, or disposed 

of. These will be the areas where potential 

contamination will be most readily identified. 

Generally, to minimize costs, a site investigation 

begins with limited sampling (assuming readily 

available data does not adequately characterize the 

type and extent of contamination on the site) and 

proceed to more comprehensive sampling if 

needed (e.g., if the initial sampling could not 

identify the geographical limits of contamination). 

19

20

Exhibit 4-1. Flow Chart of the Site Investigation Process
Various environmental companies provide site 

investigation services. Additional information 

regarding selection of a site investigation service 

can be found in Assessing Contractor Capabilities 

for Streamlined Site Investigations (EPA/542-R00-001, January 2000). 

This chapter provides a general approach to site 

investigation; planners and decision-makers 

should expand and refine this approach for 

site-specific use at their own facilities. 

Setting Data Quality Objectives 

While it is not easy, and probably impossible, to 

completely characterize the contamination at a 

site, decisions still have to be made. EPA’s Data 

Quality Objectives (DQO) process provides a 

framework to make decisions under circumstances 

of data uncertainty. The DQO process uses a 

systematic approach that defines the purpose, 

scope, and quality requirements for the data 

collection effort. The DQO process consists of 

the following seven steps (EPA 2000): 

� State the problem. Summarize the 

contamination problem that will require new 

environmental data, and identify the resources 

available to resolve the problem and to 

develop the conceptual site model. 

� Identify the decision that requires new 

environmental data to address the 

contamination problem. 

� Identify the inputs to the decision. Identify the 

information needed to support the decision 

and specify which inputs require new 

environmental measurements. 

� Define the study boundaries. Specify the 

spatial and temporal aspect of the 

environmental media that the data must 

represent to support the decision. 

� Develop a decision rule. Develop a logical “if 

...then ...” statement that defines the 

conditions that would cause the decisionmaker to choose among alternative actions. 

� Specify limits on decision errors. Specify the 

decision maker’s acceptable limits on decision 

errors, which are used to establish 

performance goals for limiting uncertainty in 

the data. 

� Optimize the design for obtaining data. 

Identify the most resource-effective sampling 

and analysis design for generating data that 

are expected to satisfy the DQOs. 

Please refer to Data Quality Objectives Process 

for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations (EPA 

2000) for more detailed information on the DQO 

process. 

Establish Screening Levels 

During the initial stages of a site investigation, 

planners should establish an appropriate set of 

screening levels for contaminants in soil, water, 

and/or air. Screening levels are risk-based 

benchmarks that represent concentrations of 

chemicals in environmental media that do not pose 

an unacceptable risk. Sample analyses of soils, 

water, and air at the facility can be compared with 

these benchmarks. If onsite contaminant levels 

exceed the screening levels, further investigation 

will be needed to determine if and to what extent 

cleanup is appropriate. If contaminant 

concentrations are below the screening level, for 

the intended use, no action is required. 

Some states have developed generic screening 

levels (e.g., for industrial and residential use), and 

EPA's Soil Screening Guidan c e 

(EPA/540/R-96/128) includes generic screening 

levels for many contaminants. Generic screening 

levels may not account for site-specific factors 

that affect the concentration or migration of 

contaminants. Alternatively, screening levels can 

be developed using site-specific factors. While 

site-specific screening levels can more effectively 

incorporate elements unique to the site, 

developing site-specific standards is a time- and 

21

resource-intensive process. Planners should 

contact their state environmental offices and/or 

EPA regional offices for assistance in using 

screening levels and in developing site-specific 

screening levels. 

Risk-based screening levels are based on 

calculations and models that determine the 

likelihood that exposure of a particular organism 

or plant to a particular level of a contaminant 

would result in a certain adverse effect. 

Risk-based screening levels have been developed 

for tap water, ambient air, fish, and soil. Some 

states or EPA regions also use regional 

background levels (or ranges) of contaminants in 

soil and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in 

water established under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act as screening levels for some chemicals. In 

addition, some states and/or EPA regional offices 

have developed equations for converting soil 

screening levels to comparative levels for the 

analysis of air and groundwater. 

When a contaminant concentration exceeds a 

screening level, further site assessment activities 

(such as sampling the site at strategic locations 

and/or performing more detailed analysis) are 

needed to determine whether: (1) the 

concentration of the contaminant is relatively low 

and/or the extent of contamination is small and 

does not warrant cleanup for that particular 

chemical, or (2) the concentration or extent of 

contamination is high, and that site cleanup is 

needed (See Chapter 5, Contaminant 

Management, for more information.) 

Using EPA's soil screening guidance for an initial 

brownfields investigation may be beneficial if no 

industrial screening levels are available or if the 

site may be used for residential purposes. 

However, it should be noted that EPA's soil 

screening guidance was designed for high-risk, 

Tier I sites, rather than brownfields, and 

conservatively assumes that future reuse will be 

residential. Using this guidance for a nonresidential land use project could result in overly 

conservative screening levels. 

In addition to screening levels, EPA regional 

offices and some states have developed cleanup 

levels, known as corrective action levels. If 

contaminant concentrations are above corrective 

action levels, a cleanup action must be pursued. 

Screening levels should not be confused with 

corrective action levels; Chapter 5, Contaminant 

Management, provides more information on 

corrective action levels. 

Conduct Environmental Sampling and Data 

Analysis 

Environmental sampling and data analysis are 

integral parts of a site investigation process. Many 

different technologies are available to perform 

these activities, as discussed below. 

Levels of Sampling and Analysis 

There are two levels of sampling and analysis: 

screening and contaminant-specific. Planners are 

likely to use both levels at different stages of the 

site investigation. 

� Screening. Screening sampling and analysis 

use relatively low-cost technologies to take a 

limited number of samples at the most likely 

points of contamination and analyze them for 

a limited number of parameters. Screening 

analyses often test only for broad classes of 

contaminants, such as total petroleum 

hydrocarbons, rather than for specific 

contaminants, such as benzene or toluene. 

Screening is used to narrow the range of areas 

of potential contamination and reduce the 

number of samples requiring further, more 

costly, analysis. Screening is generally 

performed on site, with a small percentage of 

samples (e.g., generally 10 percent) submitted 

to a state-approved laboratory for a full 

organic and inorganic screening analysis to 

validate or clarify the results obtained. 

Some geophysical methods are used in site 

assessments because they are noninvasive 

(i.e., do not disturb environmental media as 

sampling does). Geophysical methods are 

commonly used to detect underground objects 

22

that might exist at a site, such as USTs, dry 

wells, and drums. The two most common and 

cost-effective technologies used in 

geophysical surveys are ground-penetrating 

radar and electromagnetics. Table C-1 in 

Appendix C contains an overview of 

geophysical methods. For more information 

on screening (including geophysical) methods, 

please refer to Subsurface Characterization 

and Monitoring Techniques: A Desk 

Reference Guide (EPA/625/R-93003a). 

� Contaminant-specific Sampling. For a more 

in-depth understanding of contamination at a 

site (e.g., when screening data are not detailed 

enough), it may be necessary to analyze 

samples for specific contaminants. With 

contaminant-specific sampling and analysis, 

the number of parameters analyzed is much 

greater than for screening-level sampling, and 

analysis includes more accurate, higher-cost 

field and laboratory methods. Samples are 

sent to a state-approved laboratory to be tested 

under rigorous protocols to ensure 

high-quality results. Such analyses may take 

several weeks. For some contaminants, 

innovative field technologies are as capable, 

or nearly as capable, of achieving the accuracy 

of laboratory technologies, which allows for a 

rapid turnaround of the results. The principal 

benefit of contaminant-specific analysis is the 

high quality and specificity of the analytical 

results. 

Increasing the Certainty of Sampling Results 

Statistical Sampling Plan. Statistical sampling 

plans use statistical principles to determine the 

number of samples needed to accurately represent 

the contamination present. With the statistical 

sampling method, samples are usually analyzed 

with highly accurate laboratory or field 

technologies, which increase costs and take 

additional time. Using this approach, planners can 

consult with regulators and determine in advance 

specific measures of allowable uncertainty (e.g., 

an 80 percent level of confidence with a 25 

percent allowable error). 

Use of Lower-cost Technologies with Higher 

Detection Limits to Collect a Greater Number of 

Samples. This approach provides a more 

comprehensive picture of contamination at the 

site, but with less detail regarding the specific 

contamination. Such an approach would not be 

recommended to identify the extent of 

contamination by a specific contaminant, such as 

benzene, but may be an excellent approach for 

defining the extent of contamination by total 

organic compounds with a strong degree of 

certainty. 

Site Investigation Technologies 

This section discusses the differences between 

using field and laboratory technologies and 

provides an overview of applicable site 

investigation technologies. In recent years, several 

innovative technologies that have been field-tested 

and applied to hazardous waste problems have 

emerged. In many cases, innovative technologies 

may cost less than conventional techniques and 

can successfully provide the needed data. 

Operating conditions may affect the cost and 

effectiveness of individual technologies. 

Field versus Laboratory Analysis 

The principal advantages of performing field 

sampling and field analysis are that results are 

immediately available and more samples can be 

taken during the same sampling event; also, 

sampling locations can be adjusted immediately to 

clarify the first round of sampling results, if 

warranted. This approach may reduce costs 

associated with conducting additional sampling 

events after receipt of laboratory analysis. Field 

assessment methods have improved significantly 

over recent years; however, while many field 

technologies may be comparable to laboratory 

technologies, some field technologies may not 

detect contamination at levels as low as laboratory 

methods, and may not be contaminant-specific. To 

validate the field results or to gain more 

information on specific contaminants, a small 

percentage of the samples can be sent for 

laboratory analysis. The choice of sampling and 

analytical procedures should be based on Data 

23

Quality Objectives established earlier in the 

process, which determine the quality (e.g., 

precision, level of detection) of the data needed to 

adequately evaluate site conditions and identify 

appropriate cleanup technologies. 

Sample Collection Technologies 

Sample collection technologies vary widely, 

depending on the medium being sampled and the 

type of analysis required, based on the Data 

Quality Objectives (see the section on this subject 

earlier in this document). For example, soil 

samples are generally collected using spoons, 

scoops, and shovels, while subsurface sampling is 

more complex. The selection of a subsurface 

sample collection technology depends on the 

subsurface conditions (e.g., consolidated 

materials, bedrock), the required sampling depth 

and level of analysis, and the extent of sampling 

anticipated. If subsequent sampling efforts are 

likely, installing semipermanent well casings with 

a well-drilling rig may be appropriate. If limited 

sampling is expected, direct push methods, such as 

cone penetrometers, may be more cost-effective. 

The types of contaminants will also play a key 

role in the selection of sampling methods, devices, 

containers, and preservation techniques. 

Groundwater contamination should be assessed in 

all areas, particularly where solvents or acids have 

been used. Solvents can be very mobile in 

subsurface soils; and acids, such as those used in 

finishing operations, increase the mobility of 

metal compounds. Groundwater samples should 

be taken at and below the water table in the 

surficial aquifer. Cone penetrometer technology 

is a cost-effective approach for collecting these 

samples. The samples then can be screened for 

contaminants using field methods such as: 

� pH meters to screen for the presence of acids; 

� Colormetric tubes to screen for volatile 

organics; and 

� X-ray fluorescence to screen for metals. 

Tables C-2 through C-4 in Appendix C list more 

information on various sample collection 

technologies, including a comparison of detection 

limits and costs. 

The following chapter describes various 

contaminant management strategies that are 

available to the developer. 

24

Chapter 5


Contaminant Management


Background 

The purpose of this chapter is to help planners and 

decision-makers select an appropriate remedial 

alternative. This section contains information on 

developing a contaminant management plan and 

discusses various contaminant management 

options, from institutional controls and 

containment strategies, through cleanup 

technologies. Finally, this chapter provides an 

overview of post-construction issues that planners 

and decision-makers need to consider when 

selecting alternatives. 

The principal factors that will influence the 

selection of a cleanup technology include: 

� Types of contamination present;


� Cleanup and reuse goals;


� Length of time required to reach cleanup


goals; 

� Post-treatment care needed; and 

� Budget. 

The selection of appropriate remedy options often 

involves tradeoffs, particularly between time and 

cost. A companion document, Cost Estimating 

Tools and Resources for Addressing Sites Under 

the Brownfields Initiative (EPA/625/R-99/001 

April 1999), provides information on cost factors 

and developing cost estimates. In general, the 

more intensive the cleanup approach, the more 

quickly the contamination will be mitigated and 

the more costly the effort. In the case of 

brownfields cleanup, both time and cost can be 

major concerns, considering the planner’s desire 

to return the facility to reuse as quickly as 

possible. Thus, the planner may wish to explore a 

number of options and weigh carefully the costs 

and benefits of each. 

Selection of remedial alternatives is also likely to 

involve the input of remediation professionals. 

The overview of technologies cited in this chapter 

provides the planner with a framework for 

seeking, interpreting, and evaluating professional 

input. The intended use of the brownfields site 

will drive the level of cleanup needed to make the 

site safe for redevelopment and reuse. 

Brownfields sites are by definition not Superfund 

sites; that is, brownfields sites usually have lower 

levels of contamination present and, therefore, 

generally require less extensive cleanup efforts 

than Superfund sites. Nevertheless, all potential 

pathways of exposure, based on the intended reuse 

of the site, must be addressed in the site 

assessment and cleanup; if no pathways of 

25

exposure exist, less cleanup (or possibly none) 

may be required. 

Some regional EPA and state offices have 

developed corrective action levels (CALs) for 

different chemicals, which may serve as 

guidelines or legal requirements for cleanups. It is 

important to understand that screening levels 

(discussed in “Performing a Phase II Site 

Assessment” above) are different from cleanup (or 

corrective action) levels. Screening levels 

indicate whether further site investigation is 

warranted for a particular contaminant. CALs 

indicate whether cleanup action is needed and 

how extensive it needs to be. Planners should 

check with their state environmental office for 

guidance and/or requirements for CALs. 

Evaluate Remedial Alternatives 

If the site investigation shows that there is an 

unacceptable level of contamination, the problem 

will have to be remedied. Exhibit 5-1 shows a 

flow chart of the remedial alternative evaluation 

process. 

Establishing Remedial Goals 

The first step in evaluating remedial alternatives is 

to articulate the remedial goals. Remedial goals 

relate very specifically to the intended use of the 

redeveloped site. A property to be used for a 

plastics factory may not need to be cleaned up to 

the same level as a site that will be used a school. 

Future land use holds the key to practical 

brownfields redevelopment plans. Knowledge of 

federal, state, local or tribal requirements helps to 

ensure realistic assumptions. Community 

surroundings, as seen through a visual inspection 

will help provide a context for future land uses, 

though many large brownfields redevelopment 

projects have provided the catalyst to overall 

neighborhood refurbishment. Available funding 

and timeframe for the project are also very 

significant factors in defining remedial goals. 

Developing a List of Options 

Developing a list of remedial options may begin 

with a literature search of existing technologies, 

many of which are listed in Exhibit D-1 of this 

document. Analysis of technical information on 

technology applicability requires a professional 

remediation specialist. However, general 

information is provided below for the community 

planner/developer in order to support informed 

interaction with the remediation professional. 

Remedial alternatives fall under three categories, 

institutional controls, containment technologies, 

and cleanup technologies. In many cases, the final 

remedial strategy will involve aspects of all three 

approaches. 

