United States Office of Emergency and 

Environmental Protection Remedial Response OSWER 9230.0-93 

Washington, DC 20460 

EPA 540-K-01-002 

Agency March 2001 

Reusing Superfund 

Sites: 

Recreational Use of Land Above 

Hazardous Waste Containment 

Areas 
Notice 

This report is intended solely for informational purposes. It is not intended, nor can it be relied upon, to 

create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United 

States. The Agency reserves the right to act at variance with the information provided in this report 

without public notice. 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Table of Contents 

Preface ...................................................................... ii

Section 1. Introduction ......................................................... 1

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

Organization of Report ..................................................... 2

For More Information ..................................................... 3

Section 2. Background ......................................................... 4

Cover Systems and Associated Remedial Activities ................................ 4

Recreational Activities Compatible With Containment Systems ....................... 8

Integrating Reuse Plans into Remedies ........................................ 13

Section 3. Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse ................... 16

Settlement and Subsidence ................................................. 17

Managing Gases ......................................................... 20

Surface Vegetation ....................................................... 22

Storm Water Management ................................................. 26

Ensuring Cover System Integrity ............................................. 27

Other Design Considerations ............................................... 29

Section 4. Operation and Maintenance ........................................... 34

Section 5. Case Studies ....................................................... 36

Timber Butte Youth Park, Butte Montana (Silver Bow Creek Superfund Site) ........... 36

Chisman Creek Superfund Site, Seaford, Virginia ................................ 38

Ohio River Park Superfund Site, Neville Island, Pennsylvania ....................... 40

Bibliography ................................................................ 42

Appendix A. Size and Configuration of Sports Fields .............................. A-1

Appendix B. Information Sources for Recreational Reuse .......................... B-1

Appendix C. Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts ................ C-1

Table of Contents Page i 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Preface 

As of February 2001, more than 190 cleaned up Superfund sites have been returned to productive use. 

Many of these sites have been developed into recreational facilities, such as sports fields, hiking trails, 

parks, playgrounds, and picnic areas. There are many other Superfund sites that may potentially be 

used for similar purposes after they are cleaned up. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

through programs such as the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative, promotes the productive reuse of 

Superfund sites. EPA’s overriding objective for any Superfund site is to ensure it is safe and that public 

or private use does not compromise or adversely affect the performance of the remedy. Because land 

use is a local decision, EPA does not favor one type of reuse over another. 

This report provides technical information on how sites with waste containment areas have been safely 

reused for recreational purposes while ensuring that the integrity and protectiveness of the remedy are 

maintained. This information may be helpful when considering recreational reuse options during EPA’s 

process of selecting and designing a cleanup plan for a Superfund site. The information presented in 

this report draws on the experiences and lessons learned from previous recreational redevelopment 

projects on Superfund and other contaminated sites. This report is intended for informational purposes 

only and should not be considered as Agency policy or guidance. 

This report is one of a series being developed under the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative to inform 

stakeholders at hazardous waste sites about how EPA considers reuse options in the remedy selection 

and design process. Other reports in this series provide technical information on the reuse of Superfund 

waste containment areas for golf courses, commercial and industrial facilities, and ecological resources. 

Preface Page ii 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Section 1. 

Introduction 

Across the country, EPA is working with communities to safely return Superfund sites to productive 

use. Former landfills, abandoned hazardous waste dumps, and other contaminated properties are being 

transformed into such assets as office parks, retail and industrial centers, residential neighborhoods, 

wildlife areas, and recreational facilities. Of the more than 190 Superfund sites in use as of February 

2001, approximately 50 are being used for recreational purposes, such as sports fields, hiking trails, 

parks, playgrounds, and picnic areas. EPA's experience suggests that sites where the cleanup involves 

containing the wastes on site are often well suited for recreational uses. The on-site containment of 

wastes often requires vegetated cover systems that, with minor modifications, are highly compatible 

with a wide variety of recreational uses. 

It is the responsibility of communities to decide how they plan to reuse these formerly contaminated 

sites. It is EPA’s responsibility to work with communities to identify the anticipated future land use for 

sites to ensure that the cleanup of contaminated properties protects human health and the environment. 

For sites where the cleanup has already occurred, EPA must ensure that any subsequent reuse of the 

site does not adversely affect the protectiveness of the remedy. Careful planning and community 

involvement in the remedy selection process, appropriate design and construction practices, and proper 

operation and maintenance of the cleanup all work together to ensure the performance and 

protectiveness of the remedy and successful reuse. 

Purpose 

This report is intended for site managers, communities, property owners and developers, and others 

with an interest in reusing Superfund sites for recreational purposes. A separate report has been 

developed to specifically address the reuse of sites as golf courses. The purpose of this report is to 

provide detailed information on the technical aspects of safely integrating the design of recreational 

facilities into Superfund cleanups where some or all of the hazardous wastes will be, or have been, 

contained on site. This report is not intended to address enforcement, cost recovery, or other nonengineering issues associated with the cleanup of Superfund sites. 

The material presented in this report draws on EPA's experiences and lessons learned from previous 

recreational redevelopment projects on contaminated sites. This information should not be considered 

Agency policy or guidance. Those considering the recreational reuse of hazardous waste sites may find 

the information helpful in understanding how cleanup plans can be modified to safely reuse a Superfund 

Section One: Introduction Page 1 
C

Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

site while maintaining the integrity of the cover system. Detailed and comprehensive information on the 

design of recreational facilities, however, is beyond the scope of this report. 

Organization of Report 

The remainder of the report provides information on hazardous waste containment systems and the 

technical issues that need to be addressed when those systems will support recreational activities. It is 

organized into the following sections: 

C Section 2 provides background information on cover systems and other common 

remedial activities at containment sites, the various types of recreational activities that 

can occur on a containment site, and considerations when integrating reuse plans into 

the cleanup process. 

C Section 3 identifies remedial design considerations that may need to be addressed to 

support recreational reuse, including: 

– Post-construction waste settlement and subsidence and methods that have been 

used to minimize these problems; 

– Methods for managing gases that form under containment systems; 

– Characteristics and selection of different types of surface vegetation to support 

recreational reuse; 

– Approaches for managing storm water drainage that accommodate both the 

functional needs of the containment system and the future recreational needs; 

– Methods for controlling and avoiding the accidental intrusion of the cover; and 

– Considerations for integrating recreation-related buildings, utilities, and paved 

surfaces into the cleanup design. 

• Section 4 provides information on operation and maintenance activities that may be 

needed to support the integrity of the containment system and the recreational activities. 

C Section 5 highlights several sites where EPA addressed the design issues associated 

with the reuse of the site for recreational purposes. 

C Appendices provide additional information to assist those interested in the recreational 

reuse of sites, including: 

– Size and configuration specifications for numerous types of sports fields; 

– Additional sources of information on design and construction of recreational 

facilities; and 

Section One: Introduction Page 2 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

– EPA contacts at Superfund sites that are being reused for recreational 

purposes. 

For More Information 

EPA prepared this report as part of its Superfund Redevelopment Initiative. The Superfund 

Redevelopment Initiative reflects EPA’s commitment to consider reasonably anticipated future land 

uses when making remedy decisions at Superfund hazardous waste sites. The safe and productive 

reuse of Superfund sites can provide significant benefits to the local communities, including: 

C New employment opportunities, increased property values, and catalysts for additional 

redevelopment activities; 

C New recreational areas in communities where the availability of land for such activities 

may be limited; 

C Enhanced day-to-day attention to the site, which can result in improved maintenance of 

the remedy and continued protection of human health and the environment; and 

C Improved aesthetic quality of the site through the creation of maintained recreational 

facilities as well as discouragement of illegal waste disposal and similar unwanted 

activities. 

For more information on the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative, including current developments, pilot 

programs, tools and resources, and site-specific information and case studies, please visit the Superfund 

Redevelopment Initiative web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/ 

or contact: 

John Harris 

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 5204G

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460

703-603-9075

harris.john@epa.gov

Section One: Introduction Page 3 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Section 2. 

Background 

This section provides information on the types of cover systems that EPA commonly uses to contain 

wastes on site, as well as several remedial activities that are often undertaken in conjunction with, or to 

augment, a cover system remedy. In addition, the different types of recreational uses that are 

compatible with waste containment systems are discussed. The section concludes with EPA’s process 

and timing for considering the anticipated future use of sites in the remedy selection process and 

limitations on funding activities that enhance the remedy. 

Cover Systems and Associated Remedial Activities 

There are numerous remedial technologies that can be used to clean up a Superfund site. The remedy 

that is appropriate for a given site depends on waste or contaminant characteristics, ability to 

implement, effectiveness, cost, and other factors. At many Superfund sites, the remedial action leaves 

waste or contaminants on-site in engineered containment systems. In many cases, these containment 

systems can support recreational activities following their construction if certain engineering controls and 

safety precautions are taken. Several remedial technologies are often utilized at the same site. For 

example, remediation of a site may require a cover system, a ground water collection and treatment 

system, and a diversion wall. 

Cover Systems 

At most Superfund containment sites, the principle objectives of the cover system are to: (1) protect the 

public from coming into contact with hazardous waste; (2) prevent the release of hazardous waste to 

the environment; and (3) minimize surface water infiltration into the waste. General design requirements 

are based on federal or state criteria (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle 

C or Subtitle D closure requirements).1 Cover systems typically utilize one or more of the following 

types of barriers: 

C Hydraulic barriers use a low-permeability physical barrier to impede the downward 

migration of water. These multi-layered caps typically incorporate geomembranes, 

geosynthetic clay liners, compacted clay liners, or a combination of these as the 

hydraulic barrier or barriers. However, asphalt and other materials can also be used as 

a barrier. Currently multi-layered hydraulic barrier caps are the most common type of 

cover systems and are typically thought of when reference is made to a “RCRA Subtitle 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers (under development). 

Section Two: Background Page 4 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

C or Subtitle D” cover. 

• Capillary barriers essentially exploit the suction potential differences between fine and 

coarse grained soils to limit the downward movement of water. A simple configuration 

of this type of cover system consists of a fine-grained soil (clay) located over a coarser 

grained soil (sand). Under unsaturated conditions the fine-grained clay holds water, 

preventing its movement to the lower coarse-grained sand. As the fine-grained layer 

approaches saturation it begins to release water to the lower coarser layer. Because of 

this, capillary barrier systems are intended for use in arid to semi-arid climates where 

unsaturated conditions prevail. 

C Evapotranspiration barriers also are used predominantly in arid and semi-arid 

environments. This type of cover generally consists of a thick layer of relatively finegrained soils which is capable of supporting vegetation. The soil layer inhibits 

downward water movement and serves as a storage reservoir that holds water until its 

future removal by evapotranspiration processes. 