Develop Remedy Implementation Plan 

The remedy implementation plan, as developed by 

a professional environmental engineer, describes 

the approach that will be used to contain and clean 

up contamination. In developing this plan, 

planners and decision-makers should incorporate 

stakeholder concerns and consider a range of 

possible options, with the intent of identifying the 

most cost-effective approaches for cleaning up the 

site, considering time and cost concerns. The 

remedy implementation plan should include the 

following elements: 

� A clear delineation of environmental concerns 

at the site. Areas should be discussed 

separately if the management approach for 

one area is different than that for other areas 

of the site. Clear documentation of existing 

conditions at the site and a summarized 

assessment of the nature and scope of 

contamination should be included. 

� A recommended management approach for 

each environmental concern that takes into 

account expected land reuse plans and the 

adequacy of the technology selected. 

� A cost estimate that reflects both expected 

capital and operating/maintenance costs. 

� Post-construction maintenance requirements 

for the recommended approach. 

� A discussion of the assumptions made to 

support the recommended management 

approach, as well as the limitations of the 

approach. 

26

27

Exhibit 5-1. Flow Chart of the Remedial Alternative Evaluation Process
Planners and decision-makers can use the


framework developed during the initial site


evaluation (see the section on "Site Assessment")


and the controls and technologies described below


to compare the effectiveness of the least costly


approaches for meeting the required management


goals established in the Data Quality Objectives.


These goals should be established at levels that


are consistent with the expected reuse plans.


Exhibit 5-2 shows the remedy implementation


plan development process.


A remedy implementation plan should involve


stakeholders in the community in the development


of the plan. Some examples of various


stakeholders are:


� Industry;


� City, county, state and federal governments;


� Community groups, residents and leaders;


� Developers and other private businesses;


� Banks and lenders;


� Environmental groups;


� Educational institutes;


� Community development organizations;


� Environmental justice advocates;


� Communities of color and low-income; and


� Environmental regulatory agencies.


Community-based organizations represent a wide


range of issues, from environmental concerns to


housing issues to economic development. These


groups can often be helpful in educating planners


and decision-makers in the community about local


brownfields sites, which can contribute to


successful brownfields site assessment and


cleanup activities. In addition, state voluntary


cleanup programs require that local communities


be adequately informed about brownfields cleanup


activities. Planners can contact the local Chamber


of Commerce, local philanthropic organizations,


local service organizations, and neighborhood


committees for community input. Representatives


from EPA regional offices and state and local


environmental groups may be able to supply


relevant information and identify other


appropriate community organizations. Involving


the local community in brownfields projects is a 

key component in the success of such projects. 

Remedy Implementation 

Many of the management technologies that leave 

contamination onsite, either in containment 

systems or because of the long periods required to 

reach management goals, will require long-term 

maintenance and possibly operation. If waste is 

left onsite, regulators will likely require long-term 

monitoring of applicable media (e.g., soil, water, 

and/or air) to ensure that the management 

approach selected is continuing to function as 

planned (e.g., residual contamination, if any, 

remains at acceptable levels and is not migrating). 

If long-term monitoring is required (e.g., by the 

state) periodic sampling, analysis, and reporting 

requirements will also be involved. Planners and 

decision-makers should be aware of these 

requirements and provide for them in cleanup 

budgets. Post-construction sampling, analysis, 

and reporting costs can be substantial and 

therefore need to be addressed in cleanup budgets. 

28

Exhibit 5-2. Flow Chart of the Remedy Implementation Plan Development Process 

29

Chapter 6 

Conclusion 

Brownfields redevelopment contributes to the 

revitalization of communities across the U.S. 

Reuse of these abandoned, contaminated sites 

spurs economic growth, builds community pride, 

protects public health, and helps maintain our 

nation's "greenfields," often at a relatively low 

cost. This document in conjunction with the 

General Guide provide an overview of the 

technical methods that can be used to achieve 

successful site assessment and cleanup, which are 

two key components in the brownfields 

redevelopment process. 

This railroad yards site profile provides the 

technical information necessary to conduct a 

successful brownfields redevelopment at such a 

site. However, each site is unique and the specific 

cleanup activities will be dictated by the site 

assessment, future use of the site, budget and time 

frame. Several railroad yards have been 

redeveloped for other uses. Some of these have 

been highlighted throughout this document. Users 

can review internet resources for the most recent 

redevelopment of railroad yard sites. 

To avoid problems throughout the process it is 

important that stakeholders are involved from the 

beginning. Consultation with state and local 

environmental officials and community leaders, as 

well as careful planning early in the project, will 

allow planners to develop the most appropriate 

site assessment and cleanup approaches. Planners 

should also determine early on if they are likely to 

require the assistance of environmental engineers. 

A site assessment strategy should be agreeable to 

all stakeholders and should address: 

� The type and extent of any contamination 

present at the site; 

� The types of data needed to adequately assess 

the site; 

� Appropriate sampling and analytical methods 

for characterizing contamination; and 

� An acceptable level of data uncertainty. 

When used appropriately, the process described in 

this document will help to ensure that a good 

strategy is developed and implemented effectively. 

Once the site has been assessed and stakeholders 

agree that cleanup is needed, planners will need to 

consider the cleanup options. Many different types 

of cleanup technologies are available. The 

guidance provided in this document on selecting 

appropriate methods directs planners to base 

cleanup initiatives on site- and project-specific 

conditions. The type and extent of cleanup will 

depend in large part on the type and level of 

contamination present, reuse goals, and the budget 

available. Certain cleanup technologies are used 

onsite, while others require offsite treatment. 

Also, in certain circumstances, containment of 

contamination onsite and the use of institutional 

controls may be important components of the 

cleanup effort. Finally, planners will need to 

include budgetary provisions and plans for 

post-cleanup and post-construction care if it is 

required at the brownfields site. By developing a 

technically sound site assessment and cleanup 

approach that is based on site-specific conditions 

and addresses the concerns of all project 

stakeholders, planners can achieve brownfield 

redevelopment and reuse goals effectively and 

safely. 

30

31

Appendix A 

Acronyms 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials


BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene


CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System


DQO Data Quality Objective


EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System


O&M Operations and Maintenance


ORD Office of Research and Development


OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response


PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon


PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl


PCP Pentachlorophenol


RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act


SVE Soil Vapor Extraction


SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound


TCE Trichloroethylene


TIO Technology Innovation Office


TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon


UST Underground Storage Tank


VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program


VOC Volatile Organic Compound


31

Appendix B 

Glossary 

Air Sparging In air sparging, air is injected into 

the ground below a contaminated area, forming 

bubbles that rise and carry trapped and dissolved 

contaminants to the surface where they are 

captured by a soil vapor extraction system. Air 

sparging may be a good choice of treatment 

technology at sites contaminated with solvents and 

other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). See 

also Volatile Organic Compound. 

Air Stripping Air stripping is a treatment method 

that removes or "strips" VOCs from contaminated 

groundwater or surface water as air is forced 

through the water, causing the compounds to 

evaporate. See also Volatile Organic Compound. 

American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) The ASTM sets standards for many 

services, including methods of sampling and 

testing of hazardous waste, and media 

contaminated with hazardous waste. 

Aquifer An aquifer is an underground rock 

formation composed of such materials as sand, 

soil, or gravel that can store groundwater and 

supply it to wells and springs. 

Aromatics Aromatics are organic compounds that 

contain 6-carbon ring structures, such as creosote, 

toluene, and phenol, that often are found at dry 

cleaning and electronic assembly sites. 

Baseline Risk Assessment A baseline risk 

assessment is an assessment conducted before 

cleanup activities begin at a site to identify and 

evaluate the threat to human health and the 

environment. After cleanup has been completed, 

the information obtained during a baseline risk 

assessment can be used to determine whether the 

cleanup levels were reached. 

Bedrock Bedrock is the rock that underlies the 

soil; it can be permeable or non-permeable. See 

also Confining Layer and Creosote. 

Bioremediation Bioremediation refers to 

treatment processes that use microorganisms 

(usually naturally occurring) such as bacteria, 

yeast, or fungi to break down hazardous 

substances into less toxic or nontoxic substances. 

Bioremediation can be used to clean up 

contaminated soil and water. In situ 

bioremediation treats the contaminated soil or 

groundwater in the location in which it is found. 

For ex situ bioremediation processes, 

contaminated soil must be excavated or 

groundwater pumped before they can be treated. 

Bioventing Bioventing is an in situ cleanup 

technology that combines soil vapor extraction 

methods with bioremediation. It uses vapor 

extraction wells that induce air flow in the 

subsurface through air injection or through the use 

of a vacuum. Bioventing can be effective in 

cleaning up releases of petroleum products, such 

as gasoline, jet fuels, kerosene, and diesel fuel. 

See also Bioremediation. 

Borehole A borehole is a hole cut into the ground 

by means of a drilling rig. 

Borehole Geophysics Borehole geophysics are 

nuclear or electric technologies used to identify 

the physical characteristics of geologic formations 

that are intersected by a borehole. 

Brownfields Brownfields sites are abandoned, 

idled, or under-used industrial and commercial 

facilities where expansion or redevelopment is 

complicated by real or perceived environmental 

contamination. 

BTEX BTEX is the term used for benzene, 

toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene--volatile 

aromatic compounds typically found in petroleum 

products, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. 

Cadmium Cadmium is a heavy metal that 

accumulates in the environment. See also Heavy 

Metal. 

Carbon Adsorption Carbon adsorption is a 

treatment method that removes contaminants from 

groundwater or surface water as the water is 

33

forced through tanks containing activated carbon. 

Chemical Dehalogenation Chemical 

dehalogenation is a chemical process that removes 

halogens (usually chlorine) from a chemical 

contaminant, rendering the contaminant less 

hazardous. The chemical dehalogenation process 

can be applied to common halogenated 

contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), dioxins (DDT), and certain chlorinated 

pesticides, which may be present in soil and oils. 

The treatment time is short, energy requirements 

are moderate, and operation and maintenance 

costs are relatively low. This technology can be 

brought to the site, eliminating the need to 

transport hazardous wastes. See also 

Polychlorinated Biphenyl. 

Cleanup Cleanup is the term used for actions 

taken to deal with a release or threat of release of 

a hazardous substance that could affect humans 

and/or the environment. 

Colorimetric Colorimetric refers to chemical 

reaction-based indicators that are used to produce 

compound reactions to individual compounds, or 

classes of compounds. The reactions, such as 

visible color changes or other easily noted 

indications, are used to detect and quantify 

contaminants. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Information 

System (CERCLIS) CERCLIS is a database that 

serves as the official inventory of Superfund 

hazardous waste sites. CERCLIS also contains 

information about all aspects of hazardous waste 

sites, from initial discovery to deletion from the 

National Priorities List (NPL). The database also 

maintains information about planned and actual 

site activities and financial information entered by 

EPA regional offices. CERCLIS records the 

targets and accomplishments of the Superfund 

program and is used to report that information to 

the EPA Administrator, Congress, and the public. 

See also National Priorities List and Superfund. 

Confining Layer A confining layer is a 

geological formation characterized by low 

permeability that inhibits the flow of water. See 

also Bedrock and Permeability. 

Contaminant A contaminant is any physical, 

chemical, biological, or radiological substance or 

matter present in any media at concentrations that 

may result in adverse effects on air, water, or soil. 

Data Quality Objective (DQO) DQOs are 

qualitative and quantitative statements specified to 

ensure that data of known and appropriate quality 

are obtained. The DQO process is a series of 

planning steps, typically conducted during site 

assessment and investigation, that is designed to 

ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of 

environmental data used in decision-making are 

appropriate. The DQO process involves a logical, 

step-by-step procedure for determining which of 

the complex issues affecting a site are the most 

relevant to planning a site investigation before any 

data are collected. 

Disposal Disposal is the final placement or 

destruction of toxic, radioactive or other wastes; 

surplus or banned pesticides or other chemicals; 

polluted soils; and drums containing hazardous 

materials from removal actions or accidental 

release. Disposal may be accomplished through 

the use of approved secure landfills, surface 

impoundments, land farming, deep well injection, 

ocean dumping, or incineration. 

Dual-Phase Extraction Dual-phase extraction is 

a technology that extracts contaminants 

simultaneously from soils in saturated and 

unsaturated zones by applying soil vapor 

extraction techniques to contaminants trapped in 

saturated zone soils. 

Electromagnetic (EM) Geophysics EM 

geophysics refers to technologies used to detect 

spatial (lateral and vertical) differences in 

subsurface electromagnetic characteristics. The 

data collected provide information about 

subsurface environments. 

Electromagnetic (EM) Induction EM induction 

is a geophysical technology used to induce a 

magnetic field beneath the earth's surface, which 

in turn causes a secondary magnetic field to form 

around nearby objects that have conductive 

34

properties, such as ferrous and nonferrous metals. 

The secondary magnetic field is then used to 

detect and measure buried debris. 

Emergency Removal An emergency removal is 

an action initiated in response to a release of a 

hazardous substance that requires on-site activity 

within hours of a determination that action is 

appropriate. 

Emerging Technology An emerging technology 

is an innovative technology that currently is 

undergoing bench-scale testing. During 

bench-scale testing, a small version of the 

technology is built and tested in a laboratory. If 

the technology is successful during bench-scale 

testing, it is demonstrated on a small scale at field 

sites. If the technology is successful at the field 

demonstrations, it often will be used full scale at 

contaminated waste sites. The technology is 

continually improved as it is used and evaluated at 

different sites. See also Established Technology 

and Innovative Technology. 

Engineered Control An engineered control, such 

as barriers placed between contamination and the 

rest of a site, is a method of managing 

environmental and health risks. Engineered 

controls can be used to limit exposure pathways. 

Established Technology An established 

technology is a technology for which cost and 

performance information is readily available. Only 

after a technology has been used at many different 

sites and the results fully documented is that 

technology considered established. The most 

frequently used established technologies are 

incineration, solidification and stabilization, and 

pump-and-treat technologies for groundwater. See 

also Emerging Technology and Innovative 

Technology. 

Exposure Pathway An exposure pathway is the 

route of contaminants from the source of 

contamination to potential contact with a medium 

(air, soil, surface water, or groundwater) that 

represents a potential threat to human health or the 

environment. Determining whether exposure 

pathways exist is an essential step in conducting a 

baseline risk assessment. See also Baseline Risk 

Assessment. 

Ex Situ The term ex situ or "moved from its 

original place," means excavated or removed. 

Filtration Filtration is a treatment process that 

removes solid matter from water by passing the 

water through a porous medium, such as sand or a 

manufactured filter. 

Flame Ionization Detector (FID) An FID is an 

instrument often used in conjunction with gas 

chromatography to measure the change of signal 

as analytes are ionized by a hydrogen-air flame. It 

also is used to detect phenols, phthalates, 

polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), VOCs, and 

petroleum hydrocarbons. See also Polyaromatic 

Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organic Compounds. 

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy A 

Fourier transform infrared spectroscope is an 

analytical air monitoring tool that uses a laser 

system chemically to identify contaminants. 

Fumigant A fumigant is a pesticide that is 

vaporized to kill pests. They often are used in 

buildings and greenhouses. 

Furan Furan is a colorless, volatile liquid 

compound used in the synthesis of organic 

compounds, especially nylon. 

Gas Chromatography Gas chromatography is a 

technology used for investigating and assessing 

soil, water, and soil gas contamination at a site. It 

is used for the analysis of VOCs and semivolatile 

organic compounds (SVOC). The technique 

identifies and quantifies organic compounds on 

the basis of molecular weight, characteristic 

fragmentation patterns, and retention time. Recent 

advances in gas chromatography considered 

innovative are portable, weather-proof units that 

have self-contained power supplies. 

Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) GPR is a 

technology that emits pulses of electromagnetic 

energy into the ground to measure its reflection 

and refraction by subsurface layers and other 

features, such as buried debris. 

Groundwater Groundwater is the water found 

beneath the earth's surface that fills pores between 

35

such materials as sand, soil, or gravel and that 

often supplies wells and springs. See also Aquifer. 

Hazardous Substance A hazardous substance is 

any material that poses a threat to public health or 

the environment. Typical hazardous substances 

are materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, 

explosive, or chemically reactive. If a certain 

quantity of a hazardous substance, as established 

by EPA, is spilled into the water or otherwise 

emitted into the environment, the release must be 

reported. Under certain federal legislation, the 

term excludes petroleum, crude oil, natural gas, 

natural gas liquids, or synthetic gas usable for 

fuel. 

Heavy Metal Heavy metal refers to a group of 

toxic metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, 

lead, mercury, silver, and zinc. Heavy metals often 

are present at industrial sites at which operations 

have included battery recycling and metal plating. 

High-Frequency Electromagnetic (EM) 

Sounding High-frequency EM sounding, the 

technology used for non-intrusive geophysical 

exploration, projects high-frequency 

electromagnetic radiation into subsurface layers to 

detect the reflection and refraction of the radiation 

b y various layers of soil. Unlike 

ground-penetrating radar, which uses pulses, the 

technology uses continuous waves of radiation. 

See also Ground-Penetrating Radar. 

Hydrocarbon A hydrocarbon is an organic 

compound containing only hydrogen and carbon, 

often occurring in petroleum, natural gas, and 

coal. 

Hydrogeology Hydrogeology is the study of 

groundwater, including its origin, occurrence, 

movement, and quality. 

Hydrology Hydrology is the science that deals 

with the properties, movement, and effects of 

water found on the earth's surface, in the soil and 

rocks beneath the surface, and in the atmosphere. 

Ignitability Ignitable wastes can create fires under 

certain conditions. Examples include liquids, such 

as solvents that readily catch fire, and 

friction-sensitive substances. 

Immunoassay Immunoassay is an innovative 

technology used to measure compound-specific 

reactions (generally colorimetric) to individual 

compounds or classes of compounds. The 

reactions are used to detect and quantify 

contaminants. The technology is available in 

field-portable test kits. 

Incineration Incineration is a treatment 

technology that involves the burning of certain 

types of solid, liquid, or gaseous materials under 

controlled conditions to destroy hazardous waste. 

Infrared Monitor An infrared monitor is a device 

used to monitor the heat signature of an object, as 

well as to sample air. It may be used to detect 

buried objects in soil. 

Inorganic Compound An inorganic compound is 

a compound that generally does not contain 

carbon atoms (although carbonate and bicarbonate 

compounds are notable exceptions), tends to be 

soluble in water, and tends to react on an ionic 

rather than on a molecular basis. Examples of 

inorganic compounds include various acids, 

potassium hydroxide, and metals. 

Innovative Technology An innovative technology 

is a process that has been tested and used as a 

treatment for hazardous waste or other 

contaminated materials, but lacks a long history of 

full-scale use and information about its cost and 

how well it works sufficient to support prediction 

of its performance under a variety of operating 

conditions. An innovative technology is one that is 

undergoing pilot-scale treatability studies that are 

usually conducted in the field or the laboratory; 

require installation of the technology; and provide 

performance, cost, and design objectives for the 

technology. Innovative technologies are being 

used under many Federal and state cleanup 

programs to treat hazardous wastes that have been 

improperly released. For example, innovative 

technologies are being selected to manage 

contamination (primarily petroleum) at some 

leaking underground storage sites. See also 

Emerging Technology and Established 

Technology. 

In Situ The term in situ, "in its original place," or 

36

"on-site", means unexcavated and unmoved. In 

situ soil flushing and natural attenuation are 

examples of in situ treatment methods by which 

contaminated sites are treated without digging up 

or removing the contaminants. 

In Situ Oxidation In situ oxidation is an 

innovative treatment technology that oxidizes 

contaminants that are dissolved in groundwater 

and converts them into insoluble compounds. 

In Situ Soil Flushing In situ soil flushing is an 

innovative treatment technology that floods 

contaminated soils beneath the ground surface 

with a solution that moves the contaminants to an 

area from which they can be removed. The 

technology requires the drilling of injection and 

extraction wells on site and reduces the need for 

excavation, handling, or transportation of 

hazardous substances. Contaminants considered 

for treatment by in situ soil flushing include heavy 

metals (such as lead, copper, and zinc), aromatics, 

and PCBs. See also Aromatics, Heavy Metal, and 

Polychlorinated Biphenyl. 

In Situ Vitrification In situ vitrification is a soil 

treatment technology that stabilizes metal and 

other inorganic contaminants in place at 

temperatures of approximately 3000• F. Soils and 

sludges are fused to form a stable glass and 

crystalline structure with very low leaching 

characteristics. 

Institutional Controls An institutional control is a 

legal or institutional measure which subjects a 

property owner to limit activities at or access to a 

particular property. They are used to ensure 

protection of human health and the environment, 

and to expedite property reuse. Fences, posting or 

warning signs, and zoning and deed restrictions 

are examples of institutional controls. 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) IRIS is 

an electronic database that contains EPA's latest 

descriptive and quantitative regulatory 

information about chemical constituents. Files on 

chemicals maintained in IRIS contain information 

related to both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic 

health effects. 

Landfarming Landfarming is the spreading and 

incorporation of wastes into the soil to initiate 

biological treatment. 

Landfill A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site 

for nonhazardous solid wastes at which the waste 

is spread in layers compacted to the smallest 

practical volume. 

Laser-Ind uced Fluorescence/ Con e 

Penetrometer Laser-induced fluorescence/cone 

penetrometer is a field screening method that 

couples a fiber optic-based chemical sensor 

system to a cone penetrometer mounted on a 

truck. The technology can be used for 

investigating and assessing soil and water 

contamination. 

Lead Lead is a heavy metal that is hazardous to 

health if breathed or swallowed. Its use in 

gasoline, paints, and plumbing compounds has 

been sharply restricted or eliminated by Federal 

laws and regulations. See also Heavy Metal. 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) 

LUST is the acronym for "leaking underground 

storage tank." See also Underground Storage 

Tank. 

Magnetrometry Magnetrometry is a geophysical 

technology used to detect disruptions that metal 

objects cause in the earth's localized magnetic 

field. 

Mass Spectrometry Mass spectrometry is an 

analytical process by which molecules are broken 

into fragments to determine the concentrations and 

mass/charge ratio of the fragments. Innovative 

mass spectroscopy units, developed through 

modification of large laboratory instruments, are 

sometimes portable, weatherproof units with 

self-contained power supplies. 

Medium A medium is a specific environment --

air, water, or soil -- which is the subject of 

regulatory concern and activities. 

Mercury Mercury is a heavy metal that can 

accumulate in the environment and is highly toxic 

if breathed or swallowed. Mercury is found in 

thermometers, measuring devices, pharmaceutical 

37

and agricultural chemicals, chemical 

manufacturing, and electrical equipment. See also 

Heavy Metal. 

Mercury Vapor Analyzer A mercury vapor 

analyzer is an instrument that provides real-time 

measurements of concentrations of mercury in the 

air. 

Methane Methane is a colorless, nonpoisonous, 

flammable gas created by anaerobic 

decomposition of organic compounds. 

Migration Pathway A migration pathway is a 

potential path or route of contaminants from the 

source of contamination to contact with human 

populations or the environment. Migration 

pathways include air, surface water, groundwater, 

and land surface. The existence and identification 

of all potential migration pathways must be 

considered during assessment and characterization 

of a waste site. 

Mixed Waste Mixed waste is low-level 

radioactive waste contaminated with hazardous 

waste that is regulated under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Mixed 

waste can be disposed only in compliance with the 

requirements under RCRA that govern disposal of 

hazardous waste and with the RCRA land disposal 

restrictions, which require that waste be treated 

before it is disposed of in appropriate landfills. 

Monitoring Well A monitoring well is a well 

drilled at a specific location on or off a hazardous 

waste site at which groundwater can be sampled at 

selected depths and studied to determine the 

direction of groundwater flow and the types and 

quantities of contaminants present in the 

groundwater. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) NPDES is the primary 

permitting program under the Clean Water Act, 

which regulates all discharges to surface water. It 

prohibits discharge of pollutants into waters of the 

United States unless EPA, a state, or a tribal 

government issues a special permit to do so. 

National Priorities List (NPL) The NPL is EPA's 

list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned 

hazardous waste sites identified for possible 

long-term cleanup under Superfund. Inclusion of a 

site on the list is based primarily on the score the 

site receives under the Hazard Ranking System 

(HRS). Money from Superfund can be used for 

cleanup only at sites that are on the NPL. EPA is 

required to update the NPL at least once a year. 

Natural Attenuation Natural attenuation is an 

approach to cleanup that uses natural processes to 

contain the spread of contamination from 

chemical spills and reduce the concentrations and 

amounts of pollutants in contaminated soil and 

groundwater. Natural subsurface processes, such 

as dilution, volatilization, biodegradation, 

adsorption, and chemical reactions with 

subsurface materials, reduce concentrations of 

contaminants to acceptable levels. An in situ 

treatment method that leaves the contaminants in 

place while those processes occur, natural 

attenuation is being used to clean up petroleum 

contamination from leaking underground storage 

tanks (LUST) across the country. 

Non-Point Source The term non-point source is 

used to identify sources of pollution that are 

diffuse and do not have a point of origin or that 

are not introduced into a receiving stream from a 

specific outlet. Common non-point sources are 

rain water, runoff from agricultural lands, 

industrial sites, parking lots, and timber 

operations, as well as escaping gases from pipes 

and fittings. 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) O&M 

refers to the activities conducted at a site, 

following remedial actions, to ensure that the 

cleanup methods are working properly. O&M 

activities are conducted to maintain the 

effectiveness of the cleanup and to ensure that no 

new threat to human health or the environment 

arises. O&M may include such activities as 

groundwater and air monitoring, inspection and 

maintenance of the treatment equipment 

remaining on site, and maintenance of any 

security measures or institutional controls. 

Organic Chemical or Compound An organic 

chemical or compound is a substance produced by 

38

animals or plants that contains mainly carbon, 

hydrogen, and oxygen. 

Permeability Permeability is a characteristic that 

represents a qualitative description of the relative 

ease with which rock, soil, or sediment will 

transmit a fluid (liquid or gas). 

Pesticide A pesticide is a substance or mixture of 

substances intended to prevent or mitigate 

infestation by, or destroy or repel, any pest. 

Pesticides can accumulate in the food chain and/or 

contaminate the environment if misused. 

Phenols A phenol is one of a group of organic 

compounds that are byproducts of petroleum 

refining, tanning, and textile, dye, and resin 

manufacturing. Low concentrations of phenols 

cause taste and odor problems in water; higher 

concentrations may be harmful to human health or 

the environment. 

Photoionization Detector (PID) A PID is a 

nondestructive detector, often used in conjunction 

with gas chromatography, that measures the 

change of signal as analytes are ionized by an 

ultraviolet lamp. The PID is also used to detect 

VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons. 

Phytoremediation Phytoremediation is an 

innovative treatment technology that uses plants 

and trees to clean up contaminated soil and water. 

Plants can break down, or degrade, organic 

pollutants or stabilize metal contaminants by 

acting as filters or traps. Phytoremediation can be 

used to clean up metals, pesticides, solvents, 

explosives, crude oil, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, 

and landfill leachates. Its use generally is limited 

to sites at which concentrations of contaminants 

are relatively low and contamination is found in 

shallow soils, streams, and groundwater. 

Plasma High-Temperature Metals Recovery 

Plasma high-temperature metals recovery is a 

thermal treatment process that purges 

contaminants from solids and soils such as metal 

fumes and organic vapors. The vapors can be 

burned as fuel, and the metal fumes can be 

recovered and recycled. This innovative treatment 

technology is used to treat contaminated soil and 

groundwater. 

Plume A plume is a visible or measurable 

emission or discharge of a contaminant from a 

given point of origin into any medium. The term 

also is used to refer to measurable and potentially 

harmful radiation leaking from a damaged reactor. 

Point Source A point source is a stationary 

location or fixed facility from which pollutants are 

discharged or emitted; or any single, identifiable 

discharge point of pollution, such as a pipe, ditch, 

or smokestack. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) PCBs are a 

group of toxic, persistent chemicals, produced by 

chlorination of biphenyl, that once were used in 

high voltage electrical transformers because they 

conducted heat well while being fire resistant and 

good electrical insulators. These contaminants 

typically are generated from metal degreasing, 

printed circuit board cleaning, gasoline, and wood 

preserving processes. Further sale or use of PCBs 

was banned in 1979. 

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) A PAH is a 

chemical compound that contains more than one 

fused benzene ring. They are commonly found in 

petroleum fuels, coal products, and tar. 

Pump and Treat Pump and treat is a general term 

used to describe cleanup methods that involve the 

pumping of groundwater to the surface for 

treatment. It is one of the most common methods 

of treating polluted aquifers and groundwater. 

Radioactive Waste Radioactive waste is any 

waste that emits energy as rays, waves, or streams 

of energetic particles. Sources of such wastes 

include nuclear reactors, research institutions, and 

hospitals. 

Radionuclide A radionuclide is a radioactive 

element characterized according to its atomic 

mass and atomic number, which can be artificial 

or naturally occurring. Radionuclides have a long 

life as soil or water pollutants. Radionuclides 

cannot be destroyed or degraded; therefore, 

applicable technologies involve separation, 

concentration and volume reduction, 

immobilization, or vitrification. See also 

39

Solidification and Stabilization. 

Radon Radon is a colorless, naturally occurring, 

radioactive, inert gaseous element formed by 

radioactive decay of radium atoms. See also 

Radioactive Waste and Radionuclide. 

Release A release is any spilling, leaking, 

pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, 

discharging, injecting, leaching, dumping, or 

disposing into the environment of a hazardous or 

toxic chemical or extremely hazardous substance, 

as defined under RCRA. See also Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) RCRA is a Federal law enacted in 1976 

that established a regulatory system to track 

hazardous substances from their generation to 

their disposal. The law requires the use of safe and 

secure procedures in treating, transporting, 

storing, and disposing of hazardous substances. 

RCRA is designed to prevent the creation of new, 

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. 

Risk Communication Risk communication, the 

exchange of information about health or 

environmental risks among risk assessors, risk 

managers, the local community, news media and 

interest groups, is the process of informing 

members of the local community about 

environmental risks associated with a site and the 

steps that are being taken to manage those risks. 

Saturated Zone The saturated zone is the area 

beneath the surface of the land in which all 

openings are filled with water at greater than 

atmospheric pressure. 

Seismic Reflection and Refraction Seismic 

reflection and refraction is a technology used to 

examine the geophysical features of soil and 

bedrock, such as debris, buried channels, and 

other features. 

Semi-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC) 

SVOCs, composed primarily of carbon and 

hydrogen atoms, have boiling points greater than 

200• C. Common SVOCs include PCBs and 

phenol. See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl. 