C Direct contact barriers provide a physical barrier against contaminants that are a 

contact and ingestion hazard. These covers are typically one to three feet deep, but can 

be deeper, and act as a contact barrier as well as provide some protection against 

erosion and shallow digging. Soil covers are often economical because they typically 

consist of soils or general fill covered with a few inches of topsoil to support vegetation. 

These types of covers are commonly used with metal or asbestos contamination, 

because these contaminants are less likely to migrate and contaminate the local 

environment. 

C Surface soil covers provide a physical barrier against contaminants that are contact 

and ingestion hazards. These types of covers are often less than one foot deep and are 

constructed over contaminated soils that have been stabilized and are unlikely to 

migrate and contaminate the nearby environment. Because these covers are more 

susceptible to exposure from erosion or shallow digging, they are often vegetated and 

constructed in areas that are restricted or in areas that are monitored and well 

maintained. 

C Liners are barriers, typically constructed in landfills, that prevent the migration of 

contaminants to the environment. The barrier prevents waste, leachate, and gases 

produced by the landfill from contaminating adjacent soil and groundwater. Liners 

often consist of clay or a geomembrane depending on local geology and environmental 

requirements. 

Depending on site-specific requirements, cover systems can be composed of multiple layers of natural 

and synthetic materials for gas control, internal drainage, vegetative support, or other purposes. In 

Section Two: Background Page 5 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

some cases, individual layers serve dual purposes. When completing the construction of a cover 

system, the remedial project manager (RPM) may consider additional sampling to ensure that the cap is 

protective of future recreational reuse and that cross-media 

contamination of cover or fill material has not occurred. A number of EPA guidance documents address 

cover system function and design, including: 

• Design and Construction of Covers for Solid Waste Landfills,1979 (EPA 

600/2-79/165); 

• Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste, 1980 (EPA 

530/SW-867c); 

• Standardized Procedures for Planting Vegetation on Completed Sanitary 

Landfills, 1983 (EPA 600/2-83/055); 

• Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, 1985 (EPA 

540/2-85/002); 

• Engineering Guidance for the Design, Construction, and Maintenance of 

Cover Systems for Hazardous Waste, 1987 (EPA 600/2-87/039); 

• Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste 

Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 1989 (EPA 530/SW-89/047); 

• Seminar Publication: Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final 

Covers, 1991 (EPA 625/4-91/025); 

• Presumptive Remedies: CERCLA Landfill Caps RI/FS Data Collection 

Guide, 1995 (EPA 540/F-95/009); and 

• Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers (expected 2001).2 

Associated Remedial Technologies 

There are several remedial technologies utilized at a site in conjunction with, or to augment, a cover 

system remedy. Because Superfund sites frequently have groundwater contamination, most of these 

technologies are for groundwater remediation. The following are some of the more common types of 

technologies associated with containment systems: 

C Groundwater pump-and-treat systems typically consist of a number of extraction 

wells or french drains that collect contaminated groundwater for subsequent aboveground treatment. There are a number of variations of a typical groundwater pumpand-treat system that enhance performance or target multiple media (e.g., soil and 

groundwater). Dual phase extraction (DPE) is one such technique. DPE is a 

technology that uses pumps to remove various combinations of contaminated 

2 These documents are available from the Government Printing Office. Several of these documents are available online 

using EPA’s online search engine at www.epa.gov/epahome/search.html. 

Section Two: Background Page 6 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

groundwater, separate-phase petroleum product, and hydrocarbon vapor from the 

subsurface. Whatever the remedial technology and media, all collection and treatment 

systems require piping, utilities, and on-site or off-site treatment systems in addition to 

the wells or drains. The need for and location of such facilities must be considered 

when developing reuse plans. 

C Diversion walls are below-grade structures designed to divert uncontaminated 

groundwater flow away from contaminated material or to channel contaminated 

groundwater. Since these are below-ground features, they typically will not interfere 

with recreational site reuse. However, their presence needs to be taken into 

consideration so that they are not damaged by reuse activities. 

C Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are both containment and treatment systems 

for contaminated groundwater. In such a system, reactive material is placed in a 

location to intercept contaminated groundwater. As the groundwater flows through the 

media, contaminants are “trapped” by the reactive material and treated water flows out 

the other side of the barrier. Since the reactive material may need to be replaced 

periodically, PRBs are placed in accessible locations. This may impact development 

options or the location of PRBs at reuse sites. 

C Landfill gas collection systems are used to control the movement and prevent the 

buildup of harmful gases within a landfill. Two common types of collection systems 

used are passive and active. A passive gas collection system includes a series of vents 

that extend vertically through the cover, and as gas pressure builds within the landfill, 

that gas is forced outward through the vents. An active collection system uses a pump 

to create a negative pressure within the landfill to collect and move gases either 

vertically or horizontally to a discharge or treatment point. Collection systems can also 

be designed to recover the energy from gases and use it to power other applications. 

C Leachate collection systems control the movement and prevent the buildup of 

leachate within a landfill. Leachate is produced when water percolates through solid 

wastes that are undergoing decomposition and both biological and chemical constituents 

leach into the water. The collection systems typically consist of soils with high hydraulic 

conductivity values (e.g., sand) and perforated pipes located between the waste and the 

bottom liner. Highly permeable soils will typically be graded with a 1 to 5 percent slope 

to help channel the leachate into trenches that contain the perforated pipes. Once the 

leachate is in the perforated pipe, either a downward slope or a pump is used to extract 

the liquid from the landfill. 

C Solidification and stabilization involve modifying the physical or chemical properties 

of the waste to improve its engineering properties or leaching characteristics, or to 

Section Two: Background Page 7 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

decrease its toxicity. Solidification encapsulates contaminants into a solid material of 

high structural integrity. Stabilization converts waste contaminants into a less soluble, 

mobile, or toxic form. Some types of waste require solidification or stabilization prior 

to being placed into a landfill or covered by an engineered cover system. 

Section Two: Background Page 8 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Recreational Activities Compatible With Containment Systems 

There is a wide variety of recreational activities that are compatible with waste containment systems. In 

many cases, a site that will be redeveloped for recreational purposes will support more than one type of 

recreational activity. For example, a site developed as a general use park may also accommodate 

sports fields, playgrounds, trails, or other recreational features. In other cases, recreation may be 

secondary to a primary use, such as a commercial development. 

The following sections provide information on the types of recreational activities that can be supported 

at sites where waste is contained on site and identify a few of the more critical remedy design 

considerations for each activity. (EPA is preparing a report that specifically addresses technical 

considerations for integrating golf courses with waste containment remedies.) Whatever the type of 

recreational use a community prefers for a site, there are remedial design issues that are common to 

many containment systems that may be used, such as settlement, managing gases, and storm water 

drainage. Some types of waste containment areas may raise more design issues than others; for 

example, municipal landfills are more likely to have issues with settlement and managing the buildup of 

methane and other gases than non-landfill sites. Section 3 provides more detailed information on the 

engineering considerations when designing a remedy where a waste containment area will be used for 

recreational purposes. 

Athletic Fields and Courts 

Many sites with containment areas have been used to support a variety of athletic fields and courts, 

such as softball, baseball, soccer, football, volleyball and basketball. The choice of a remedy at a site 

that will support athletic fields will take into account a variety of design issues to ensure that the integrity 

of the remedy is maintained. For example, it is important when designing the cover system to take 

measures to ensure a proper slope and avoid subsidence, manage drainage and storm water runoff, and 

select an appropriate type of vegetative cover. These design issues are also affected by the specific 

types of activities anticipated for the site. For example, the remedial design will need to address issues 

of cap intrusion if reuse plans include such structures as concession stands, bleachers, and goal posts. 

Likewise, field drainage, turf, and irrigation requirements for sports fields that will support an intensive 

and competitive level of play may be much different from those fields that will not. The configuration of 

the site, remedy components, and other site features can also affect the size, layout, and orientation of 

sports fields. Appendix A provides information on standard field and court sizes, orientation, and other 

information, and Appendix B provides additional sources of information for designing 

and building sports fields. 

Section Two: Background Page 9 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

A sports complex, including six baseball and soccer fields, were built over waste containment areas at the Lapari Landfill Superfund 

site in Mantua Township, New Jersey. 

Playgrounds and Picnic Areas 

Playgrounds can take many shapes and sizes and can range from a single swing set to an elaborate play

area with slides, climbing structures, sand

boxes, and other equipment. Many general

use parks also have shelters, grills, benches,

and other picnic type areas. As such,

almost any Superfund site can

accommodate some form of playground or

picnic area. When planning a playground

or picnic area, the proximity of landfill gas

management vents (where gas buildup is a

concern) to these public use areas may be

one of the most important considerations. 

Other design issues include the foundation

requirements for structures and their impact

on cover system components and the

potential for increased surface water In Bangor, Maine, the city expanded a park and built a playground on a 

portion of the Bangor Gas Works site. infiltration from playgrounds that are 

surfaced with sand, gravel, shredded wood, 

or rubber chips. 

Section Two: Background Page 10 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Appendix B provides additional sources of information for designing and building parks, playgrounds, 

and picnic areas. 

Trails 

Trails can be incorporated into almost any redevelopment plan. There are several categories of trails, 

including those designed for fitness, hiking, biking, and equestrian uses. The material used to surface 

the trails will be dependent on the types of activities anticipated. In addition, for trails that may be 

vulnerable to erosion, a high visibility warning layer may be used to alert maintenance crews that the trail 

has degraded to a point that repairs are required. 

Hikers walk along a trail that showcases artifacts from former smelting operations in Anaconda, Montana. The trail was built on 

Anaconda Smelter Superfund site and surrounds a golf course designed by Jack Nicklaus. 

Section Two: Background Page 11 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Other Recreational Activities 

There are a variety of other activities that can be supported at general use parks and similar recreational 

areas. A few of these activities are briefly described below. This list is not intended to be exhaustive; 

EPA recognizes that there are many more activities that can be supported at containment sites. 

Communities can determine what activities are most appropriate for their needs. 

C Sledding. Some containment areas, such as former landfills, have steep side slopes 

that could be used for toboggan or sled runs. Just about any slope can be used for this 

type of activity as long as there are limited obstructions. Obstacles such as gas vents 

may need to be isolated or protected to prevent injury to the user and to minimize 

damage to these features. Side slope drainage features such as channels, swells, and 

terraces, if utilized, may also limit sledding activities. In Evanston, Illinois, a suburb of 

Chicago, the city’s parks department converted several landfills into parks. One of the 

converted landfills supports sledding and tobogganing on its slopes. The Dupage 

County Landfill Superfund site, also in Illinois, supports an inner tube run on its cover 

system’s slopes during the winter. 