Site Assessment A site assessment is an initial 

environmental investigation that is limited to a 

historical records search to determine ownership 

of a site and to identify the kinds of chemical 

processes that were carried out at the site. A site 

assessment includes a site visit, but does not 

include any sampling. If such an assessment 

identifies no significant concerns, a site 

investigation is not necessary. 

Site Investigation A site investigation is an 

investigation that includes tests performed at the 

site to confirm the location and identity 

environmental hazards. The assessment includes 

preparation of a report that includes 

recommendations for cleanup alternatives. 

Sludge Sludge is a semisolid residue from air or 

water treatment processes. Residues from 

treatment of metal wastes and the mixture of 

waste and soil at the bottom of a waste lagoon are 

examples of sludge, which can be a hazardous 

waste. 

Slurry-Phase Bioremediation Slurry-phase 

bio-remediation, a treatment technology that can 

be used alone or in conjunction with other 

biological, chemical, and physical treatments, is a 

process through which organic contaminants are 

converted to innocuous compounds. Slurry-phase 

bioremediation can be effective in treating various 

semi-volatile organic carbons (SVOCs) and 

nonvolatile organic compounds, as well as fuels, 

creosote, pentachlorophenols (PCP), and PCBs. 

See also Polychlorinated Biphenyl and 

Semi-Volatile Organic Carbon. 

Soil Boring Soil boring is a process by which a 

soil sample is extracted from the ground for 

chemical, biological, and analytical testing to 

determine the level of contamination present. 

Soil Gas Soil gas consists of gaseous elements 

and compounds that occur in the small spaces 

between particles of the earth and soil. Such gases 

can move through or leave the soil or rock, 

depending on changes in pressure. 

Soil Washing Soil washing is an innovative 

treatment technology that uses liquids (usually 

40

water, sometimes combined with chemical 

additives) and a mechanical process to scrub soils, 

removes hazardous contaminants, and 

concentrates the contaminants into a smaller 

volume. The technology is used to treat a wide 

range of contaminants, such as metals, gasoline, 

fuel oils, and pesticides. Soil washing is a 

relatively low-cost alternative for separating waste 

and minimizing volume as necessary to facilitate 

subsequent treatment. It is often used in 

combination with other treatment technologies. 

The technology can be brought to the site, thereby 

eliminating the need to transport hazardous 

wastes. 

Solidification and Stabilization Solidification 

and stabilization are the processes of removing 

wastewater from a waste or changing it chemically 

to make the waste less permeable and susceptible 

to transport by water. Solidification and 

stabilization technologies can immobilize many 

heavy metals, certain radionuclides, and selected 

organic compounds, while decreasing the surface 

area and permeability of many types of sludge, 

contaminated soils, and solid wastes. 

Solvent A solvent is a substance, usually liquid, 

that is capable of dissolving or dispersing one or 

more other substances. 

Solvent Extraction Solvent extraction is an 

innovative treatment technology that uses a 

solvent to separate or remove hazardous organic 

contaminants from oily-type wastes, soils, sludges, 

and sediments. The technology does not destroy 

contaminants, but concentrates them so they can 

be recycled or destroyed more easily by another 

technology. Solvent extraction has been shown to 

be effective in treating sediments, sludges, and 

soils that contain primarily organic contaminants, 

such as PCBs, VOCs, halogenated organic 

compounds, and petroleum wastes. Such 

contaminants typically are generated from metal 

degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, 

gasoline, and wood preserving processes. Solvent 

extraction is a transportable technology that can 

be brought to the site. See also Polychlorinated 

Biphenyl and Volatile Organic Compound. 

Surfactant Flushing Surfactant flushing is an 

innovative treatment technology used to treat 

contaminated groundwater. Surfactant flushing of 

NAPLs increases the solubility and mobility of the 

contaminants in water so that the NAPLs can be 

biodegraded more easily in an aquifer or 

recovered for treatment aboveground. 

Surface Water Surface water is all water 

naturally open to the atmosphere, such as rivers, 

lakes, reservoirs, streams, and seas. 

Superfund Superfund is the trust fund that 

provides for the cleanup of significantly hazardous 

substances released into the environment, 

regardless of fault. The Superfund was established 

under Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and 

subsequent amendments to CERCLA. The term 

Superfund is also used to refer to cleanup 

programs designed and conducted under CERCLA 

and its subsequent amendments. 

Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization 

Act (SARA) SARA is the 1986 act amending 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) that 

increased the size of the Superfund trust fund and 

established a preference for the development and 

use of permanent remedies, and provided new 

enforcement and settlement tools. 

Thermal Desorption Thermal desorption is an 

innovative treatment technology that heats soils 

contaminated with hazardous wastes to 

temperatures from 200• to 1,000• F so that 

contaminants that have low boiling points will 

vaporize and separate from the soil. The vaporized 

contaminants are then collected for further 

treatment or destruction, typically by an air 

emissions treatment system. The technology is 

most effective at treating VOCs, SVOCs and other 

organic contaminants, such as PCBs, polyaromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), and pesticides. It is 

effective in separating organics from refining 

wastes, coal tar wastes, waste from wood 

treatment, and paint wastes. It also can separate 

solvents, pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and fuel oils 

from contaminated soil. See also Polyaromatic 

41

Hydrocarbon, Polychlorinated Biphenyl, 

Semivolatile Organic Compound, and Volatile 

Organic Compound. 

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) TPH 

refers to a measure of concentration or mass of 

petroleum hydrocarbon constituents present in a 

given amount of air, soil, or water. 

Toxicity Toxicity is a quantification of the degree 

of danger posed by a substance to animal or plant 

life. 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP) The TCLP is a testing procedure used to 

identify the toxicity of wastes and is the most 

commonly used test for determining the degree of 

mobilization offered by a solidification and 

stabilization process. Under this procedure, a 

waste is subjected to a process designed to model 

the leaching effects that would occur if the waste 

was disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D municipal 

landfill. See also Solidification and Stabilization. 

Toxic Substance A toxic substance is a chemical 

or mixture that may present an unreasonable risk 

of injury to health or the environment. 

Treatment Wall (also Passive Treatment Wall) 

A treatment wall is a structure installed 

underground to treat contaminated groundwater 

found at hazardous waste sites. Treatment walls, 

also called passive treatment walls, are put in 

place by constructing a giant trench across the 

flow path of contaminated groundwater and filling 

the trench with one of a variety of materials 

carefully selected for the ability to clean up 

specific types of contaminants. As the 

contaminated groundwater passes through the 

treatment wall, the contaminants are trapped by 

the treatment wall or transformed into harmless 

substances that flow out of the wall. The major 

advantage of using treatment walls is that they are 

passive systems that treat the contaminants in 

place so the property can be put to productive use 

while it is being cleaned up. Treatment walls are 

useful at some sites contaminated with chlorinated 

solvents, metals, or radioactive contaminants. 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) A UST is a 

tank located entirely or partially underground that 

is designed to hold gasoline or other petroleum 

products or chemical solutions. 

Unsaturated Zone The unsaturated zone is the 

area between the land surface and the uppermost 

aquifer (or saturated zone). The soils in an 

unsaturated zone may contain air and water. 

Vadose Zone The vadose zone is the area 

between the surface of the land and the aquifer 

water table in which the moisture content is less 

than the saturation point and the pressure is less 

than atmospheric. The openings (pore spaces) also 

typically contain air or other gases. 

Vapor Vapor is the gaseous phase of any 

substance that is liquid or solid at atmospheric 

temperatures and pressures. Steam is an example 

of a vapor. 

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) A VOC is 

one of a group of carbon-containing compounds 

that evaporate readily at room temperature. 

Examples of volatile organic compounds include 

trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, benzene, 

toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX). These 

contaminants typically are generated from metal 

degreasing, printed circuit board cleaning, 

gasoline, and wood preserving processes. 

Volatilization Volatilization is the process of 

transfer of a chemical from the aqueous or liquid 

phase to the gas phase. Solubility, molecular 

weight, and vapor pressure of the liquid and the 

nature of the gas- liquid affect the rate of 

volatilization. 

Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) A VCP is a 

formal means established by many states to 

facilitate assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment 

of brownfields sites. VCPs typically address the 

identification and cleanup of potentially 

contaminated sites that are not on the National 

Priorities List (NPL). Under VCPs, owners or 

developers of a site are encouraged to approach 

the state voluntarily to work out a process by 

which the site can be readied for development. 

Many state VCPs provide technical assistance, 

liability assurances, and funding support for such 

42

efforts. 

Wastewater Wastewater is spent or used water 

from an individual home, a community, a farm, or 

an industry that contains dissolved or suspended 

matter. 

Water Table A water table is the boundary 

between the saturated and unsaturated zones 

beneath the surface of the earth, the level of 

groundwater, and generally is the level to which 

water will rise in a well. See also Aquifer and 

Groundwater. 

X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer An x-ray 

fluorescence analyzer is a self-contained, 

field-portable instrument, consisting of an energy 

dispersive x-ray source, a detector, and a data 

processing system that detects and quantifies 

individual metals or groups of metals. 

43

Table C-1. Non-Invasive Assessment Technologies 

Applications Strengths Weaknesses Typical Costs1 

Infrared Thermography (IR/T) 

Locates buried UST s. � Ab le to co llect da ta on large a reas very � Ca nno t be us ed in ra iny con ditions . � Depends upon volume of data collected 

� Locates buried leaks from U STs. efficien tly. (Hun dred s of ac res p er flight) � Cannot be used to determine depth or thickness and typ e of targ ets loo ke d for. 

� Locates buried sludge pits. � Ab le to co llect da ta on long c ross cou ntry of anomalies. � Small areas <1 acre: $1,000-$3,500. 

� Locates buried nuclear and nonnuclear pipelines very efficiently (300-500 miles per � Ca nno t determ ine w hat sp ecific a nom alies a re � Large areas>1,000 acres: $10 - $200 per acre. 

waste. day.) detected. 

� Locates buried oil, gas, chemical and sewer � Low cos t for ana lyzed da ta pe r acre unit. � Cannot be used to detect a specific fluid or 

pipelines. � Able to prescreen and eliminate clean areas contaminant, but all items not native to the area 

� Locates buried oil, gas, chemical and sewer from further costly testing and unneeded will be detected. 

pipeline leaks. rehabilitation. 

� Locates water pipelines. � Able to fuse data with other techniques for 

� Locates water pipeline leaks. even greater accuracy in more situations. 

� Locates seepage from wa ste dumps. � Ab le to lo ca te lar ge and sm all lea ks in 

� Locates sub su rfac e sm old erin g fires in pipelines and USTs. (Ultrasonic devices can 

was te du m ps. only locate small, high pressure leaks 

� Loca tes unexploded ordinance o n con taining ultraso nic no ise.) 

hundreds or thousands of acres. � No dire ct co nta ct w ith ob ject s un de r tes t is 

� Locates buried landmines. req uire d. (U ltras on ic de vice s m us t be in 

con tact w ith burie d pipe lines o r US Ts .) 

� Has confirmed anomalies to depths greater 

than 38 feet with an accuracy of better than 

8 0%. 

� Te sts c an be p erfo rm ed dur ing both daytim e 

and nighttime hours. 

� Normally no inconvenience to the public. 

�

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 

�

�

�

�

Locates buried USTs. 

Locates buried leaks from USTs. 

Locates buried sludge pits. 

Locates buried nuclear and 

�

�

Can investigate depths from 1 

centimeter to 100 meters+ depending 

upon soil or water conditions. 

Can locate small voids capable of 

�

�

�

Cannot be used in highly conductive 

environments such as salt water. 

Cannot be used in heavy clay soils. 

Data are difficult to interpret and require a 

�

�

�

Depends upon volume of datacollected 

and type of targets looked for. 

Small areas <1 acre: $3,500 - $5,000 

Large areas > 10 acres: $2,500 - $3,500 

nonnuclear waste. holding contamination wastes. lot of experience. per acre 

� Locates buried oil, gas, chemical and 

sewer pipelines. 

� Can determine different types of 

materials such as steel, fiberglass or 

� Locates buried oil and chemical concrete. 

�

pipeline leaks. 

Locates water pipelines. 

� Can be trailed behind a vehicle and 

travel at high speeds. 

� Locates water pipeline leaks. 

� Locates seepage from waste dumps. 

� Locates cracks in subsurface strata 

such as limestone. 

45 

Appendix C

Testing Technologies
Electromagnetic Offset Logging (EOL) 

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Locates buried hydrocarbon pipelines 

Locates buried hydrocarbon USTs. 

Locates hydrocarbon tanks. 

Locates hydrocarbon barrels. 

Locates perched hydrocarbons. 

Locates free floating hydrocarbons. 

Locates dissolved hydrocarbons. 

Locates sinker hydrocarbons. 

Locates buried well casings. 

�

�

�

�

�

�

Produces 3D images of hydrocarbon 

plumes. 

Data can be collected to depth of 100 

meters. 

Data can be collected from a single, 

unlined or nonmetal lined well hole. 

Data can be collected within a 100 

meter radius of a single well hole. 

3D images can be sliced in horizontal 

and vertical planes. 

DNAPLs can be imaged. 

�

�

Small dead area around well hole of 

approximately 8 meters. 

This can be eliminated by using 2 

complementary well holes from which to 

collect data. 

�

�

�

Depends upon volume of data collected 

and type of targets looked for. 

Small areas < 1 acre: $10,000 - $20,000 

Large areas > 10 acres: $5,000 -

$10,000 per acre 

Magnetometer (MG) 

� Locates buried ferrous materials such � Low cost instruments can be be used � Non-relevant artifacts can be confusing to � Depends upon volume of data collected 

as barrels, pipelines, USTs, and 

buckets. 

that produce results by audio signal 

strengths. �

data analyzers. 

Depth limited to 3 meters. �

and type of targets looked for. 

Small areas < 1 acre: $2,500 - $5,000 

� High cost instruments can be used � Large areas > 10 acres: $1,500 -$2,500 

that produce hard copy printed maps per acre 

of targets. 

� Depths to 3 meters. 1 acre per day 

typical efficiency in data collection. 