C Golf Driving Range. Driving ranges can be constructed on a wide variety of sites 

with differing configurations and slope. A typical driving range with 35 tees is about 

240 yards wide and 300 yards long and requires approximately 12.5 acres. However, 

the size can be reduced with fewer tees or with the use of netting to contain errant golf 

balls. Common remedial design considerations include managing cap penetration for 

The foundation for the golf tees is constructed for the driving range that was built on top of the 

Kane & Lombard Street Superfund site in Baltimore, Maryland. 

Section Two: Background Page 12 
C

Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

structures built on the containment area (e.g., the 

offices, concessions, covered tee area) and locating gas vents away from the tee area 

or placing barriers around gas vents to protect them from activities on the site, such as 

motorized ball collection vehicles. Appendix B provides sources of information on 

driving range and golf course design and construction. At the Kane and Lombard 

Street Drums Superfund site in downtown Baltimore, Maryland, developers built a 

family-oriented golf driving range on top of a waste containment area. 

C Archery. The typical open field archery range is on level ground and covers 

approximately five acres for 25 shooting stations. An archery range can easily be 

constructed without intruding on the containment system. Locating gas vents at the site 

may be an important design consideration if gas management is a component of the 

remedy. 

C Ice Skating. Ice skating can be considered wherever water is available and safe ice 

conditions can be expected with reasonable regularity. Ice skating rinks generally 

require ice to be at least four inches thick to be safe for skaters. Facilities that support 

ice skating include both indoor and outdoor ice skating rinks and each presents different 

types of issues for containment systems. 

For indoor skating rinks, the remedial design 

issues are comparable to the placement of 

any building or structure on a containment 

system (e.g., settlement, foundations that 

penetrate the cap, or incorporating utility 

corridors). For outdoor ice rinks, the 

placement of ponds on top of containment 

systems presents special remedial design 

considerations to ensure the integrity of the 

cover system. For example, if the ice rink is 

seasonal, special care may be necessary to 

ensure that melting ice does not introduce 

water into the cover system. In addition, 

settlement of the containment system may 

affect the ice surface and place additional 

maintenance requirements on the site. At At the Ohio River Park Superfund site in Neville 

the Ohio River Park Superfund Site in Island, Pennsylvania, a skating rink and other 

sports facilities were built over a former Neville island, Pennsylvania, a sports municipal and industrial waste landfill. 

complex was built over a former municipal 

and industrial waste landfill. The facility includes an indoor skating rink. 

Section Two: Background Page 13 
C

Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

C Other Field Games. Cover systems that provide relatively large open spaces can support a 

wide range of field sports or games, such as ultimate frisbee, frisbee golf, cricket, and rugby, to 

name a few. As with all reuse activities, cover system features will need to be designed to 

accommodate the reuse while ensuring that it remains protective and that the recreational 

activities do not affect the integrity of the cover system. 

Integrating Reuse Plans into Remedies 

Consideration of Future Land Use 

Identifying the reasonably anticipated future use of land is an important consideration in the Superfund 

cleanup process and is the first step for integrating reuse plans into a cleanup. The anticipated future 

land use helps EPA determine the appropriate extent of remediation because it affects the types and 

frequency of exposures that may occur to any residual contamination on the site. The process for 

identifying the reasonably anticipated future use of land begins during the Remedial 

Investigation/Feasability Study (RI/FS) stage of the Superfund cleanup. At this time, EPA conducts a 

reuse assessment, which typically identifies broad categories of potential reuse such as recreational or 

commercial. This assessment initiates the reuse planning process and lays the groundwork for 

integrating reuse into the cleanup plan. 

As part of the reuse assessment process, EPA holds discussions with local land use planning authorities, 

appropriate local officials, and the public to understand the reasonably anticipated future uses of the 

land on which the Superfund site is located. In addition to local preferences for land use, EPA 

considers the views of other site stakeholders, such as the state and the PRP landowner. Based on 

these discussions, EPA develops remedial action objectives and identifies remedial alternatives that are 

consistent with the anticipated future land use. 

If there is substantial agreement on the future use of the site, EPA may be able to select a remedy that 

supports that use and take certain measures to accommodate that future land use when designing the 

remedy. However, EPA must balance this preference for future land use with other technical and legal 

considerations provided in the Superfund law and its implementing regulations.3 Specifically, EPA 

balances the requirements to treat principal threats, to use engineering controls such as containment for 

low level threats, to use institutional controls to supplement engineering controls, and to consider the use 

of innovative technologies. In addition, EPA must comply with other laws when they are “applicable or 

relevant and appropriate.” 

3 See section 300.430(a)(1)(iii) of the National Contingency Plan at 40 CFR Part 300. 

Section Two: Background Page 14 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

EPA will select a remedy for a site based on the reasonably anticipated future use of land, the 

consideration of the technical and legal requirements, and the views of the community, the state, and the 

PRP landowner. Two general land use situations could result from EPA’s remedy selection decision: 

• The remedy achieves cleanup levels that allow the entire site, or a portion of the site, to be 

available for the reasonably anticipated future land use – in these cases, EPA will work within 

its legal authorities to support the community’s preferences for reuse; or 

• The remedy achieves cleanup levels that require a more restricted land use than the reasonably 

anticipated future land use – in these situations, the site will not support the community’s 

preferences for reuse and possible alternatives, if any, need to be discussed. 

For detailed information on how EPA considers land use in the remedy selection process, see EPA’s 

“Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process,” EPA OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04 

(available online at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/ascii/land_use.txt). 

Timing 

The future use of a Superfund site can affect all aspects of EPA’s cleanup process from the RI/FS, 

through remedy selection, to remedy design and implementation. Consequently, communities are able 

to initiate reuse planning early in EPA’s cleanup process to allow for an evaluation of the appropriate 

types of remediation and redevelopment options. The longer the community delays its reuse planning, 

the greater the possibility that some reuse scenarios will be eliminated due to remedy decisions that 

have already been made. 

As discussed in the previous section, EPA conducts reuse assessments early in the RI/FS stage of the 

cleanup. However, the generalized use categories from a reuse assessment may not provide sufficient 

detail to guide the design or implementation of the remedy. To provide specific and detailed proposals 

for how a property may be used after cleanup, communities often develop more specific reuse plans 

after the RI/FS and prior to or as part of remedial design. 

Many cleaned up Superfund sites currently do not support any type of reuse activity. However, EPA 

expects that a number of these sites may eventually be returned to productive use. Where waste is left 

on-site at levels that would require limited use and restricted exposure, EPA will conduct reviews at 

least every five years to monitor the site for any changes. Should land use change, it will be necessary 

to evaluate the implications of that change for the selected remedy, and whether the remedy remains 

protective. 

In many cases, a remedy as designed and constructed may not be able to accommodate the planned 

use without modification. In some instances, the preferred reuse may not be feasible due to technical, 

Section Two: Background Page 15 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

legal, or other factors. If landowners or others decide at a future date to change the land use in a way

that makes further cleanup necessary to ensure protectiveness, EPA does not 

prevent them from conducting such a cleanup so long as protectiveness of the remedy is not

compromised. Retrofitting an existing remedy to support reuse, or an alternative type of reuse at the

site, requires careful planning, design, coordination with, and approval by, EPA and other 

regulatory agencies. As discussed below, EPA cannot fund, nor can it require PRPs or others to fund,

activities that are considered enhancements to the remedy. 

Enhancements 

In general terms, features or modifications that accommodate redevelopment at a Superfund site and 

increase the cost of the remedy but are not required for its implementation are considered “betterments” 

or enhancements. Enhancements can include roads and parking lots, utility infrastructure, or athletic 

field lighting if they are required solely to support the planned future use. Construction of enhancements 

are beyond EPA’s legal authority and, therefore, cannot be financed using EPA funds nor can EPA 

require a PRP to pay for the enhancements. Although they cannot be funded by EPA, enhancements 

can be included in the remedial action if they are consistent, and do not conflict, with the selected 

remedy and if the cost is covered by another party, such as the local government, a developer, the 

landowner, or a PRP. 

In some cases, features of the remedy are modified for the proposed future use of the site, but their 

implementation does not increase the cost of the remedial action. As such, the feature is not 

considered an enhancement and may be eligible for EPA funding as part of a remedial action at a Fundfinanced site. For example, substituting a turf grass for a native grass as the vegetation component of a 

cover system at an equal cost may not be considered an enhancement. Similarly, alterations to site 

grading to accommodate reuse may not be considered an enhancement so long as the cost for the 

modified grading does not exceed what the grading cost would have been absent reuse. Determining 

whether an activity constitutes an enhancement is performed on a site-specific basis. 

Section Two: Background Page 16 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Section 3.

Remedial Design Considerations for

Recreational Reuse

A containment remedy, such as a cover system, can consist of multiple features and components that 

each have their own design constraints and criteria. These may be based on federal, state, and local 

regulatory requirements, national and local building codes, and site-specific considerations. For 

example, regulations may dictate the type and minimum thicknesses of materials used in a cover system. 

Site-specific considerations, such as depth of burial and external loading, may dictate the wall thickness 

of underground piping. Working within these design constraints and criteria, containment remedies 

often can accommodate the reuse of the site for recreational or other purposes. 

When designing a containment remedy that will be reused for recreational purposes, several engineering 

and other technical considerations need to be addressed. Two issues that may have a profound effect 

at redevelopment sites are settlement and the management of gases that may form underneath the cover 

system. If not properly accounted for in the remedial design, these two issues can have a detrimental 

impact on the reuse activity. For instance, differential settlement (i.e., where the cap settles more in 

some places than in others) can result in an uneven surface area and make athletic fields unusable, and 

waste off-gases can pose health and safety concerns to site users. These considerations may be 

applicable at some sites and not at others; for example, at former landfill sites, issues such as gas 

collection, grading of slopes, and subsidence are more likely to arise than at non-landfill containment 

areas. Other design considerations include surface vegetation, storm water management, managing the 

penetration of the cap, avoiding accidental intrusion, and the on-site construction of paved surfaces, 

buildings, and utilities. Some of these considerations may be considered enhancements and may not be 

authorized or funded under CERCLA or the NCP. At non-reuse sites, these technical considerations 

may not be as critical because there is limited or no public access to the facility and no activity to 

support. 

This section provides information on the design considerations that are addressed when preparing a 

waste containment area for recreational reuse. The information provided below is based on EPA’s 

experience at Superfund and other waste sites and is not intended to serve as policy or guidance. As 

appropriate, EPA may conduct any necessary sampling to ensure that the site is able to safely support 

recreational reuse upon completion of the remedy. 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 16 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Settlement and Subsidence 

Cover system settlement is an issue that may 

need to be addressed during the design of 

remedies that will support recreational reuse, 

particularly at former landfill sites that may 

experience significant subsidence and 

differential settlements. Site-wide settlement 

can result in slopes that are too shallow or 

steep for proper function of the cover system 

and may inhibit recreational use of the facility. 

Localized differential settlement can cause 

depressions, holes, and cracks in playing 

surfaces and accompanying support areas 

(e.g., parking lots). It can also cause breaks 

in irrigation and process piping, disruption of 

gas collection systems and other system 

components, misalignment of fences and light 

Exhibit 3-1

EPA Guidance on Settlement and Cover

System Subsidence

• Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste 

Sites, 1985 (EPA 540/2-85/002) 

• Prediction/Mitigation of Subsidence 

Damage to Hazardous Waste Landfill 

Covers, 1987 (EPA 600/2-87/025) 

• Seminar Publication: Design and 

Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final 

Covers, 1991 (EPA 625/4-91/025) 

• Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA 

Final Covers (planned 2001). 

posts, and damage to structures, which can render fields or supporting facilities unsafe for use and 

require costly repairs. However, if properly accounted for during reuse planning, design, construction, 

and operation and maintenance (O&M), cover system subsidence does not preclude the use of a site 

for recreational purposes. Exhibit 3-1 identifies the principal EPA guidance documents that address 

settlement and subsidence at hazardous waste landfills. 

Cover system settlement is due to the consolidation of underlying materials by several processes. 

These processes include the compression of materials under their own weight and the weight of any 

overlying materials or loads, chemical and biological degradation, raveling, and other mechanisms. The 

magnitude, distribution, and rate of settlement are governed by a number of factors including material 

age, type, density and thickness, loadings, and moisture conditions. In general, cover systems placed 

on older abandoned dumps, industrial waste sites, ash fill sites, and landfills experience greater total 

settlements than those constructed on newer landfills of similar size and waste type. This is primarily 

due to changes in disposal practices. Current practices generally result in a well-compacted waste 

mass free of highly compressible materials, drums, or other voids. Most Superfund landfill sites were 

created using older disposal practices and there is the potential for significant general subsidence and 

differential settlement of cover systems constructed on such sites. 

An estimate of the rate, magnitude, and areal distribution of site settlement is usually performed to 

facilitate remedy design and reuse planning. An evaluation of the potential for localized differential 

settlement from mechanisms such as the collapse of buried drums can also be performed. Accurately 

estimating the magnitude and rate of waste consolidation and the corresponding settlement of cover 

systems or other structures can be difficult, particularly at sites where there is a large degree of 

subsurface heterogeneity, or where little is known about waste type and distribution. In some cases, it 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 17 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

may be desirable to monitor the waste through the use of settlement gauges or survey monuments prior 

to and during design in order to improve the accuracy of settlement estimates. However, this approach 

usually requires an extended period of time before sufficient data is available on which to base an 

analysis. Consequently, if this type of monitoring is warranted, initiating it early in the Superfund 

process, such as during the remedial investigation stage, may be appropriate. Field and laboratory load 

tests may also be performed for similar purposes. The cost, time requirements, and usefulness of the 

collected data are considered when evaluating the need for such testing. 

When considering reuse alternatives for a waste containment area, a community’s reuse planners often 

factor settlement issues into their plans. In some cases, cover system subsidence may be adequately 

addressed through routine maintenance and design modifications or other constraints may not be 

necessary. One possible approach at sites that are expected to experience substantial settlement is to 

phase the development of the recreational areas.4 With this approach, areas with acceptable levels of 

subsidence are initially developed, while development in other areas are delayed until excessive 

subsidence is no longer a concern. For example, a cover system that will experience significant 

settlement may be left undeveloped in the short-term, while the areas surrounding the cap are used as a 

park. The long-term reuse plans may provide for the development of soccer fields on the cover system 

after settlement is no longer a concern. In another case, a site may be better suited for a low-intensity 

use, such as a golf driving range, rather than a sports field, until a point in the future when further cover 

system subsidence is within an acceptable range. 

It may also be possible to reduce future consolidation of the waste and corresponding settlements to 

acceptable levels during the construction phase of the project through a variety of techniques. These 

techniques include cover system reinforcement, soil/waste improvement (e.g., densification), and grade 

modifications. For example, cover system reinforcement was used at a municipal waste landfill in 

Elmhurst, Illinois, where the landfill cover was retrofitted with geogrid reinforcement because settlement 

was creating depressions in ball fields developed on the cover. The geogrids bridge voids or 

depressions that might develop below the athletic fields.5 At the McColl Superfund site in Fullerton, 

California, geogrids were also incorporated into the cover system to minimize the formation of localized 

depressions that would otherwise limit the site’s use as a golf course.6 

4 M. Golden, “Pros and Cons of Developing Recreational Facilities on Closed Landfills.” International Conference on 

Marinas, Parks, and Recreation Developments, (1993): 257-260; and R.E. Mackey, “Three End-Uses for Closed Landfills and 

Their Impact on the Geosynthetic Design.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 14 (1996): 409-424. 

5 S. Paukstis, “Landfill Transformed into Recreation Area.” American City & County June 1993: 30. 

6 P. Collins, “Superfund Success, Superfast.” Civil Engineering December 1998. 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 18 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

At the McColl Superfund site in Fullerton, California, a geogrid-reinforced cap was used to prevent depressions resulting from 

settlement. This former refinery waste dumping ground is now being used to extend an existing golf course. 

Pre-loading, one method of densifying soil or waste with a temporary surcharge (e.g., soil 

embankment), was successfully used at a municipal waste landfill in Massachusetts to prepare the site 

for use as a park facility.7 Dynamic compaction, another densification method which involves 

compressing the waste by dropping a heavy weight from a crane, was used in conjunction with preloading and pilings at the Raymark Industries Superfund site in Fairfield County, Connecticut, to 

prepare it for reuse as retail development. Dynamic compaction may not be possible at certain sites 

with unknown wastes due to worker safety concerns.8 These types of waste consolidation techniques 

help ensure the continued protectiveness of the cover system in addition to facilitating the reuse of the 

site. 

Grade modification is another design method that is commonly used to accommodate settlement. In 

order to meet minimum regulatory post settlement grades, which is typically three to five percent, cover 

systems are commonly constructed at steeper angles than required with the expectation that the slopes 

7 J. Kissida et al., “Landfill Park: From Eyesore to Asset.” Civil Engineering (August 1991): 49-51. 

8 T. Naber, “Today’s Landfill is Tomorrow’s Playground.” Waste Age (September 1987), 46-58; and R.M. Koerner 

and D.E. Daniel, Final Covers for Solid Waste Landfills and Abandoned Dumps (Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil 

Engineers, 1997). 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 19 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

will flatten over time as the underlying waste 

consolidates. At recreational facilities a 

slight modification to this procedure may be 

appropriate. The surface of the cover 

system could be constructed to make the 

relatively flat slopes conducive to the reuse 

activity, while the underlying layers (e.g., 

drainage layer) are built at a steeper slope to 

accommodate settlement and satisfy 

regulatory requirements. As the cover 

system settles, additional fill can be placed 

on the surface to maintain the desired slope 

without impacting the performance of 

underlying layers. 

A soccer field built on a portion of the Fairfax County Municipal 

Landfill in Virginia illustrates the need to address settlement, which can 

cause depressions in the cap that can lead to drainage problems and poor 

Managing Gases field conditions. 

Containment sites, depending on their composition and other factors, have the potential to generate 

significant quantities of gas. If not properly controlled, gases can damage cover system components, 

stress vegetation, create potential explosive conditions, and pose other health and safety concerns. Gas 

control is important at many containment sites, particularly former landfills, and added emphasis and 

caution are important when these sites are used for recreational purposes due to the close proximity to, 

and heavy use by, the public. At some waste containment sites, gas management is not an issue and, 

therefore, does not affect the reuse of the site. 

The quantity, rate, and type of gas that a landfill or other containment site will generate depends on the 

composition, age, and volume of the waste, moisture conditions, and other factors. Municipal waste 

landfill off-gases generally consist of approximately 50 percent methane, 40 percent carbon monoxide, 

and 10 percent other compounds including nitrogen and sulfur.9 Off-gases from municipal and other 

types of landfills or containment sites may also contain volatile organic compounds such as benzene, 

toluene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, or other chemicals. Where appropriate, these gases are 

collected using either an active or passive strategy. An active collection system utilizes induced negative 

pressure (vacuum) to move gases to the discharge or treatment point, whereas passive systems rely on 

natural pressure gradients. 

The need for, and the appropriate type and configuration of, a collection system (e.g., collection layers, 

wells, vents) depends on a number of factors including gas generation rates, gas composition, waste 

9 U.S. EPA, Seminar Publication: Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers, 1991 (EPA 

625/4-91/025). 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 20 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

thickness, depth to groundwater, and cover system components. The type of reuse also may be a 

factor in determining the appropriate type of system. Where collection systems are necessary, the 

design takes into account issues such as odor management, ignition sources, vent locations, treatment 

system location, discharge limitations, and the proximity of features to the public, all of which have 

added importance at sites used for recreational purposes. 

A typical passive gas collection system includes a series of vents that extend through the cover system 

and discharge gases to the atmosphere. Similarly, an active system generally has a number of extraction 

wells that extend through the cover and connect to subsurface collection piping that transports the gas 

to a treatment facility or discharge point. When designing the gas collection system, particular attention 

is given to the type and concentration of gases that will be vented and the possible health and safety 

impacts to site users. Special consideration is given to the locations of vents, collection wells, piping, 

discharge points, and treatment systems and their proximity to site users. These types of features can 

be placed in areas that will not interfere with recreational activities and supporting facilities, and 

minimize distractions to recreational users and spectators from equipment noise, odors, or other factors 

(e.g., flares). In addition, the need for security measures beyond those normally required could be 

assessed to address the visibility and accessibility of these features to the public, and the increased 

potential for trespassing and vandalism. For instance, in addition to other security measures, facilities 

may be screened with vegetation to decrease their visibility and limit access. 