1 Cost based on case study data in 1997 dollars. 

46

Table C-2. Soil and Subsurface Sampling Tools 

Media 

Technique/Inst rumentation So il Ground 

W ater 

R ela tive Co st p er Sa m ple Sa m ple Q ua lity 

Drilling Methods 

Cable Tool X X Mid-range expensive Soil properties will probably be altered 

Casing Advancement X X Most expensive Soil properties will likely be altered 

Dire ct A ir Ro tary w ith R ota ry Bit 

Downhole Hammer 

X X Mid-range expensive Soil properties will probably be altered 

Dire ct Mu d R otary X X Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Directional Drilling X X Most expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Hollow-Stem Auger X X Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Jetting Methods X X Least expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Rotary Diamond Drilling X X Most expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Ro tating C ore X Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Solid Flight and Bucket 

Au gers 

X X Mid-range expensive Soil properties will likely be altered 

Sonic Drilling X X Most expensive Soil properties will probably be unaltered 

Split and Solid Barrel X Least expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Thin-Wall Open Tube X Mid-range expensive Soil properties will probably be unaltered 

Th in-W all Pisto n/l 

Sp ec ialize d T hin W all 

X Mid-range expensive Soil properties will probably be unaltered 

Direct Push Methods 

Cone Penetrometer X X Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Dr iven W ells X Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Hand-Held Methods 

Au gers X X Least expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Ro tating C ore X Mid-range expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Scoop, Spoons, and Sh ove ls X Least expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Split and Solid Barrel X Least expensive Soil properties may be altered 

Thin-Wall Open Tube X Mid-range expensive Soil properties will probably be unaltered 

Thin-W all Piston 

Sp ec ialize d T hin W all 

X Mid-range expensive Soil properties will probably be unaltered 

Tubes X Least expensive Soil properties will probably be unaltered 

47

Table C-3. Groundwater Sampling Tools 

Technique/Instrumentation Co ntam inan ts1 Re lative C ost p er S am ple Sa m ple Q uality 

Portable Groundwater Sampling Pumps 

B la dd er Pump SVO Cs, PAH s, 

m eta ls 

Mid-range expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered 

G as -D riv en Pis to n Pump SVO Cs, PAH s, 

m eta ls 

Most Expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered by sampling 

Gas-Driven Displacement Pumps SVO Cs, PAH s, 

m eta ls 

Least expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered by sampling 

G ea r Pump SVO Cs, PAH s, 

m eta ls 

Mid-range expensive Liquid properties may be altered 

Inertial-Lift Pumps SVO Cs, PAH s, 

m eta ls 

Least expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered 

Submersible Centrifugal Pumps SVO Cs, PAH s, 

m eta ls 

Most expensive Liquid properties may be altered 

Submersible Helical-Rotor Pump SVO Cs, PAH s, 

m eta ls 

Most expensive Liquid properties may be altered 

Suction-Lift Pumps (peristaltic) SVO Cs, PAH s, 

m eta ls 

Least expensive Liquid properties may be altered 

Portable Grab Sam plers 

Bailers VOC s, SVOC s, 

PA Hs , m eta ls 

Least expensive Liquid properties may be altered 

Pn eum atic De pth-Sp ecific 

Sa m plers 

VOC s, SVOC s, 

PA Hs , m eta ls 

Mid-range expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered 

Portable In Situ Groundw ater Samplers/Sensors 

Co ne P ene trom eter S am plers VOC s, SVOC s, 

PA Hs , m eta ls 

Least expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered 

Direct Driv e Sam plers VOC s, SVOC s, 

PA Hs , m eta ls 

Least expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered 

Hydropunch VOC s, SVOC s, 

PA Hs , m eta ls 

Mid-range expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered 

Fixed In Situ Sam plers 

Mu ltilevel C aps ule S am plers VOC s, SVOC s, 

PA Hs , m eta ls 

Mid-range expensive Liquid properties will probably be 

unaltered 

Multiple-Port Casings VOC s, SVOC s, 

PA Hs , m eta ls 

Least expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered 

Pa ssive Multilaye r Sa m plers VOCs Least expensive Liquid properties will probably be unaltered 

Bold Most commonly used field techniques


VOCs Volatile Organic Carbons


SVOCsSemivolatile Organic Carbons


PAHs Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons


48

Table C-4. Sample Analysis Technologies 

M edia 

Technique/ 

Instrumentation 

Analytes So il Ground 

Water 

Gas Relative 

Detection 

Relative 

Cost per 

An alysis 

Application** Produces 

Qua ntitative 

Da ta 

M etals 

Laser-Induced Breakdown 

Sp ectro m etry 

Me tals X ppb Least 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in fie ld Additional effort required 

Titrim etry Kits Me tals X X ppm Least 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Additional effort required 

Particle-Induced X-ray 

Emissions 

Me tals X X ppm Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Additional effort required 

Atomic Adsorption 

Sp ectro m etry 

Me tals X* X X ppb Most 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Yes 

Inductively Coupled 

Plasma--Atomic Emission 

Spectroscopy 

Me tals X* X X ppb Most 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

lab ora tory 

Yes 

Field Bioassessment Me tals X X Most 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in fie ld No 

X-Ray Fluorescence Me tals X X X ppm Least 

expensive 

La bo rato ry an d field Yes (limited) 

PAHs, VOCs, and SVOCs 

Laser-Induced Fluorescence 

(LIF) 

PAHs X X ppm Least 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in fie ld Additional effort required 

So lid/P oro us Fibe r Op tic VOCs X* X X ppm Least 

expensive 

Immediate, can be used 

in field 

Additional effort required 

Ch em ical C alorim etric K its VOC s, 

SVO Cs, 

PAHs 

X X ppm Least 

expensive 

Can be used in field, 

usu ally use d in lab orato ry 

Additional effort required 

Flame Ionization Detector 

(hand-held) 

VOCs X* X* X ppm Least 

expensive 

Immediate, can be used 

in field 

No 

Explosimeter VOCs X* X* X ppm Least 

expensive 

Immediate, can be used 

in field 

No 

Photo Ionization Detector 

(hand-held) 

VOC s, 

SVOCs 

X* X* X ppm Least 

expensive 

Immediate, can be used 

in field 

No 

Catalytic Surface Oxidation VOCs X* X* X ppm Least 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

No 

Near IR Reflectance/Trans 

Spectroscopy 

VOCs X 100-1,000 

ppm 

Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Additional effort required 

Ion Mobility Spectrometer VOC s, 

SVOCs 

X* X* X 100-1,000 

ppb 

Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Yes 

49

Raman Spectroscopy/SERS VOC s, 

SVOCs 

X X X* ppb Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Additional effort required 

Infrared Spectroscopy VOC s, 

SVOCs 

X X X 100-1,000 

ppm 

Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Additional effort required 

Scattering/Absorption Lidar VOCs X* X* X 100-1,000 

ppm 

Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Additional effort required 

FTIR Spectroscopy VOCs X* X* X ppm Mid-range 

expensive 

La bo rato ry an d field Additional effort required 

Synchronous Luminescence/ 

Fluorescence 

VOC s, 

SVOCs 

X* X ppb Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

laboratory, can be used 

in field 

Additional effort required 

Gas Chromatography (GC) 

(can be used with numerous 

detectors) 

VOC s, 

SVOCs 

X* X X ppb Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

laboratory, can be used 

in field 

Yes 

UV -Visib le Sp ectro pho tom etry VOCs X* X X ppb Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Additional effort required 

UV Fluorescence VOCs X X X ppb Mid-range 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

labo ratory 

Additional effort required 

Ion Trap VOC s, 

SVOCs 

X* X* X ppb Most 

expensive 

La bo rato ry an d field Yes 

Other 

Chemical Reaction- Based 

Te st Pa pers 

VOC s, 

SVO Cs, 

Me tals 

X X ppm Least 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in fie ld Yes 

Im m un oa ssa y and Ca lorim etric 

Kits 

VOC s, 

SVO Cs, 

Me tals 

X X ppm Least 

expensive 

Us ua lly use d in 

laboratory, can be used 

in field 

Additional effort required 

VOCs 

SVOCs 

PAHs 

X* 

** 

Volatile Organic Compounds


Semivolatile Organic Compounds (may be present in oil and grease)


Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons


Indicates there must be extraction of the sample to gas or liquid phase


Samples sent to laboratory require shipping time and usually 14 to 35 days turnaround time for analysis. Rush orders cost an additional amount per sample. 

50

Exhibit D-1. Cleanup Technologies for Landfill and Illegal Dump Sites 

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Containment 

Technologies 

Capping •	 Used to cover buried waste materials to •	 Metals •	 Costs associated with routine sampling •	 $11 to $40 per 

prevent migration.Consist of a relatively Cyanide and analysis may be high.Long-term square foot.1 

impermeable material that will minimize maintenance may be required to ensure 

rainfall infiltration.Waste materials can be impermeability.May have to be 

left in place.Requires periodic inspections replaced after 20 to 30 years of 

and routine monitoring.Contaminant operation.May not be effective if 

migration must be monitored periodically. groundwater table is high. 

Sheet Piling • Steel or iron sheets are driven into the • Not con- • Not effective in the absence of a • $8 to $17 per 

ground to form a subsurface barrier.Low-cost taminant­ continuous aquitard.Can leak at the square foot.2 

containment method.Used primarily for specific intersection of the sheets and the 

shallow aquifers. aquitard or through pile wall joints. 

Grout Curtain • Grout curtains are injected into subsurface • Not con­ • Difficult to ensure a complete curtain • $6 to $14 per 

soils and bedrock.Forms an impermeable taminant­ without gaps through which the plume square foot.2 

barrier in the subsurface. specific can escape; however new techniques 

have improved continuity of curtain. 

Appendix D 

Cleanup Technologies 

51

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Slurry Walls • Used to contain contaminated ground water, • Not con­ • Contains contaminants only within a • Design and 

landfill leachate, divert contaminated taminant­ specified area.Soil-bentonite backfills installation 

groundwater from drinking water intake, specific are not able to withstand attack by costs of $5 to 

divert uncontaminated groundwater flow, or strong acids, bases, salt solutions, and $7 per square 

provide a barrier for the groundwater some organic chemicals.Potential for foot (1991 

treatment system.Consist of a vertically the slurry walls to degrade or dollars) for a 

excavated slurry-filled trench.The slurry deteriorate over time. standard soilhydraulically shores the trench to prevent bentonite wall 

collapse and forms a filtercake to reduce in soft to 

groundwater flow.Often used where the medium 

waste mass is too large for treatment and soil.3

Above 

where soluble and mobile constituents pose costs do not 

an imminent threat to a source of drinking include 

threat to a source of drinking water.Often variable costs 

constructed of a soil, bentonite, and water 

mixture. required for 

chemical 

analyses, 

feasibility, or 

compatibility 

testing. 

52

Applicable 

Technology Technology Description 

Contaminants 

Treated by 

this 

Technology Limitations Cost 

Ex Situ 

Technologies 

Excavation/ 

Offsite Disposal 

• Removes contaminated material to an EPA 

approved landfill. 

• Not 

contaminantspecific 

• Generation of fugitive emissions may 

be a problem during operations.The 

distance from the contaminated site to 

the nearest disposal facility will affect 

cost.Depth and composition of the 

media requiring excavation must be 

considered.Transportation of the soil 

through populated areas may affect 

community acceptability.Disposal 

options for certain waste (e.g., mixed 

waste or transuranic waste) may be 

limted. There is currently only one 

licensed disposal facility for radioactive 

and mixed waste in the United States. 

• $270 to $460 

per ton.2 

53

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Composting •	 Controlled microbiological process by which • SVOCs. •	 Substantial space is required. •	 $190 or 

biodegradable hazardous materials in soils Excavation of contaminated soils is greater per 

are converted to innocuous, stabilized required and may cause the cubic yard for 

byproducts.Typically occurs at temperatures uncontrolled release of soil volumes 

ranging from 50° to 55°C (120° to VOCs.Composting results in a of 

130°F).May be applied to soils and lagoon volumetric increase in material and approximately 

sediments.Maximum degradation efficiency space required for treatment.Metals are 20,000 cubic 

is achieved by maintaining moisture content, not treated by this method and can be yards.3

Costs 

pH, oxygenation, temperature, and the toxic to the microorganisms.The will vary with 

carbon-nitrogen ratio. distance from the contaminated site to the amount of 

the nearest disposal facility will affect soil to be 

cost. treated, the 

soil fraction of 

the com post, 

availability of 

amendments, 

the type of 

contaminant 

and the type of 

process design 

employed. 

Chemical • Reduction/oxidation (Redox) reactions • Metals • Not cost-effective for high contaminant • $190 to $660 

Oxidation/ chemically convert hazardous contaminants Cyanide concentrations because of the large per cubic 

Reduction to nonhazardous or less toxic compounds amounts of oxidizing agent required.Oil meter of soil.3 

that are more stable, less mobile, or and grease in the media should be 

inert.Redox reactions involve the transfer of minimized to optimize process 

electrons from one compound to another.The 

oxidizing agents commonly used are ozone, 

efficiency. 

hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite, chlorine, 

and chlorine dioxide. 

54

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Soil Washing •	 A water-based process for scrubbing •	 SVOCs •	 Fine soil particles may require the •	 $120 to $200 

excavated soils ex situ to remove Metals addition of a polymer to remove them per ton of 

contaminants.Removes contaminants by from the washing fluid.Complex waste soil.3

Cost is 

dissolving or suspending them in the wash mixtures make formulating washing dependent 

solution, or by concentrating them into a fluid difficult.High humic content in upon the target 

smaller volume of soil through particle size soil may require pretreatment.The waste quantity 

separation, gravity separation, and attrition washing fluid produces an aqueous and 

scrubbing.Systems incorporating most of the stream that requires treatment. concentration. 

removal techniques offer the greatest 

promise for application to soils contaminated 

with a wide variety of metals and organic 

contaminants. 

Thermal • Low temperatures (200°F to 900°F) are used • VOCsPCBs • Cannot be used to treat heavy metals, • $50 to $300 

Desorption to remove organic contaminants from soils PAHs with exception of per ton of 

and sludges.Off-gases are collected and mercury.Contaminants of concern must soil.3

Transport 

treated. Requires treatment system after 

heating chamber.Can be performed on site or 

have a low boiling point.Transportation 

costs to off-site facilities can be 

ation charges 

are additional. 

off site. expensive. 

55

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Incineration • High temperatures 870° to 1,200° C (1400°F • VOCsPCBs • Only one off-site incinerator is • $200 to $1,000 

to 2,200o

F) are used to volatilize and dioxins permitted to burn PCBs and dioxins. per ton of soil 

combust hazardous wastes.The destruction Specific feed size and materials at off-site incinand removal efficiency for properly operated handling requirements that can affect erators.$1,500 

incinerators exceeds the 99.99% requirement applicability or cost at specific to $6,000 

for hazardous waste and can be operated to sites.Metals can produce a bottom ash per ton of soil 

meet the 99.9999% requirement for PCBs that requires stabilization prior to for soils 

and dioxins.Commercial incinerator designs disposal.Volatile metals, including lead, contaminated 

are rotary kilns, equipped with an cadmium, mercury, and arsenic, leave with PCBs or 

afterburner, a quench, and an air pollution the combustion unit with the flue gases dioxins. 

3

Mobile 

control system. and require the installation of gas units that can 

cleaning systems for removal.Metals operate onsite 

can react with other elements in the reduce soil 

feed stream, such as chlorine or sulfur, transportation 

forming more volatile and toxic costs. 

compounds than the original species. 

UV Oxidation • Destruction process that oxidizes • VOCs • The aqueous stream being treated must • $0.10 to $10 

constituents in wastewater by the addition of provide for good transmission of UV per 1,000 

strong oxidizers and irradiation with UV light (high turbidity causes gallons are 

light.Practically any organic contaminant interference).Metal ions in the treated.3 

that is reactive with the hydroxyl radical can wastewater may limit 

potentially be treated. The oxidation effectiveness.VOCs may volatilize 

reactions are achieved through the before oxidation can occur. Off-gas 

synergistic action of UV light in combination may require treatment.Costs may be 

with ozone or hydrogen peroxide.Can be higher than competing technologies 

configured in batch or continuous flow because of energy 

models, depending on the throughput rate requirements.Handling and storage of 

under consideration. oxidizers require special safety 

precautions.Off-gas may require 

treatment. 

56

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Pyrolysis • A thermal treatment technology that uses 

chemical decomposition induced in organic 

materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. 

Pyrolysis transforms hazardous organic 

materials into gaseous components, small 

amounts of liquid, and a solid residue (coke) 

containing fixed carbon and ash. 