Closed structures that support recreational areas, such as concession stands or maintenance facilities, 

pose additional gas control concerns. Due to their susceptibility to gas accumulation, these types of 

structures may require collection or monitoring systems that are independent of any other such systems 

at the site. Methods used to minimize gas intrusion into closed structures include constructing floor 

slabs with convex shaped bottoms, placing impermeable geomembranes below or within floors of 

structures, connecting services (sewer, gas, and electric) outside of the structure so they do not 

penetrate the floor slab and create avenues for gas infiltration, and installing vented crawl spaces.10 

There are several sites where gas control systems were designed to accommodate reuse. At the Clark 

Tailings Operable Unit of the Silver Bow Creek Superfund Site, passive gas vents for a closed 

municipal landfill area are being located away from the tee boxes at this future golf driving range. 

Designers of the driving range also intend to disguise the gas vents as distance markers for golfers. At 

the Army Creek Landfill, an ecological reuse site, shrubbery was used to conceal gas vents and to 

provide a food source for animals. Horizontally installed gas collection systems have also been used to 

support reuse. At the Delaware Sand and Gravel site, a horizontal passive gas collection system was 

used to avoid vent protrusions into an overlying equipment storage area. The horizontal collection pipes 

discharge in an unused and unobstructed five acre area of the property.11 A similar horizontal 

10 J.R. Emberton, and A. Parker, “The Problems Associated with Building on Landfill Sites.” Waste Management & 

Research, 5 (1987): 473-482. 

11 U.S. EPA, Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites, 1999 (EPA/540-F-99-015). 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 21 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

collection system was used for an agricultural area established over a nine-acre municipal landfill site to 

minimize obstructions to tilling. The gas is passively discharged into perimeter ditches that are also used 

for drainage purposes to prevent stress on crops.12 

Surface Vegetation 

The vegetation used on cover systems serves several purposes, including limiting erosion of the 

underlying soil and promoting evapotranspiration of water. The appropriate or allowable vegetation for 

a given site depends on a number of factors, including the site’s geographical location, the type of cover 

system that is selected, the planned future use, and any special accommodations that are made, such as 

irrigation. Although the type of vegetation that is used may change, the basic functions of the vegetative 

layer will remain the same. In arid or semi-arid areas of the country where a vegetative layer may not 

be used, recreational reuse with supporting systems may make vegetation a viable alternative to 

armored or other surface treatments. Exhibit 3-2 delineates climate regions in the United States. 

Historically, the preferred vegetation on cover systems has been a mixture of native grasses. Grasses 

are typically used because they have relatively shallow root systems, they minimize erosion, are well 

adapted to the local environment, and are capable of thriving with limited or no support (e.g., irrigation 

and fertilization). Trees, shrubs, and other deep rooted vegetation typically have not been used 

because of the potential for damage to critical cover system components from root intrusion, the 

possibility that roots could extend directly into waste, and other maintenance issues. Historically, 

landscaping features such as ponds have not been constructed on cover systems because of the 

potential for harmful impact on the performance of the remedy. However, if properly accounted for in 

planning and design, a Superfund site can support a wide variety of vegetation and landscaping features 

that protect the integrity of the remedy and improve a site’s aesthetic qualities, and satisfy recreational 

needs. 

Sports Fields 

For cover systems designed to support sports fields, turf grass may be a better choice than native 

grasses. Turf grasses, such as Kentucky Blue Grass and Bermuda Grass, have been specially 

developed and selected to resist damage from foot traffic and grow quickly. Typically, a mixture of 

different turf grasses with varying levels of resistance to drought, temperature, disease, and other 

environmental factors are used for recreational fields. At the Chisman Creek Superfund site in York 

County, Virginia, softball fields were constructed on the cover over contaminated fly ash material. A 

combination of Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue was used for the vegetative cover. This grass 

combination gave the fields durability during seasonal play and times of 

12 W.J. Spreull, and S. Cullum, “Landfill Gas Venting for Agricultural Restoration.” Waste Management & Research, 5 

(1986): 1-12. 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 22 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas 

13 J. Puhalla, Sports Field Design and Construction (Michigan: Ann Arbor Press,1999); and Prince William County,

Design Standards (1996).

14 Soccer Industry Council of America, Soccer Planning System: A Guide for Community Soccer Center Management

(1998).

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 23

Exhibit 3-2: Climate Regions of the United States

drought. 

establish itself than other varieties of turf grass. Exhibit 3-3 provides information on four commonly

used turf grasses.

The surface layer of containment systems typically consists of topsoils that can accommodate a variety

of recreational reuse activities. 

used on a recreational field must be able to resist compaction from sports and other activities. 

suitable topsoil for recreational fields consists of a well-screened (i.e., free of stones and other debris)

sandy loam of uniform composition that contains a minimum of one percent organic matter and has a

pH of 6.5 to 7.13 Fields that are overly sandy need extensive irrigation and fertilizing, while soils with a

high clay content drain poorly and compact easily, making it difficult to grow grass. 

effect of compaction, many professional fields are constructed with a topsoil layer consisting of 80 to 85

percent sand.14

Sod was applied to expedite the availability of the fields, as tall fescue takes a longer time to

The surface layer of topsoil that supports turf grass or other vegetation

A

To reduce the
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 24
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Exhibit 3-3: Characteristics of Common Turf Grasses 

Turf Grass 

Species 

Strength as Sports Turf Limitation as Sports Turf Comments 

Bermudagrass Robust vegetative growth, 

excellent wear resistance, 

good surface resiliency. 

Limited to warm climatic 

regions of U.S., vegetative 

propagation only of 

improved types, slow 

establishment from seeded 

types. 

Good for all sports fields, but 

cannot withstand heavy 

traffic during periods of 

dormancy (in cold weather). 

Kentucky 

bluegrass 

Robust vegetative growth, 

moderate wear resistance, 

good surface resiliency. 

Limited to cool climatic 

regions of the U.S., slow 

establishment from seed. 

Good for baseball, football, 

soccer fields. 

Most fields planted with 

mixture of Kentucky 

bluegrass and Perennial 

ryegrass. 

Tall fescue Excellent wear resistance, 

robust primary and vegetative 

growth, good surface 

resiliency, adapted to 

transition zone of the U.S. 

Limited to transition or 

warmer regions of the 

U.S., poor sod knitting. 

Takes a long time to 

establish and has a 

tendency to become 

uneven and clumpy. 

Good for baseball, football, 

soccer fields. Suggested for 

areas with a low annual 

rainfall. 

Perennial 

ryegrass 

Excellent wear resistance, 

robust primary and vegetative 

growth, prolific tillering, rapid 

seedling growth. 

Limited to cool regions of 

the U.S., very poor sod 

knitting. 

Good for baseball, football, 

soccer fields. Most fields 

planted with mixture of 

Kentucky bluegrass and 

Perennial ryegrass. 

Adapted from J. Puhalla, Sports Field Design and Construction (1999). 

As with any vegetative cover, it is important to select a grass species that will thrive in a particular 

region, thereby preventing erosion, protecting the cover, and supporting the intended post use. 

Technical assistance on selecting turf grass is available through the National Turfgrass Evaluation 

Program (go to http://www.ntep.org), which maintains a national database on success rate of seed 

mixes used throughout the country. Additional regional information can be obtained from the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (go to http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ NRCSorg.html). NRCS 

offices also profile information on native grass species and may be helpful in choosing a final turf grass 

mixture. Local nurseries and local parks departments can also provide useful information on turf grass 

selection. 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 25 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Landscaping 

In addition to the cover system, the 

overall landscaping scheme for the 

site will be considered during initial 

planning. For example, the cover 

system portion of the site may be 

vegetated with turf grass to 

accommodate athletic fields while 

the surrounding areas are planted 

with a variety of native grasses, 

trees, and shrubs for aesthetic 

purposes. Specially designed 

planting zones, islands, or terraces 

may be located within the limits of 

the cover system to support 

alternative vegetation. These areas 

may require thicker layers of 

supporting soils, biota barriers, 

enhanced drainage features, or other 

modifications to ensure that the 

At the McColl Superfund site in Fullerton, California, designers included 

landscaped areas as part of a golf course built over a cover system. Designers 

omitted a layer of cobbles for covers over landscaped areas to minimize 

settlement caused by the weight of the cap, using institutional controls instead. 

integrity of the cover system is maintained and that function is not compromised. At the Clark Tailings 

Operable Unit of the Silver Bow Creek Superfund site, for example, soil berms were used to allow the 

planting of both coniferous and deciduous trees. Aboveground planters or similar structures may also 

be used to accommodate trees, shrubs, flowers, and other types of vegetation to some extent. 

Although some waste containment sites are able to support water-holding features such as lakes and 

ponds, such features are closely evaluated for their potential to increase the amount of water that 

infiltrates to the waste mass. Ponds and wetlands are commonly constructed outside of the limits of 

cover systems for aesthetic and storm water management purposes. 

An important aspect to consider when developing landscaping plans is the level of short and long-term 

maintenance that will be required. As previously noted, one reason native grasses are used on most 

cover systems is that the maintenance requirements are relatively minimal. Additional maintenance 

efforts may be necessary at reuse sites depending on the vegetation and landscaping features. For 

example, additional and recurring costs can be incurred for fertilization, irrigation, pruning, trimming, and 

plant replacement. The cost for this type of maintenance will ultimately be borne by the local 

community or other parties responsible for maintaining the site depending on how site-specific 

agreements are fashioned. 

Additional information on vegetation and ecological reuse of Superfund sites is provided in EPA’s 

report Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Ecological Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste 

Containment Areas (planned for 2001). 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 26 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Storm Water Management 

The manner in which storm water is managed will affect the design of a cover system and will strongly

influence the performance of the cap, particularly with respect to erosion and stability. Methods for

managing storm water on cover systems typically involve grading the cap to establish an effective slope,

or constructing drainage channels and swales. At sites that support redevelopment, storm water

management may be more complex. For example, a containment site that supports multiple athletic

fields may require cover system slopes that are shallower or configured much differently than would

typically be the case. 

EPA guidance on cover systems indicates that

the final top or upper layer of a cover system,

after allowance for settlement, should have a

slope of between three and five percent to

maintain effective drainage.15 However, a

slope of three percent or more is usually not

conducive to recreational use. Generally,

developers of recreational fields prefer a

surface grade of one to two percent for athletic

fields in order to minimize field slope and still

maintain positive drainage. Exhibit 3-4 lists

standard slopes for several types of sports

fields.16 To accommodate the recreational

needs while maintaining the integrity of the cap, the surface of a cover system may be minimally sloped

to support recreational activity while internal drainage or other layers are more steeply sloped to satisfy

regulatory criteria and functional needs. Flat areas on the cover system are often avoided because of

the potential for ponding of water which can negatively impact the function of the remedy. For example,

surface water infiltration into the cover can increase and the field and cover system are susceptible to

damage if played on in wet conditions. 

Typically, developers of sports fields on Superfund sites have worked with EPA to design the slope of

a cap in a way that minimizes the elevation differences along the direction of play. For example, if a

football field were uniformly sloped at 1.5% from end to end, one goal line would be about 4.5 feet

higher than the other. In a situation such as this, developers would prefer to orient the field and

direction of play perpendicular to the slope. In the case of the football field, the change in elevation

from sideline to sideline for a 1.5% slope would be about 2.25 feet. The field could be crowned along

the centerline of play with uniform slopes extending 10 to 15 feet beyond the playing field boundary. 

Exhibit 3-4: Standard Slopes of 

Recreational Fields 

Sport Slope 

Baseball/Softball 0.5 to 1.0% 

Basketball 1.0 to 1.5% 

Football/Soccer 

(Natural Turf) 

1.5 to 2% 

Tennis 0.5 to 1.0% 

15 U.S. EPA, Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 

1989 (EPA 530/SW-89/047). 

16 Carpenter (1976). 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 27 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Smaller fields or courts could be placed on built up areas on the cover system to prevent surface run-on 

and accommodate flatter slopes. However, general cover system grading needs or costs may preclude 

this alternative for larger fields or multiple field complexes. 

Reuse features can also significantly alter surface water runoff characteristics. For example, an asphalt 

parking lot can generate a larger quantity of runoff in a shorter period of time than a similar sized and 

configured vegetated surface. In contrast, it is possible that a relatively porous surface, such as a 

crushed rock parking lot, will result in decreased runoff and increased surface water infiltration into the 

cover system. Features such as these and their corresponding effects may require modification to the 

cover systems design. Additional drainage channels, swales, or storm sewers may be needed to 

efficiently collect and remove water from fields, parking lots, and other reuse areas where they 

otherwise would not be needed. In other cases, the location of drainage channels or other drainage 

features may be limited due to interference from reuse facilities or vice versa. 

At the Chisman Creek Superfund Site in Virginia, a surface water collection system was developed 

using a concrete lined swale that collected storm water runoff and channeled it off the cap and into a 

neighboring creek. To accommodate athletic fields, the cover system and accompanying drainage 

swales in some areas were sloped as little as one percent. The swales were lined with concrete 

because grass-lined drainage swales could not efficiently remove storm water with the minimal channel 

grade. 

Ensuring Cover System Integrity 

With the recreational reuse of a waste containment area, special care is often necessary to ensure the 

integrity of the cover system to avoid possible accidental contact with people using the site. Maintaining 

the integrity of the cover system involves: (1) controlling whether and how recreational facilities on the 

surface penetrate the cover system; and (2) taking steps to prevent accidental intrusion into the cover 

system. 

Controlling Cover System Penetration 

Recreational sites generally have lighting, fences, signs, backstops, scoreboards, or similar features 

depending on the type of use. Foundations and supporting poles or structures for these features could 

penetrate the cover system and possibly extend into waste if standard construction techniques are used. 

For example, fence, backstop, and small scoreboard poles typically extend three to five-feet into the 

ground, which exceeds, or is comparable to, the thickness of many cover systems.17 Light poles and 

other large structures can extend much deeper into the ground and could penetrate most cover systems. 

Because penetrations can provide a conduit for gas and water movement, their use must be carefully 

17 Prince William County (1996); and Pioneer Manufacturing Co. (Cleveland, Ohio), 1999. 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 28 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

considered and proper steps must be taken to ensure the integrity of the cover system (e.g., using 

properly engineered seals or controls utilized to prevent the migration of gas or water). 

One approach to avoid penetrating the cover is to increase the thickness of cover system layers so that 

shallow foundation systems are located above critical components of the cap. Footings located at 

shallower depths may be an option for fences and other relatively small features. The use of “sleeves” 

may also be considered to minimize disruptions to critical cover system components during removal and 

replacement of poles and other support structures. For example, a football field may have goal posts 

that are replaced periodically. Instead of creating new cover penetrations or causing other damage 

from replacement activities, the old pole could be slipped out of the sleeve and a new one installed. If 

structures are in contact with waste, their resistance to damage from contaminants is usually evaluated. 

Avoiding Accidental Intrusion 

Unauthorized digging or intrusive repairs or improvements may occur periodically at reuse sites. The 

use of warning or barrier layers, therefore, are often considered to minimize damage to critical cover 

system components and encroachment into waste. Visible barriers, such as colored geotextiles or other 

synthetic layers, can be placed in the upper portion of the cover system to serve as a warning to 

workers that additional digging can result in damage to underlying layers and exposure of waste or 

contaminants. A visible layer can also be used under high activity or non-vegetated areas such as paths 

or infields to identify regions where soil has eroded to a point where repair is necessary.18 

A more robust barrier, commonly referred to as a biota-barrier, may be necessary to prevent digging 

activity by animals, the public, and unauthorized construction activities. Depending on the situation and 

anticipated intruder (e.g., children or animal) an appropriate barrier layer might range from a geogrid or 

other geosynthetic to gravel or cobbles. The barrier will be most effective if it is separated from the 

critical components of the cap or is thick enough to withstand a limited degree of intrusion. For 

example, at the Cohen Property Superfund site in Taunton, Massachusetts, a salt storage area was 

constructed over lead contaminated soils. High visibility orange fencing was placed over the 

contamination to mark the beginning of contaminated soil and to serve as a warning against 

encroachment. A hazardous waste landfill in Colorado will use recycled crushed concrete from an 

abandoned airport runway as a biota-barrier to prevent possible intrusion from badgers and other 

burrowing animals. 

In addition to barriers, registering the site with the county or state “one call system” typically used to 

locate subsurface utilities prior to construction is an alternative method to ensure that no one 

inadvertently excavates waste containment areas. Markers could be placed on the site reminding 

workers to use the “one call” system before taking actions that may degrade the containment system or 

expose them to the contained waste. 

18 Mackey (1996) 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 29 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Other Design Considerations 

Most recreational uses are accompanied by support facilities, such as buildings, utilities, and paved 

surfaces, such as parking lots. The construction of support facilities on a waste containment area must 

be considered during the design and construction of the remedy. The following sections provide 

information on the remedial design issues to be considered when the recreational use of the site includes 

support facilities. 

Buildings 

Most recreational areas have buildings and supporting utilities that are used for concession stands, 

restrooms, maintenance facilities, or other purposes. For the most part, these are small and lightly 

loaded structures. However, most closed landfills do not have buildings located over waste because of 

design issues that include accommodating settlement, off-gas management, and foundation 

incompatibility with cover system components. If a building must be located on the cover system to 

support the planned reuse, temporary or moveable structures such as small sheds or trailers used in 

place of permanent structures have proven to be effective. 

Differential settlement can cause significant structural damage to buildings, rendering them unusable and 

unsafe. Placement of permanent buildings over unstable areas is generally avoided unless subsurface 

conditions are improved, or foundation and structural systems are designed to accommodate large 

movements. Deep foundations (e.g., piles) or oversized and heavily reinforced shallow foundations 

may be necessary, even for lightly loaded structures, because of settlement or other foundation 

concerns. Although these types of foundations may limit total and differential settlement of the structure 

to acceptable levels, their impact on other aspects of the project needs to be considered. For example, 

a structure supported on piles and constructed on a landfill may experience less settlement than the 

surrounding ground. Over time, the structure can become partially or fully elevated above the ground 

surface which is unsightly, can result in damage to supporting utilities and access features, and require 

periodic maintenance. 

Foundations, even shallow foundations, typically extend to a depth that is greater than the thickness of 

conventional cover systems. This is particularly true in cold climates where foundations are typically 

required to be located below the frost zone. Foundation systems that penetrate cover system 

components, particularly barrier layers, can provide preferential flow paths for the downward 

movement of liquids or the upward movement of gases, either of which can adversely affect the 

performance and safety of the remedy or structure. As a general rule, penetrations of the cover system 

are avoided to the extent possible. If they are necessary, appropriate measures are taken to seal the 

penetration to prevent liquid and gas movement. Seals also need to be able to tolerate the effects of 

differential settlement to prevent tearing and rupture. Where a shallow foundation will suffice, the 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 30 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

thickness of the cover soils could be increased to avoid penetrating barrier layers or other critical 

components of the cover system. 

The potential accumulation of toxic or explosive gases inside structures can also make them dangerous 

and unusable. Because the public will use, or have access to, many of the structures at recreational 

reuse sites, an extra degree of caution is appropriate and redundant gas-management features may be 

necessary. This may entail gas collection and monitoring systems that are independent of other such 

systems at the site. For example, a building on a site with a site-wide landfill gas collection system may 

have a dedicated monitoring system for the structure. In addition, the building could be designed to 

minimize the accumulation of gases in the structure. Automatic air monitoring systems and alarms are 

often considered for any structure that is located in gas producing areas. 

Utilities 

Most recreational areas will require some level of utility service to support field lighting, bathrooms,

concession stands, and other reuse features. Typical underground utilities include sanitary sewers,

potable water, and natural gas systems. Telecommunication (e.g., phone and cable) and electrical lines

can be either buried or located above ground. However, even above ground utilities require poles or

other supporting mechanisms that extend some depth into the ground. Any such buried structure can

potentially conflict with critical cover system components and impact the effectiveness of a remedy. 

For example, leakage from a sanitary

sewer located above a cover system’s

barrier layer might be captured by the

cap’s internal drainage system and

cause excessive bio-fouling of the

drainage media. A leaking potable

water line located within waste below

a cover system’s barrier layer could

result in an increase in the quantity of

leachate that is being generated. 

Repairing or upgrading the water line

would also require disruption of the

cap and expose waste. As these

examples illustrate, utilities must be

designed and located with the same

considerations as other features of the

remedy. Workers install lights for sports fields during construction of the cover system 

at the Chisman Creek Superfund site in Yorktown, Virginia, a former fly ash 

Sewers, water lines, and gas disposal area. 

distribution systems generally are 

located in areas where large settlements are anticipated. Differential movement can result in broken or 

cracked piping and an uncontrolled release of the media that are being carried. When used in areas 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 31 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

that will experience differential settlement, piping is often designed to accommodate some movement by 

using ductile materials, flexible connections, and similar features. For pressurized water and gas 

systems, automatic monitoring devices and shut-offs are considered to prevent large uncontrolled 

releases. Gravity sewers and other non-pressurized systems could also be designed for easy 

monitoring. For example, double-walled piping equipped with an interstitial leak detection system 

could be used. Another example of a possible monitoring system consists of wrapping a utility trench’s 

pervious backfill with a geomembrane and sloping the trench to direct flow to monitoring sumps. The 

sumps could be periodically checked for liquids. Any monitoring system will have advantages and 

disadvantages related to cost, implementability, function, performance and maintenance. The need for 

and type of monitoring required will be decided on a site-specific basis. 