• Metals 

Cyanide.PAHs 

• Specific feed size and materials 

handling requirements affect 

applicability or cost at specific 

sites.Requires drying of the soil 

to achieve a low soil moisture 

content (<1%).Highly abrasive 

feed can potentially damage the 

processor unit.High moisture 

content increases treatment 

costs.Treated media containing 

• Capital and 

operating 

costs are 

expected to 

be 

approximately $330 per 

metric ton 

($300 per 

ton).3 

heavy metals may require 

stabilization.May produce 

combustible gases, including 

carbon monoxide, hydrogen and 

methane, and other 

hydrocarbons.If the off-gases are 

cooled, liquids condense, 

producing an oil/tar residue and 

contaminated water. 

57

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Precipitation • Involves the conversion of soluble • Metals. • Contamination source is not • Capital 

heavy metal salts to insoluble salts 

that will precipitate.Precipitate can be 

removed.The presence of 

multiple metal species may lead 

costs are 

$85,000 to 

physical methods such as to removal difficulties.Discharge $115,000 

clarification or filtration.Often used as standard may necessitate further for 20 to 65 

a pretreatment for other treatment treatment of effluent.Metal gpm 

technologies where the presence of 

metals would interfere with the 

hydroxide sludges must pass 

TCLP criteria prior to land 

precipitation 

systems.Pritreatment processes.Primary method disposal.Treated water will often mary capital 

for treating metal-laden industrial require pH adjustment. cost factor 

wastewater. is design 

flow 

rate.Operating costs are 

$0.30 to 

$0.70 per 

1,000.3 

Sludge 

disposal 

may be 

estimated to 

increase 

operating 

costs by 

$0.50 per 

1,000 

gallons 

treated.3 

58

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Liquid 

Phase 

Carbon 

• Groundwater is pumped through a 

series of vessels containing activated 

carbon, to which dissolved 

• Low levels 

of 

metals. 

• The presence of multiple 

contaminants can affect process 

performance.Metals can foul the 

• $1.20 to 

$6.30 per 

1,000 

Adsorption contaminants adsorb.Effective for 

polishing water discharges from other 

remedial technologies to attain 

regulatory compliance.Can be quickly 

installed.High contaminant-removal 

efficiencies. 

VOCs. 

SVOCs. 

system.Costs are high if used as 

the primary treatment on waste 

streams with high contaminant 

concentration levels.Type and 

pore size of the carbon and 

operating temperature will impact 

gallons 

treated at 

flow rates of 

0.1 

mgd.Costs 

decrease 

process performance.Transport with 

and disposal of spent carbon can increasing 

be expensive.Water soluble low rates 

compounds and small molecules and 

are not adsorbed well. concentrations. 3

Costs 

are 

dependent 

on waste 

stream flow 

rates, type 

of 

contaminant, 

concentration, and 

timing 

requirements. 3 

59

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Air Stripping • Contaminants are partitioned from 

groundwater by greatly increasing the 

surface area of the contaminated 

water exposed to air.Aeration 

methods include packed towers, 

diffused aeration, tray aeration, and 

spray aeration.Can be operated 

continuously or in a batch mode, 

where the air stripper is intermittently 

fed from a collection tank.The batch 

• VOCs. • Potential for inorganic (iron 

greater than 5 ppm, hardness 

greater than 800 ppm) or 

biological fouling of the 

equipment, requiring 

pretreatment of groundwater or 

periodic column 

cleaning.Consideration should be 

given to the Henry’s law constant 

of the VOCs in the water stream 

• $0.04 to 

$0.20 per 

1,000 

gallons.3

A 

major 

operating 

cost of air 

strippers is 

the 

electricity 

mode ensures consistent air stripper 

performance and greater efficiency 

than continuously operated units 

because mixing in the storage tank 

and the type and amount of 

packing used in the 

tower.Compounds with low 

volatility at ambient temperature 

required for 

the 

groundwater 

pump, the 

eliminates any inconsistencies in 

feed water composition. 

may require preheating of the 

groundwater.Off-gases may 

require treatment based on mass 

sump 

discharge 

pump, and 

emission rate and state and the air 

federal air pollution laws. blower. 

60

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

In Situ 

Technologi 

es 

Natural 

Attenuation 

• Natural subsurface processes such 

as dilution, volatilization, 

• VOCs • Intermediate degradation 

products may be more mobile 

• Not 

available 

biodegradation, adsorption, and and more toxic than original 

chemical reactions with subsurface contaminants.Contaminants may 

media can reduce contaminant migrate before they degrade.The 

concentrations to acceptable site may have to be fenced and 

levels.Consideration of this option may not be available for reuse 

requires modeling and evaluation of until hazard levels are 

contaminant degradation rates and reduced.Source areas may 

pathways.Sampling and analyses 

must be conducted throughout the 

require removal for natural 

attenuation to be 

process to confirm that degradation is effective.Modeling contaminant 

proceeding at sufficient rates to meet degradation rates, and sampling 

cleanup objectives.Nonhalogenated and analysis to confirm modeled 

volatile and semivolatile organic predictions extremely expensive. 

compounds. 

61

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Soil Vapor 

Extraction 

• A vacuum is applied to the soil to 

induce controlled air flow and remove 

• VOCs • Tight or very moist content 

(>50%) has a reduced 

• $10 to $50 

per cubic 

contaminants from the unsaturated 

(vadose) zone of the soil.The gas 

leaving the soil may be treated to 

recover or destroy the 

contaminants.The continuous air flow 

permeability to air, requiring 

higher vacuums.Large screened 

intervals are required in 

extraction wells for soil with 

highly variable permeabilities.Air 

meter of 

soil.3

Cost is 

site specific 

depending 

on the size 

promotes in situ biodegradation of 

low-volatility organic compounds that 

may be presnet. 

emissions may require treatment 

to eliminate possible harm to the 

public or environment.Off-gas 

treatment residual liquids and 

of the site, 

the nature 

and amount 

of 

spent activated carbon may contaminarequire treatment or disposal.Not tion, and the 

effective in the saturated zone. hydrogeological 

setting, 

which affect 

the number 

of wells, the 

blower 

capacity 

and vacuum 

level 

required, 

and length 

of time 

required to 

remediate 

the site.Offgas 

62

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Soil • Extraction of contaminants from the • Metals • Low-permeability soils are • The major 

Flushing soil with water or other aqueous 

solutions.Accomplished by passing 

difficult to treat.Surfactants can 

adhere to soil and reduce 

factor 

affecting 

the extraction fluid through in-place effective soil porosity.Reactions cost is the 

soils using injection or infiltration of flushing fluids with soil can separation 

processes.Extraction fluids must be reduce contaminant of 

recovered with extraction wells from mobility.Potential of washing the surfactants 

the underlying aquifer and recycled contaminant beyond the capture from 

when possible. zone and the introduction of recovered 

surfactants to the subsurface. flushing 

fluid.3 

63

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Solidification/ 

Stabilization 

• Reduces the mobility of hazardous 

substances and contaminants 

through chemical and physical 

means.Seeks to trap or immobilize 

contaminants within their “host” 

• Metals 

Limited 

effectiveness for 

VOCs and 

• Depth of contaminants may limit 

effectiveness.Future use of site 

may affect containment 

materials, which could alter the 

ability to maintain immobilization 

• $50 to $80 

per cubic 

meter for 

shallow 

applications. 

medium, instead of removing them 

through chemical or physical 

treatment.Can be used alone or 

SVOCs. of contaminants.Some processes 

result in a significant increase in 

volume.Effective mixing is more 

$190 to 

$330 per 

cubic meter 

combined with other treatment and 

disposal methods. 

difficult than for ex situ 

applications.Confirmatory 

sampling can be difficult. 

for deeper 

applications.3 

Costs for 

cementbased 

stabilization 

techniques 

vary 

according to 

materials or 

reagents 

used, their 

availability, 

project size, 

and the 

chemical 

nature of 

the 

contaminant. 

64

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Air Sparging • In situ technology in which air is 

injected under pressure below the 

water table to increase groundwater 

oxygen concentrations and enhance 

the rate of biological degradation of 

• VOCs • Depth of contaminants and 

specific site geology must be 

considered.Air flow through the 

saturated zone may not be 

uniform.A permeability 

• $50 to $100 

per 1,000 

gallons of 

groundwater 

treated.3 

contaminants by naturally occurring differential such as a clay layer 

microbes.Increases the mixing in the 

saturated zone, which increases the 

above the air injection zone can 

reduce the effectiveness.Vapors 

contact between groundwater and may rise through the vadose 

soil. Air bubbles traverse horizontally zone and be released into the 

and vertically through the soil column, atmosphere.Increased pressure 

creating an underground stripper that 

removes contaminants by 

in the vadose zone can build up 

vapors in basements, which are 

volatilization.Air bubbles travel to a generally low-pressure areas. 

soil vapor extraction system.Air 

sparging is effective for facilitating 

extraction of deep contamination, 

contamination in low-permeability 

soils, and contamination in the 

saturated zone. 

65

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Passive 

Treatment 

Walls 

• A permeable reaction wall is installed 

inground, across the flow path of a 

contaminant plume, allowing the 

water portion of the plume to 

passively move through the 

wall.Allows the passage of water 

while prohibiting the movement of 

contaminants by employing such 

agents as iron, chelators (ligands 

selected for their specificity for a 

• Metals 

VOCs 

• The system requires control of 

pH levels. When pH levels within 

the passive treatment wall rise, it 

reduces the reaction rate and 

can inhibit the effectiveness of 

the wall.Depth and width of the 

plume. For large-scale plumes, 

installation cost may be 

high.Cost of treatment medium 

(iron).Biological activity may 

• Capital 

costs for 

these 

projects 

range from 

$250,000 to 

$1,000,000.3 

Operations 

and 

maintengiven metal), sorbents, microbes, and 

others.Contaminants are typically 

completely degraded by the 

treatment wall. 

reduce the permeability of the 

wall.Walls may lose their reactive 

capacity, requiring replacement 

of the reactive medium. 

ance costs 

approximately 5 to 10 

times less 

than capital 

costs. 

Chemical • Destruction process that oxidizes • VOCs • The addition of oxidizing • Depends on 

Oxidation constituents in groundwater by the 

addition of strong oxidizers.Practically 

any organic contaminant that is 

reactive with the hydroxyl radical can 

potentially be treated. 

compounds must be hydraulically 

controlled and closely 

monitored.Metal additives will 

precipitate out of solution and 

remain in the aquifer.Handling 

mass 

present and 

hydrogeologic 

conditions.3 

and storage of oxidizers require 

special safety precautions. 

66

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Bioventing • Stimulates the natural in-situ 

biodegradation of volatile organics in 

soil by providing oxygen to existing 

soil microorganisms.Oxygen 

commonly supplied through direct air 

injection.Uses low air flow rates to 

provide only enough oxygen to 

• VOCs. • Low soil-gas permeability.High 

water table or saturated soil 

layers.Vapors can build up in 

basements within the radius of 

influence of air injection 

wells.Low soil moisture content 

may limit biodegradation by 

• $10 to $70 

per cubic 

meter of 

soil.3

Cost 

affected by 

contaminant 

type and 

sustain microbial activity.Volatile 

compounds are biodegraded as 

drying out the soils.Low 

temperatures slow 

concentration, soil 

vapors and move slowly through the 

biologically active soil. 

remediation.Chlorinated solvents 

may not degrade fully under 

certain subsurface 

permeability, well 

spacing and 

conditions.Vapors may need number, 

treatment, depending on pumping 

emission level and state rate, and 

regulations. off-gas 

treatment. 

67

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Biodegradation • Indigenous or introduced 

microorganisms degrade organic 

contaminants found in soil and 

groundwater.Used successfully to 

remediate soils, sludges, and 

groundwater.Especially effective for 

remediating low-level residual 

contamination in conjunction with 

source removal. 

• VOCs. • 

• 

Cleanup goals may not be 

attained if the soil matrix 

prevents sufficient 

mixing.Circulation of water-based 

solutions through the soil may 

increase contaminant mobility 

and necessitate treatment of 

underlying groundwater. 

Injection wells may clog and 

prevent adequate flow 

rates.Preferential flow paths may 

result in nonuniform distribution 

• $30 to $100 

per cubic 

meter of 

soil.3

Cost 

affected by 

the nature 

and depth 

of the 

contaminants 

use of 

bioaugmentation or 

of injected fluids.Should not be 

used for clay, highly layered, or 

heterogeneous subsurface 

environments.High 

concentrations of heavy metals, 

highly chlorinated organics, long 

hydrogen 

peroxide 

addition, 

and 

groundwater 

pumping 

chain hydrocarbons, or inorganic 

salts are likely to be toxic to 

microorganisms.Low 

temperatures slow 

bioremediation.Chlorinated 

rates. 

solvents may not degrade fully 

under certain subsurface 

conditions. 

68

Contaminants 

Treated by 

Applicable this 

Technology Technology Description Technology Limitations Cost 

Oxygen- • Based on Fenton’s Reagent • TPHs • Low soil permeability limits • Relatively 

Releasing 

Compounds 

Chemistry.Stimulates the natural in 

situ biodegradation of petroleum 

VOCs dispersion.Low soil moisture 

limits reaction time.Low 

low cost in 

applications 

hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater temperatures slow reaction.Not on small 

by providing oxygen to existing cost-effective in the presence of areas of 

microorganisms.Oxygen supplied unusually thick layers of free contaminathrough the controlled dispersion and product. tion.Cost 

diffusion of active reagents, such as depends on 

hydrogen peroxide.Active reagents size of 

are injected into the affected area treatment 

using semi-permanent injection wells. area and 

amount of 

contaminant 

present as 

free 

product. 

1. Interagency Cost Workgroup, 1994. 

2. Costs of Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled Hazardous Wastes Sites, U.S. EPA, 1986. 

3. Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable, http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html 

UST = underground storage tank


SVOCs = semi-volatile organic compounds


VOCs = volatile organic compounds


PAHs = polyaromatic hydrocarbons


PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls


TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons


69

Appendix E


Works Cited and Other Useful Resources


A "PB" publication number in parentheses indicates 

that the document is available from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port 

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703-487-4650). 

Site Assessment 

ASTM. 1997. Standard Practice for Environmental 

Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site 

Assessment Process. American Society for Testing 

Materials (ASTM E1527-97). 

ASTM. 1996. Standard Practice for Environmental 

Site Assessments: Transaction Screen Process. 

American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM 

E1528-96). 

ASTM. 1995. Guide for Developing Conceptual Site 

Models for Contaminated Sites. American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM E1689-95). 

ASTM. 1995. Provisional Standard Guide for 

Accelerated Site Characterization for Confirmed or 

Suspected Petroleum Releases. American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM PS3-95). 

Go-Environmental Solutions. N.D. http://www. 

gesolutions.com/assess.htm. 

Geoprobe Systems, Inc. 1998. Rental Rate Sheet. 

September 15. 

Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and 

Field Analytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site 

Characterization and Cleanup. Tufts University under 

Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. October. 

U.S. EPA. 1997. Expedited Site Assessment Tools for 

Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for 

Regulators and Consultants (EPA 510-B-97-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1997. Field Analytical and Site 

Characterization Technologies, Summary of 

Applications (EPA-542-R-97-011). 

U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding 

Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields 

Investigation and Cleanup. OSWER. (PB97-144810). 