The use of clean utility corridors and building pads have proven to be effective in minimizing the 

potential for workers to encounter waste or contaminants during repairs of, or modifications to, 

underground utilities, process piping, or other features. In this approach, utilities and similar 

underground features have been placed in oversized trenches and backfilled with uncontaminated or 

“clean” soils. The additional width and depth of the clean trenches limits the possibility that waste will 

be encountered or critical cover system components damaged during future excavations. Clean 

building pads could be constructed for the same purposes. These methods were utilized for utility 

trenches installed at the Chisman Creek Site in Virginia and the Cohen property site in Massachusetts. 

To accommodate future development and minimize future exposure to waste or contaminants, clean 

utility corridors and building pads could also be installed during initial construction. Detection tape, 

surface monuments, and other methods of marking the alignment or limits of trenches and building pads 

could be considered to facilitate locating these features in the future. 

Paved Surfaces 

Almost all reuse sites will include paved 

surfaces that will be used as parking lots, 

sidewalks, roads, trails, support areas, and 

other purposes. In some cases, the pavement 

may be an integral part of the remedy. For 

example, at the Rhone-Poulenc, Inc./Zoecon 

Corporation Superfund site in East Palo Alto, 

California, paved surfaces are the sole 

hydraulic barrier to prevent water from 

Example of Use of 

Paved Surface as a Cover System

At the Rhone-Poulenc, Inc./Zoecon Corporation Superfund 

site in East Palo Alto, California, paved surfaces have been 

used as the sole hydraulic barrier to prevent water from 

percolating into waste. Engineers designed a cap that 

utilized three layers of asphaltic concrete placed over soil 

that had been deep-mixed with Portland cement and silicates. 

The top layer consisted of a conventional dense-graded 

asphalt which is similar to that used for heavy-duty 

highways and industrial pavements. The middle layer 

consisted of asphalt with a high percentage of air voids that 

acted as a drainage layer and the bottom layer consisted of 

hydraulic asphalt (asphalt with a higher tar content to reduce 

air voids) to prevent percolation of liquids into the waste. 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 32 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

percolating into waste.19 A paved surface can also be 

designed to function as both a cover system’s barrier 

layer and a parking lot. For example, the containment 

portion of the site may be used for parking while the 

rest of the site is developed into recreational areas. In 

most cases, however, paved surfaces are used solely to 

support the reuse activity and are not integral features of 

the remedy. The materials used to construct pavement, 

and the location of the pavement relative to the cover 

system, need to be carefully considered during planning 

and design due to the potential for damage from 

subsidence and differential settlement. Other factors to 

A parking lot for the sports fields at the Chisman Creek 

site in Yorktown, Virginia, was built over a portion of 

the cover system. 

consider when selecting a pavement include cost, loading, durability, and long-term maintenance. 

Pavement is susceptible to varying degrees of damage from a number of mechanisms depending on the 

materials used. At containment sites, perhaps the most significant mechanism for damage is related to 

differential settlement. The three principal surfacing materials — asphalt, concrete, and crushed rock 

— will accommodate differing levels of settlement. 

Asphalt has proven to be an effective surface pavement for final covers, particularly when a limited 

amount of subsidence and differential settlement is anticipated.20 The flexibility of asphalt allows the 

material to deform to some extent which minimizes cracking and other types of damage. In addition, 

depression or sunken areas can be returned to grade by placement of additional material, and damaged 

areas can be replaced relatively quickly and easily. However, asphalt surfaces can become nonfunctional due to excessive cracking, depressions, and other types of damage resulting from poor 

foundation conditions or excessive settlement. Asphalt pavements also require maintenance, such as 

new top coatings, on a regular basis. 

Concrete has a limited ability to accommodate subsidence and differential settlement and is generally 

not used as a pavement on cover systems. Concrete will experience significant damage (e.g., cracks 

and displacements) when foundation support is poor. The appearance of cracks will facilitate 

additional damage from mechanisms such as freeze-thaw. Unlike asphalt or crushed rock, repair or 

replacement of concrete pavements can be expensive and time consuming. Although not recommended 

for use on cover systems where settlement is anticipated, concrete pavements may be effectively used 

on other portions of a site. 

19 Roger Smith, “Asphalt Pavement Doubles as Hazardous Soils Cap and Loading Area.” Asphalt, 9 (Winter 

1995/1996). 

20 M. Keech, “Design of Civil Infrastructure Over Landfills.” In Landfill Closures, American Society of Civil Engineers 

(1995). 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 33 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Crushed rock or gravel surfacing is superior to either asphalt or concrete in terms of its ability to handle 

differential settlement. Because crushed rock is not rigid like concrete, it can withstand significant 

deterioration before its function as a pavement is impaired from potholes, depressions, or other 

deformations. Any areas that do experience damage can be quickly and easily repaired by the 

placement of additional rock. Crushed rock surfacing is commonly used for access roads and support 

areas at Superfund sites and for roads and parking lots at recreational areas. It is used in these kinds of 

applications because of the relatively light loads that will be supported, limited traffic volume, material 

durability, and low cost. 

Section Three: Remedial Design Considerations for Recreational Reuse Page 34 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Section 4. 

Operation and Maintenance

Following the completion of construction activities, and any sampling that may be performed to ensure 

the cleanup achieves its remedial objectives and is protective of any future use, a waste containment site 

enters into the operation and maintenance (O&M) phase. O&M encompasses a wide range of 

activities, including caring for cover system vegetation, operating landfill gas or groundwater collection 

and treatments systems, sampling and monitoring various media (e.g., air, water, soil), performing 

annual and special inspections, and making necessary repairs or upgrades to remedy features. All 

containment remedies require some form of O&M on a continuing and regular basis due to normal 

operations or wear and tear. At recreational reuse sites, O&M is especially important due to the 

increased use of the site and the potential for damage to the remedy from that use. Properly 

implemented O&M is necessary to ensure that the remedy functions properly and protects human 

health and the environment. 

An O&M plan is developed and implemented at every Superfund site. RPMs may consider holding 

additional meetings with the state and those responsible for carrying out or paying for O&M activities 

when developing the O&M plan for a waste containment site that will be reused. Typically, the plan is 

comprehensive and includes a discussion of the roles and responsibilities of the various parties involved. 

In addition to specifying typical O&M requirements, such as the frequency of maintenance activities, 

sampling, and inspections, the plan may address limitations or special considerations related to the reuse 

activity. For example, to prevent damage to a containment site’s cover system at a recreational reuse 

site, the O&M plan may require controls on play or turf care practices that are more stringent or 

involved than those required at other recreational complexes. The O&M plan may also include 

requirements for documenting and reporting maintenance related activities that occur at the site. This 

information typically would be included in an annual report that is distributed to interested parties and 

regulatory agencies. Quality control and quality assurance systems are also established and 

implemented to ensure that O&M is being performed satisfactory. 

Additional meetings between EPA, the state, and those parties responsible for carrying out O&M 

activities may be considered when developing an O&M plan for a site that will be in reuse. At 

redeveloped sites, responsibility for implementing and paying for O&M may be split among various 

parties. When splitting O&M responsibilities, it is essential that roles and responsibilities are clearly 

delineated in enforceable agreements and specified in an O&M plan. For example, at the Chisman 

Creek Superfund Site, York County is responsible for maintaining the sports fields and conducting 

other ordinary O&M activities. Mowing the grass and performing routine repairs are tasks that the 

county performs as part of their normal park 

Section Four: Operation and Maintenance Page 34 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

maintenance operations. This has, in effect, eliminated the need for the state or PRP to conduct routine 

O&M activities at the site. However, the PRP retains responsibility for major cover systems repairs.22 

In some situations, a local entity that is not familiar with requirements typically associated with O&M at 

Superfund remedies or with the additional requirements resulting from recreational reuse may be tasked 

with site maintenance. In these cases, it is critical that O&M personnel are properly trained to perform 

the work and to recognize hazards at the site and indications of remedy distress. It is important that 

those involved with the long-term care of a Superfund site understand the limitations and potentially 

hazardous nature of some aspects of the site and remedy, and that proper precautions are taken and 

appropriate procedures followed. For example, at many sites, only properly trained personnel are 

involved with activities that may encounter waste because of the potential for exposure to contaminants. 

Similarly, the improper operation of treatment systems can result in contaminant releases above 

specified levels, damage to the system, and an unsafe working environment. 

As noted above, the O&M plan contains requirements for performing annual and special inspections 

and sampling to determine if the remedy is functioning properly. In addition to these inspections, EPA 

conducts an in-depth review of the remedy at least every five years for any site where the remedial 

action leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on-site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The two products of this review include: (1) an analysis and 

report that determines whether the remedy is still protective of human health and the environment; and 

(2) a list of additional maintenance activities that need to be performed to ensure continued 

protectiveness and the parties responsible for performing those activities. At Superfund sites where 

reuse is occurring, these type of inspections, reviews, and determinations are particularly important 

given the potentially intensive public use of the site. 

22 U.S. EPA, Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites, 1999 (EPA/540-F-99-015). 

Section Four: Operation and Maintenance Page 35 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Section 5. 

Case Studies 

Timber Butte Youth Park (Silver Bow Creek Superfund Site) 

Butte, Montana 

The Timber Butte Youth Park is under construction atop 1.4 million cubic yards of mine tailings at the 

80-acre Clark Tailings area at the Silver Bow Creek Superfund site. Site contamination is the result of 

over 100 years of mining process operations in the area. Until the early 1970s, mining, milling, and 

smelting wastes were dumped onto the site. A 

cover system was constructed over the 80-acre

Cross Section Diagram of Clark Tailings area to protect the public from exposure to the

Operable Unit Cover System 

(adapted from As-Built drawings provided by ARCO) 

mining waste and was designed to support 

athletic fields. Adjacent to the covered mine 

tailings is the closed Butte-Silver Bow Landfill, 

which is being developed into a golf driving 

range. 

Site Settlement: Designers of the Timber Butte 

Youth Park located the athletic fields on the 

covered mine waste, where little settlement is 

expected. Since settlement is expected at the 

closed Butte-Silver Bow Landfill, this area was 

selected for the golf driving range. Settlement of 

the waste beneath the driving range will not affect 

play or present a tripping hazard to users. 

Cover System Design: Six inches of high 

quality topsoil was taken from nearby borrow 

areas for the surface layer of the Clark Tailings 

cap to support turf grass for athletic fields. Design engineers included a capillary break in the cover 

system that will support the park. The capillary break, which is a coarse gravel layer, confines water in 

the fine grained vegetative support soils. This provides the park grasses with the moisture they need 

within the rooting zone without excessive irrigation, which reduces the amount of leachate generated. A 

geotextile overlies the gravel layer to prevent the upper fined grained soils from migrating into the gravel. 