U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology 

Information Resources for Brownfields Sites. 

OSWER. (PB97-144828). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Consortium for Site Characterization 

Technology: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-012). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Field Portable X-Ray Fluorescence 

(FPXRF), Technology Verification Program: Fact 

Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009a). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Portable Gas Chromatograph/Mass 

Spectrometers (GC/MS), Technology Verification 

Program: Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009c). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization Analysis 

Penetrometer System (SCAPS) LIF Sensor (EPA 

540-MR-95-520, EPA 540 R-95-520). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Site Characterization and 

Monitoring: A Bibliography of EPA Information 

Resources (EPA 542-B-96-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance 

(540/R-96/128). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Clor-N-Soil PCB Test Kit L2000 

PCB/Chloride Analyzer (EPA 540-MR-95-518, EPA 

540-R-95-518). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Laboratory Program: 

Volatile Organics Analysis of Ambient Air in 

Canisters Revision VCAA01.0 (PB95-963524). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Contract Lab Program: Draft 

Statement of Work for Quick Turnaround Analysis 

(PB95-963523). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. EnviroGard PCB Test Kit (EPA 

540-MR-95-517, EPA 540-R-95-517). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Field Analytical Screening Program: 

PCB Method (EPA 540-MR-95-521, EPA 

540-R-95-521). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. PCB Method, Field Analytical 

Screening Program (Innovative Technology 

Evaluation Report) (EPA 540-R-95-521, 

PB96-130026); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 

540-MR-95-521). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry 

(EPA 310-R-95-005). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Rapid Optical Screen Tool (ROSTTM) 

(EPA 540-MR-95-519, EPA 540-R-95-519). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Risk Assessment Guidance for 

Superfund. http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ 

71

Catalog/EPA540R95132.html. 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Assessment and Remediation of 

Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program (EPA 

905-R-94-003). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Characterization of 

Chromium-Contaminated Soils Using Field-Portable 

X-ray Fluorescence (PB94-210457). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Development of a Battery-Operated 

Portable Synchronous Luminescence 

Spectrofluorometer (PB94-170032). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Engineering Forum Issue: 

Considerations in Deciding to Treat Contaminated 

Unsaturated Soils In Situ (EPA 540-S-94-500, 

PB94-177771). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. SITE Program: An Engineering 

Analysis of the Demonstration Program (EPA 

540-R-94-530). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Data Quality Objectives Process for 

Superfund (EPA 540-R-93-071). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Conference on the Risk Assessment 

Paradigm After 10 Years: Policy and Practice, Then, 

Now, and in the Future. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/Catalog/EPA600R9303 

9.html. 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the 

Technical Impracticability of Ground Water 

Restoration. OSWER directive (9234.2-25). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Guide for Conducting Treatability 

Studies Under CERCLA: Biodegradation Remedy 

Selection (EPA 540-R-93-519a, PB94-117470). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Subsurface Characterization and 

Monitoring Techniques (EPA 625-R-93-003a&b). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Characterizing Heterogeneous 

Wastes: Methods and Recommendations (March 

26-28,1991) (PB92-216894). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Conducting Treatability Studies 

Under RCRA (OSWER Directive 9380.3-09FS, 

PB92-963501) 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk 

Assessment (Part A) (9285.7-09A). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability 

Studies Under CERCLA: Final (EPA 540-R-92-071A, 

PB93-126787). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability 

Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Vapor Extraction (EPA 

540-2-91-019a&b, PB92-227271 & PB92-224401). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability 

Studies Under CERCLA: Soil Washing (EPA 

540-2-91-020a&b, PB92-170570 & PB92-170588). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide for Conducting Treatability 

Studies Under CERCLA: Solvent Extraction (EPA 

540-R-92-016a, PB92-239581). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Guide to Site and Soil Description 

for Hazardous Waste Site Characterization, Volume 1: 

Metals (PB92-146158). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. International Symposium on Field 

Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic 

Chemicals (2nd), Proceedings. Held in Las Vegas, 

Nevada on February 12-14, 1991 (PB92-125764). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Sampling of Contaminated Sites 

(PB92-110436). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Ground Water Issue: Characterizing 

Soils for Hazardous Waste Site Assessment 

(PB-91-921294). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide for Conducting Treatability 

Studies Under CERCLA: Aerobic Biodegradation 

Remedy Screening (EPA 540-2-91-013a&b, 

PB92-109065 & PB92-109073). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Interim Guidance for Dermal 

Exposure Assessment (EPA 600-8-91-011A). 

U.S. EPA. 1990. A New Approach and Methodologies 

for Characterizing the Hydrogeologic Properties of 

Aquifers (EPA 600-2-90-002). 

U.S. EPA. 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation 

Manual (EPA 540-1-86-060). 

U.S. EPA. N.D. Status Report on Field Analytical 

Technologies Utilization: Fact Sheet (no publication 

number available). 

U.S.G.S. 

http://www.mapping.usgs.gov/esic/to_order.hmtl. 

Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization 

Technologies System (Vendor FACTS), Version 1.0 

(Vendor FACTS can be downloaded from the Internet 

at www.prcemi.com/visitt or from the CLU-IN Web 

site at http://clu-in.com). 

The Whitman Companies. Last modified October 4, 

1996. Environmental Due Diligence. 

http://www.whitmanco. com/dilgnce1.html. 

72

Site Cleanup 

ASTM. N.D. New Standard Guide for Remediation by 

Natural Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites 

(ASTM E50.01). 

Federal Register. September 9, 1997. www.access. 

gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html, vol.62, no.174, p. 

47495-47506. 

Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. 

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top_page.html. 

Interagency Cost Workgroup. 1994. Historical Cost 

Analysis System. Version 2.0. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1996. A 

Compendium of Cost Data for Environmental 

Remediation Technologies (LA-UR-96-2205). 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. N.D. Treatability of 

Hazardous Chemicals in Soils: Volatile and 

Semi-Volatile Organics (ORNL-6451). 

Robbat, Albert, Jr. 1997. Dynamic Workplans and 

Field Analytics: The Keys to Cost Effective Site 

Characterization and Cleanup. Tufts University under 

Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. October. 

U.S. EPA. 1997. Road Map to Understanding 

Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields 

Investigation and Cleanup. OSWER. PB97-144810). 

U.S. EPA. 1997. The Tool Kit of Technology 

Information Resources for Brownfields Sites. 

OSWER. (PB97-144828). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation Field Evaluation: 

Champion International Superfund Site, Libby, 

Montana (EPA 540-R-96-500). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Bibliography for Innovative Site 

Clean-Up Technologies (EPA 542-B-96-003). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Bioremediation of Hazardous 

Wastes: Research, Development, and Field 

Evaluations (EPA 540-R-95-532, PB96-130729). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Citizen's Guides to Understanding 

Innovative Treatment Technologies (EPA 

542-F-96-013): 

Bioremediation (EPA 542-F-96-007, EPA 

542-F-96-023) In addition to screening levels, EPA 

regional offices and some states have developed 

cleanup levels, known as corrective action levels; if 

contaminant concentrations are above corrective 

action levels, cleanup must be pursued. The section on 

"Performing a Phase II Site Assessment" in this 

document provides more information on screening 

levels, and the section on "Site Cleanup" provides 

more information on corrective action levels. 

Chemical Dehalogenation (EPA 542-F-96-004, EPA 

542-F-96-020) 

In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 542-F-96-006, EPA 

542-F-96-022) 

Innovative Treatment Technologies for Contaminated 

Soils, Sludges, Sediments, and Debris (EPA 

542-F-96-001, EPA 542-F-96-017) 

Phytoremediation (EPA 542-F-96-014, EPA 

542-F-96-025) 

Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging (EPA 

542-F-96-008, EPA 542-F-96-024) 

Soil Wash ing (EPA 54 2-F-96-002, EPA 

542-F-96-018) 

Solvent Extraction (EPA 542-F-96-003, EPA 

542-F-96-019) 

Thermal Desorption (EPA 542-F-96-005, EPA 

542-F-96-021) 

Treatment Walls (EPA 542-F-96-016, EPA 

542-F-96-027) 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste 

Sites: Markets and Technology Trends (1996 Edition) 

(EPA 542-R-96-005, PB96-178041). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Completed North American 

Innovative Technology Demonstration Projects (EPA 

542-B-96-002, PB96-153127). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Cone Penetrometer/Laser Induced 

Fluorescence (LIF) Technology Verification Program: 

Fact Sheet (EPA 542-F-96-009b). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. EPA Directive: Initiatives to Promote 

Innovative Technologies in Waste Management 

Programs (EPA 540-F-96-012). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Errata to Guide to EPA materials on 

Underground Storage Tanks (EPA 510-F-96-002). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. How to Effectively Recover Free 

Product at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites: 

A Guide for State Regulators (EPA 510-F-96-001; 

Fact Sheet: EPA 510-F-96-005). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Innovative Treatment Technologies: 

73

Annual Status Report Database (ITT Database). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Introducing TANK Racer (EPA 

510-F96-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Market Opportunities for Innovative 

Site Cleanup Technologies: Southeastern States (EPA 

542-R-96-007, PB96-199518). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Recent Developments for In situ 

Treatment of Metal-Contaminated Soils (EPA 

542-R-96-008, PB96-153135). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. Review of Intrinsic Bioremediation 

of TCE in Groundwater at Picatinny Arsenal, New 

Jersey and St. Joseph, Michigan (EPA 600-A-95-096, 

PB95-252995). 

U.S. EPA. 1996. State Policies Concerning the Use of 

Injectants for In Situ Groundwater Remediation (EPA 

542-R-96-001, PB96-164538). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Abstracts of Remediation Case 

Studies (EPA 542-R-95-001, PB95-201711). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Accessing Federal Data Bases for 

Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies, Fourth 

Edition (EPA 542-B-95-005, PB96-141601). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Field Evaluation: 

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska (EPA 540-R-95-533). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Field Initiative Site 

Profiles: 

Champion Site, Libby, MT (EPA 540-F-95-506a) 

Eielson Air Force Base, AK (EPA 540-F-95-506b) 

Hill Air Force Base Superfund Site, UT (EPA 

540-F-95-506c) 

Public Service Company of Colorado (EPA 

540-F-95-506d) 

Escambia Wood Preserving Site, FL (EPA 

540-F-95-506g) 

Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation , MN (EPA 

540-F-95-506h) 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation Final Performance 

Evaluation of the Prepared Bed Land Treatment 

System, Champion International Superfund Site, 

Libby, Montana: Volume I, Text (EPA 

600-R-95-156a); Volume II, Figures and Tables (EPA 

600-R-95-156b). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Bioremediation of Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons: A Flexible, Variable Speed 

Technology (EPA 600-A-95-140, PB96-139035). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Combined Chemical and Biological 

Oxidation of Slurry Phase Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons (EPA 600-A-95-065, PB95-217642). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Contaminants and Remedial Options 

at Selected Metal Contaminated Sites (EPA 

540-R-95-512, PB95-271961). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Development of a Photothermal 

Detoxification Unit: Emerging Technology Summary 

(EPA 540-SR-95-526); Emerging Technology Bulletin 

(EPA 540-F-95-505). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Electrokinetic Soil Processing: 

Emerging Technology Bulletin (EPA 540-F-95-504); 

ET Project Summary (EPA 540-SR-93-515). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Emerging Abiotic In Situ 

Remediation Technologies for Groundwater and Soil: 

Summary Report (EPA 542-S-95-001, PB95-239299). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Emerging Technology Program (EPA 

540-F-95-502). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. ETI: Environmental Technology 

Initiative (document order form) (EPA 542-F-95-007). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Publications on Alternative 

and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective 

Action and Site Remediation, Fifth Edition (EPA 

542-B-95-004, PB96-145099). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Federal Remediation Technologies 

Roundtable: 5 Years of Cooperation (EPA 

542-F-95-007). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Guide to Documenting Cost and 

Performance for Remediation Projects (EPA 

542-B-95-002, PB95-182960). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Metal-Enhanced Abiotic 

Degradation Process Technology, Environmental 

Technologies, Inc.: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 

540-MR-95-510). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. In Situ Vitrification Treatment: 

Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-504, 

PB95-125499). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Intrinsic Bioattenuation for 

Subsurface Restoration (book chapter) (EPA 

600-A-95-112, PB95-274213). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ Bioremediation 

Technology for Treatment of TNT-Contaminated 

Soils: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 

74

540-R-95-529); Site Technology Capsule (EPA 

540-R-95-529a). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Lessons Learned About In Situ Air 

Sparging at the Denison Avenue Site, Cleveland, Ohio 

(Project Report), Assessing UST Corrective Action 

Technologies (EPA 600-R-95-040, PB95-188082). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Microbial Activity in Subsurface 

Samples Before and During Nitrate-Enhanced 

Bioremediation (EPA 600-A-95-109, PB95-274239). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Musts for USTS: A Summary of the 

Regulations for Underground Tank Systems (EPA 

510-K-95-002). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Natural Attenuation of 

Trichloroethene at the St. Joseph, Michigan, 

Superfund Site (EPA 600-SV-95-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. New York State Multi-Vendor 

Bioremediation: Ex-Situ Biovault, ENSR Consulting 

and Engineering/Larson Engineers: Demonstration 

Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-95-525). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Process for the Treatment of Volatile 

Organic Carbon and Heavy-Metal-Contaminated Soil, 

International Technology Corp.: Emerging 

Technology Bulletin (EPA 540-F-95-509). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Progress in Reducing Impediments to 

the Use of Innovative Remediation Technology (EPA 

542-F-95-008, PB95-262556). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action 

Handbook (PB95-963307-ND2). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Remedial Design/Remedial Action 

Handbook Fact Sheet (PB95-963312-NDZ). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: 

Bioremediation (EPA 542-R-95-002, PB95-182911). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Fact 

Sheet and Order Form (EPA 542-F-95-003); Four 

Document Set (PB95-182903). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: 

Groundwater Treatment (EPA 542-R-95-003, 

PB95-182929). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Soil 

Vapor Extraction (EPA 542-R-95-004, PB95-182937). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Case Studies: Thermal 

Desorption, Soil Washing, and In Situ Vitrification 

(EPA 542-R-95-005, PB95-182945). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Remediation Technologies Screening 

Matrix and Reference Guide, Second Edition 

(PB95-104782; Fact Sheet: EPA 542-F-95-002). 

Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. Also 

see Internet: http://www.frtr.gov/matrix/top-page.html. 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Removal of PCBs from 

Contaminated Soil Using the Cf Systems (trade name) 

Solvent Extraction Process: A Treatability Study 

(EPA 540-R-95-505, PB95-199030); Project Summary 

(EPA 540-SR-95-505). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Review of Mathematical Modeling 

for Evaluating Soil Vapor Extraction Systems (EPA 

540-R-95-513, PB95-243051). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Selected Alternative and Innovative 

Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and 

Site Remediation: A Bibliography of EPA Information 

Resources (EPA 542-B-95-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. SITE Emerging Technology Program 

(EPA 540-F-95-502). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) 

Enhancement Technology Resource Guide Air 

Sparging, Bioventing, Fracturing, Therma l 

Enhancements (EPA 542-B-95-003). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Soil Vapor Extraction 

Implementation Experiences (OSWER Publication 

9200.5-223FS, EPA 540-F-95-030, PB95-963315). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Surfactant Injection for Ground 

Water Remediation: State Regulators' Perspectives 

and Experiences (EPA 542-R-95-011, PB96-164546). 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Symposium on Bioremediation of 

Hazardous Wastes: Research, Development, and Field 

Evaluations, Abstracts: Rye Town Hilton, Rye Brook, 

New York, August 8-10, 1995 (EPA 600-R-95-078). 

U.S. EPA. 1993-1995. Technology Resource Guides:. 

Bioremediation Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-93-004) 

Groundwater Treatment Technology Resource Guide 

(EPA 542-B-94-009, PB95-138657) 

Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology Resource 

Guide (EPA 542-B-94-008, PB95-138665) 

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement 

Technology Resource Guide: Air Sparging, 

Bioventing, Fracturing, and Thermal Enhancements 

(EPA 542-B-95-003) 

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Treatment Technology 

Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-007) 

75

U.S. EPA. 1995. Waste Vitrification Through Electric 

Melting, Ferro Corporation: Emerging Technology 

Bulletin (EPA 540-F-95-503). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Accessing EPA's Environmental 

Technology Programs (EPA 542-F-94-005). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation: A Video Primer 

(video) (EPA 510-V-94-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Bioremediation in the Field Search 

System (EPA 540-F-95-507; Fact Sheet: EPA 

540-F-94-506). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Contaminants and Remedial Options 

at Solvent-Contaminated Sites (EPA 600-R-94-203, 

PB95-177200). 

U.S. EPA. 1990-1994. EPA Engineering Bulletins:. 

Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment: APEG 

Treatment (EPA 540-2-90-015, PB91-228031) 

Chemical Oxidation Treatment (EPA 540-2-91-025) 

In Situ Biodegradation Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-502, 

PB94-190469) 

In Situ Soil Flushing (EPA 540-2-91-021) 

In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment (EPA 

540-2-91-006, PB91-228072) 

In Situ Steam Extraction Treatment (EPA 

540-2-91-005, PB91-228064) 

In Situ Vitrification Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-504, 

PB95-125499) 

Mobile/Transportable Incineration Treatment (EPA 

540-2-90-014) 

Pyrolysis Treatment (EPA 540-S-92-010) 

Rotating Biological Contactors (EPA 540-S-92-007) 

Slurry Biodegradation (EPA 540-2-90-016, 

PB91-228049) 

Soil Washing Treatment (EPA 540-2-90-017, 

PB91-228056) 

Solidification/Stabilization of Organics and Inorganics 

(EPA 540-S-92-015) 

Solvent Extraction Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-503, 

PB94-190477) 

Supercritical Water Oxidation (EPA 540-S-92-006) 

Technology Preselection Data Requirements (EPA 

540-S-92-009) 

Thermal Desorption Treatment (EPA 540-S-94-501, 

PB94-160603) 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Field Investigation of Effectiveness 

of Soil Vapor Extraction Technology (Final Project 

Report) (EPA 600-R-94-142, PB94-205531). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Ground Water Treatment 

Technologies Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-009, 

PB95-138657). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup 

Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A 

Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (EPA 

510-B-94-003, S/N 055-000-00499-4); Pamphlet (EPA 

510-F-95-003). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Steam Enhanced Recovery 

Process, Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.: 

Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 

540-R-94-510, PB95-271854); Site Technology 

Capsule (EPA 540-R-94-510a, PB95-270476). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. In Situ Vitrification, Geosafe 

Corporation: Innovative Technology Evaluation 

Report (EPA 540-R-94-520, PB95-213245); 

Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-94-520). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. J.R. Simplot Ex-Situ Bioremediation 

Technology for Treatment of Dinoseb-Contaminated 

Soils: Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 

540-R-94-508); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 

540-MR-94-508). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Literature Review Summary of 

Metals Extraction Processes Used to Remove Lead 

From Soils, Project Summary (EPA 600-SR-94-006). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Northeast Remediation Marketplace: 

Business Opportunities for Innovative Technologies 

(Summary Proceedings) (EPA 542-R-94-001, 

PB94-154770). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Physical/Chemical Treatment 

Technology Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-008, 

PB95-138665). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Profile of Innovative Technologies 

and Vendors for Waste Site Remediation (EPA 

542-R-94-002, PB95-138418). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Radio Frequency Heating, KAI 

Technologies, Inc.: Innovative Technology Evaluation 

Report (EPA 540-R-94-528); Site Technology Capsule 

(EPA 540-R-94-528a, PB95-249454). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Regional Market Opportunities for 

76

Innovative Site Clean-up Technologies: Middle 

Atlantic States (EPA 542-R-95-010, PB96-121637). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Rocky Mountain Remediation 

Marketplace: Business Opportunities for Innovative 

Technologies (Summary Proceedings) (EPA 

542-R-94-006, PB95-173738). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Selected EPA Products and 

Assistance On Alternative Cleanup Technologies 

(Includes Remediation Guidance Documents Produced 

By The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) 

(EPA 510-E-94-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment 

Technology Resource Guide (EPA 542-B-94-007). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Solid Oxygen Source for 

Bioremediation Subsurface Soils (revised) (EPA 

600-J-94-495, PB95-155149). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction: Engineering 

Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-503, PB94-190477). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Solvent Extraction Treatment 

System, Terra-Kleen Response Group, Inc. (EPA 

540-MR-94-521). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Status Reports on In Situ Treatment 

Technology Demonstration and Applications:. 

Altering Chemical Conditions (EPA 542-K-94-008) 

Cosolvents (EPA 542-K-94-006) 

Electrokinetics (EPA 542-K-94-007) 

Hydraulic and Pneumatic Fracturing (EPA 

542-K-94-005) 

Surfactant Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-003) 

Thermal Enhancements (EPA 542-K-94-009) 

Treatment Walls (EPA 542-K-94-004) 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Subsurface Volatization and 

Ventilation System (SVVS): Innovative Technology 

Report (EPA 540-R-94-529, PB96-116488); Site 

Technology Capsule (EPA 540-R-94-529a, 

PB95-256111). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Superfund Innovative Technology 

Evaluation (SITE) Program: Technology Profiles, 

Seventh Edition (EPA 540-R-94-526, PB95-183919). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption System, 

Maxymillian Technologies, Inc.: Site Technology 

Capsule (EPA 540-R94-507a, PB95-122800). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Treatment: 

Engineering Bull etin (EPA 540-S-94-501, 

PB94-160603). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Desorption Unit, Eco Logic 

International, Inc.: Application Analysis Report (EPA 

540-AR-94-504). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. Thermal Enhancements: Innovative 

Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 542-K-94-009). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. The Use of Cationic Surfactants to 

Modify Aquifer Materials to Reduce the Mobility of 

Hydrophobic Organic Compounds (EPA 

600-S-94-002, PB95-111951). 

U.S. EPA. 1994. West Coast Remediation 

Marketplace: Business Opportunities for Innovative 

Technologies (Summary Proceedings) (EPA 

542-R-94-008, PB95-143319). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Accutech Pneumatic Fracturing 

Extraction and Hot Gas Injection, Phase I: Technology 

Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-93-509, 

PB93-216596). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Augmented In Situ Subsurface 

Bioremediation Proce ss, Bio-Rem, Inc.: 

Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-527). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Biogenesis Soil Washing 

Technology: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 

540-MR-93-510). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation Resource Guide and 

Matrix (EPA 542-B-93-004, PB94-112307). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Bioremediation: Using the Land 

Treatment Concept (EPA 600-R-93-164, 

PB94-107927). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Fungal Treatment Technology: 

Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-93-514). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Gas-Phase Chemical Reduction 

Process, Eco Logic International Inc. (EPA 

540-R-93-522, PB95-100251, EPA 540-MR-93-522). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. HRUBOUT, Hrubetz Environmental 

Services: Demonstration Bulletin ( EPA 

540-MR-93-524). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Hydraulic Fracturing of 

Contaminated Soil, U.S. EPA: Innovative Technology 

Evaluation Report (EPA 540-R-93-505, 

PB94-100161); Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 

540-MR-93-505). 

77

U.S. EPA. 1993. HYPERVENTILATE: A software 

Guidance System Created for Vapor Extraction 

Systems for Apple Macintosh and IBM 

PC-Compatible Computers (UST #107) (EPA 

510-F-93-001); User's Manual (Macintosh disk 

included) (UST #102) (EPA 500-CB-92-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of 

Contaminated Ground Water (EPA 540-S-92-003, 

PB92-224336). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of 

Contaminated Unsaturated Subsurface Soils 

(EPA-S-93-501, PB93-234565). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Bioremediation of Ground 

Water and Geological Material: A Review of 

Technologies (EPA 600-SR-93-124, PB93-215564). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. In Situ Treatments of Contaminated 

Groundwater: An Inventory of Research and Field 

Demonstrations and Strategies for Improving 

Groundwater Remediation Technologies (EPA 

500-K-93-001, PB93-193720). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Laboratory Story on the Use of Hot 

Water to Recover Light Oily Wastes from Sands (EPA 

600-R-93-021, PB93-167906). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Low Temperature Thermal Aeration 

(LTTA) System, Smith Environmental Technologies 

Corp.: Applications Analysis Report (EPA 

540-AR-93-504); Site Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 

540-MR-93-504). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Mission Statement: Federal 

Remediation Technologies Roundtable (EPA 

542-F-93-006). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Mobile Volume Reduction Unit, U.S. 

EPA: Applications Analysis Report (EPA 

540-AR-93-508, PB94-130275). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Overview of UST Remediation 

Options (EPA 510-F-93-029). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Soil Recycling Treatment, Toronto 

Harbour Commissioners (EPA 540-AR-93-517, 

PB94-124674). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations 

of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies, Third 

Edition (EPA 542-B-93-009, PB94-144565). 

U.S. EPA. 1993. XTRAX Model 200 Thermal 

Desorption System, OHM Remediation Services 

Corp.: Site Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 

540-MR-93-502). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Aostra Soil-tech Anaerobic Thermal 

Process, Soiltech ATP Systems: Demonstration 

Bulletin (EPA 540-MR-92-008). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Basic Extractive Sludge Treatment 

(B.E.S.T.) So lvent Ex tract ion System, 

Ionics/Resources Conservation Co.: Applications 

Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-92-079, 

PB94-105434); Demonstration Summary (EPA 

540-SR-92-079). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Case Studies: An 

Analysis of Vendor Supplied Data (EPA 

600-R-92-043, PB92-232339). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Bioremediation Field Initiative (EPA 

540-F-92-012). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Carver Greenfield Process, 

Dehydrotech Corporation: Applications Analysis 

Report (EPA 540-AR-92-002, PB93-101152); 

Demonstration Summary (EPA 540-SR-92-002). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Chemical Enhancements to 

Pump-and-Treat Remediation (EPA 540-S-92-001, 

PB92-180074). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Cyclone Furnace Vitrification 

Technology, Babcock and Wilcox: Applications 

Analysis Repo rt ( EPA 54 0-AR-92-017, 

PB93-122315). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Evaluation of Soil Venting 

Application (EPA 540-S-92-004, PB92-235605). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Excavation Techniques and Foam 

Suppression Methods, McColl Superfund Site, U.S. 

EPA: Applications Analysis Report (EPA 

540-AR-92-015, PB93-100121). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. In Situ Biodegradation Treatment: 

Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-S-94-502, 

PB94-190469). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Low Temperature Thermal 

Treatment System, Roy F. Weston, Inc.: Applications 

Analysis Report (EPA 540-AR-92-019, 

PB94-124047). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Proceedings of the Symposium on 

Soil Venting (EPA 600-R-92-174, PB93-122323). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Soil/Sediment Washing System, 

Bergman USA: Demonstration Bulletin (EPA 

540-MR-92-075). 

78

U.S. EPA. 1992. TCE Removal From Contaminated 

Soil and Groundwater (EPA 540-S-92-002, 

PB92-224104). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Technology Alternatives for the 

Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soil and Sediment 

(EPA 540-S-93-506). 

U.S. EPA. 1992. Workshop on Removal, Recovery, 

Treatment, and Disposal of Arsenic and Mercury 

(EPA 600-R-92-105, PB92-216944). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Biological Remediation of 

Contaminated Sediments, With Special Emphasis on 

the Great Lakes: Report of a Workshop (EPA 

600-9-91-001). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Debris Washing System, RREL. 

Technology Evaluation Report (EPA 540-5-91-006, 

PB91-231456). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Guide to Discharging CERCLA 

Aqueous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

(9330.2-13FS). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction: 

Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-2-91-006, 

PB91-228072). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Steam Extraction: 

Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-2-91-005, 

PB91-228064). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. In Situ Vapor Extraction and Steam 

Vacuum Stripping, AWD Technologies (EPA 

540-A5-91-002, PB92-218379). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of 

Slurry-Pha s e Biological Reactor fo r 

Creosote-Contaminated Soil (EPA 540-A5-91-009, 

PB94-124039). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Slurry Biodegradation, International 

Technology Corporation (EPA 540-MR-91-009). 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Understanding Bioremediation: A 

Guidebook for Citizens (EPA 540-2-91-002, 

PB93-205870). 

U.S. EPA. 1990. Anaerobic Biotransformation of 

Contaminants in the Subsurface (EPA 600-M-90-024, 

PB91-240549). 

U.S. EPA. 1990. Chemical Dehalogenation Treatment, 

APEG Treatment: Engineering Bulletin (EPA 

540-2-90-015, PB91-228031). 

U.S. EPA. 1990. Enhanced Bioremediation Utilizing 

Hydrogen Peroxide as a Supplemental Source of 

Oxygen: A Laboratory and Field Study (EPA 

600-2-90-006, PB90-183435). 

U.S. EPA. 1990. Guide to Selecting Superfund 

Remedial Actions (9355.0-27FS). 

U.S. EPA. 1990. Slurry Biodegradation: Engineering 

Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-016, PB91-228049). 

U.S. EPA. 1990. Soil Washing Treatment: 

Engineering Bulletin (EPA 540-2-90-017, 

PB91-228056). 

U.S. EPA. 1989. Facilitated Transport (EPA 

540-4-89-003, PB91-133256). 

U.S. EPA. 1989. Guide on Remedial Actions for 

Contaminated Ground Water (9283.1-02FS). 

U.S. EPA. 1987. Compendium of Costs of Remedial 

Technologies at Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA 

600-2-87-087). 

U.S. EPA. 1987. Data Quality Objectives for 

Remedial Response Activities: Development Process 

(9355.0-07B). 

U.S. EPA. 1986. Costs of Remedial Actions at 

U n controlled Hazardous Waste Si t e s 

(EPA/640/2-86/037). 

U.S. EPA. N.D. Alternative Treatment Technology 

Information Center (ATTIC) (The ATTIC data base 

can be accessed by modem at (703) 908-2138). 

U.S. EPA. N.D. Clean Up Information (CLU-IN) 

Bulletin Board System. (CLU-IN can be accessed by 

modem at (301) 589-8366 or by the Internet at 

http://clu-in.com). 

U.S. EPA. N.D. Initiatives to Promote Innovative 

Technology in Waste Management Programs 

(OSWER Directive 9308.0-25). 

U.S. EPA and University of Pittsburgh. N.D. Ground 

Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center. 

Internet address: http://www.gwrtac.org 

Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment 

Technologies (VISITT), Version 4.0 (VISITT can be 

down loaded from the I nternet a t 

http://www.prcemi.com/visitt or from the CLU-IN 

Web site at http://clu-in.com). 

79