Section Five: Case Studies Page 36 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Gas Collection: Design engineers installed passive gas vents at the closed municipal landfill area as far 

away as possible from the tee boxes at the golf driving range. It has been suggested that the gas vents 

be disguised as distance markers for the driving range. The covered mine waste is not expected to 

generate gas. 

Operation & Maintenance and Institutional Controls: ARCO is currently responsible for O&M at 

the site but will transfer responsibility for maintaining the athletic fields and driving range, which will also 

serve to maintain the cover system, to the City of Butte. By 2004, the City of Butte will also be 

responsible for maintaining the entire site with financial assistance from a trust fund set up by ARCO. 

ARCO will always retain responsibility for addressing issues with the cover system, such as cap failure 

or improper cap design. Institutional controls include a notation on the deed that mine waste is 

contained on site, restrictions on well drilling and groundwater use, and prohibition of future uses that 

might damage the cover system. Public access to areas where passive methane gas vents are located is 

also restricted. 

Enhancement: The enhanced cover system design, athletic fields, and golf driving range were financed 

by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), the major PRP at the site, so no costs were incurred by EPA 

to support reuse of the site. In return for financing the park, the PRP will transfer the title to the 

property and operation and maintenance of the cover system to the City of Butte. 

Section Five: Case Studies Page 37 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Chisman Creek Superfund Site 

Seaford, Virginia 

The Chisman Creek Superfund site now supports a 27-acre lighted sports complex atop capped fly 

ash. From 1957 to 1974, Virginia Electric & Power Company contracted with a local trucking 

company to dispose of 500,000 tons of fly ash generated by their Yorktown generating plant at the site. 

Investigations of contamination began in 1980 following citizens’ concerns about discolored well water, 

which revealed heavy metal contamination in groundwater and Chisman Creek. A cover system was 

constructed to contain the fly ash and prevent additional migration of heavy metals from the ash into 

ground and surface water. 

Site Settlement: Designers of the Chisman Creek Site expected little settlement due to waste 

characteristics, depth of waste, and 

the amount of time that had elapsed Cross-Section Diagram of the Chisman 

since deposition. Creek Superfund Site Cap 

Cover System Design: The cover

system consists of one foot of a

soil/ash mixture, one foot of clay, six

inches of sand and six inches of

topsoil. Utility trenches were

installed in the cap to support park

lighting and irrigation. The utility

trenches were constructed so that at

least two feet of clean fill surrounds

installed utilities to prevent future

maintenance workers from contact

with the covered fly ash. Prior to constructing the cover system, the fly ash was sculpted to support the

planned athletic fields.

Operation and Maintenance: Site maintenance such as mowing the grass, preventing cover system

erosion, and repairing site improvements is handled by York County as part of their normal park

operations. The Virginia Electric & Power Company leases the property to the York County Parks

Department for the yearly property tax value. In return, the Parks Department performs routine

maintenance including mowing the lawn, upkeep of the fields and sprinkler systems. Any work resulting

from cap failure, improper cap design and the operation and maintenance of the dewatering system and

treatment of water is the responsibility of Virginia Power. One such incident occurred shortly after the

park opened where uneven settling caused a pool of water to form on one of the fields. This was

considered a cap design issue and taken care of by Virginia Power.

Section Five: Case Studies Page 38 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Enhancement: The Chisman Creek site was redeveloped at no additional cost to EPA. Virginia 

Power financed the construction of the cover system and graded the site to support recreational fields. 

York County constructed the fields, which it operates and maintains. 

Section Five: Case Studies Page 39 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Ohio River Park Superfund Site 

Neville Island, Pennsylvania 

The 32-acre Ohio River Park Superfund Site in Neville Island, Pennsylvania, is now home to the Island 

Sport Center, a multimillion dollar sports and entertainment complex. A municipal landfill operated on 

the property from the 1930s until the 1950s. From 1952 to the mid-1960s, the Pittsburgh Coke & 

Chemical Company disposed of industrial waste on the property, causing widespread contamination of 

the soil, surface water, and groundwater. As part of the remedy, the PRP, under the oversight of EPA, 

placed a protective cover over the landfill to protect the public from exposure to the industrial waste 

and developed the site into an athletic and entertainment facility, which includes an indoor ice-skating 

and hockey complex (indoor ice rink, and external ice rink/field courts) on the northeast portion of the 

property, a golf complex (driving range, exterior miniature golf course, and interior golf center) on the 

central-western portion of the property, and a theater complex and restaurant on the extreme western 

tip of the site. 

Site Settlement: The sports complex includes several areas where site subsidence and differential 

settlement were a concern. For the portion of the site that supports the golf dome, the PRP first preloaded the area with several hundred tons of fill material and monitored the settlement until it ceased. 

The PRP also contoured the site and placed additional clean soil over areas targeted to support heavy 

cement foundations for the dome. The additional soil would allow for some differential settlement to 

occur without the waste below being disturbed. The cement foundations used to stabilize the dome 

were constructed of wide flat cement blocks, which distribute the mass of the block over a greater 

surface area and reduce the likelihood of differential settlement. 

For the portion of the site that supports a restaurant and two ice rinks, the PRP installed piles that were 

driven 60 feet down into bedrock. A total of 412 piles were needed to support the restaurant and 

skating facility. Although other, less expensive engineering techniques could have been used to build the 

foundation, the use of piles driven into bedrock eliminated the possibility that differential settlement 

would adversely affect the structures. 

Cover System Design: Areas in which there was a high concentration of waste were covered with a 

multi-layer cap to prevent further contamination of groundwater. The multi-layer cap includes a 

subgrade layer, a barrier layer, a drainage layer, and a vegetative cover layer. The subgrade layer 

consists of engineered fill and a liner foundation and provides a firm foundation for the barrier layer 

construction, as well as an adequate slope to ensure drainage from the drainage and vegetative layers. 

Engineered fill was placed six inches below the liner subgrade layer. The liner subgrade material is 

composed of fine-grained soil (silt and clay) that is free of any materials that might damage the overlying 

synthetic liner. The barrier layer consists of a high density polyethylene liner that is 40 millimeters thick. 

The drainage layer consists of a non-woven geotextile. Finally, the vegetative cover layer supports 

vegetative growth, provides frost protection, and minimizes the potential for damage from surface 

activities and root penetration. 

Section Five: Case Studies Page 40 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

The designers understood that some areas of the site are more susceptible to repairs than others. In 

areas where intrusive work might be needed, highly visible orange fencing was unrolled flat, over the 

waste, and tacked into the ground. Clean fill was then placed over the waste and fencing to provide a 

physical barrier. The orange fence acts as a visible barrier for future workers at the site. An erosion 

soil cap was then placed over the entire site, raising the ground system above the 100-year flood 

elevation. Two to eight feet of fill dirt (transported from off-site) was used for the soil cap and serves to 

prevent exposure to contaminants in the event of erosion of the cap. The slopes that were created by 

elevating the site were vegetated to prevent future erosion. Pruning and watering keeps the existing 

vegetation and slopes both healthy and stable. 

Gas Collection: A gas collection and venting system was designed to collect excess gases beneath 

the multi-layer cap and passively vent the gases to the atmosphere. The gas collection and venting 

system consists of shallow gravel-filled trenches connected to a header along the crest of the liner 

subgrade layer and a series of vent pipes. A non-woven geofabric surrounds the trenches to prevent 

migration of fine-grained soil particles into the gas collection system. To hide some of the vents from 

the public, shallow root trees and bushes were placed around some on the vents. 

Operation and Maintenance and Institutional Controls: Site maintenance is the responsibility of 

the PRP, who maintains the cover systems and monitors groundwater. Institutional controls restrict 

land and groundwater use at the site and reduce the potential for human exposure to contamination. 

Permanent signs were installed on the banks of the Ohio River to caution fishermen against eating 

bottom-feeding fish and a series of signs were installed to restrict access to the side slopes leading to 

the Ohio River and the Ohio River Back Channel (areas that did not receive additional fill placement or 

covering by roadways or buildings). 

Enhancement: The Ohio River Site was redeveloped at no additional cost to EPA. The PRP 

financed the entire cost of construction for the multi-layer cap, the soil cap, and the Island Sport 

Center, including the internal and external ice rinks, golf complex, athletic fields, trails, and theater and 

restaurant. The PRP incurred additional costs to contour the site and pre-load areas to avoid 

differential settlement, and used engineering technologies that improved the performance of the remedy 

rather than using least costly alternatives. EPA oversaw the cleanup and redevelopment of the site, but 

did not incur additional costs for these activities. 

Section Five: Case Studies Page 41 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Bibliography 

Carpenter, J. D. 1976. Handbook of Landscape Architectural Construction. McLean, Virginia: 

Landscape Architecture Foundation. 

Collins, P. 1998. “Superfund Success, Superfast.” Civil Engineering (December). 

Crowley, P. (Montana Department of Environment, Solid Waste Division). 1999. Personal 

Communication. 

Crowcroft, P. H. 1996. “Promoting Landfill Stabilisation and Controlling the Consequences.” Polluted 

& Marginal Land - 96, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Re-use of 

Contaminated Land and Landfills. 

Emberton, J. R. and Parker, A. 1987. “The Problems Associated with Building on Landfill Sites.” 

Waste Management & Research, vol. 5, 473-482. 

Fogg, G. 1997. Park Planning Guidelines, 3rd Edition. National Recreation & Park Association. 

Golden, M. 1993. “Pros and Cons of Developing Recreational Facilities on Closed Landfills.” 

Proceedings of the International Conference on Marinas, Parks, and Recreation Developments, 257-

260. 

Hall, R., et al. 1996. “Re-use of Landfills.” Polluted & Marginal Land - 96, Proceedings of the Fourth 

International Conference on the Re-use of Contaminated Land and Landfills. 

Keech, M. 1995. “Design of Civil Infrastructure Over Landfills.” In Landfill Closures. New York: 

American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Kissida, J., et al. 1991. “Landfill Park: From Eyesore to Asset.” Civil Engineering (August), 49-51. 

Koerner, R. M., and Daniel, D. E. 1997. Final Covers for Solid Waste Landfills and Abandoned 

Dumps. Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Mackey, R. E. 1996. “Three End-Uses for Closed Landfills and Their Impact on the Geosynthetic 

Design.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 14, 409-424. 

Naber, T. 1987. “Today’s Landfill is Tomorrow’s Playground.” Waste Age (September), 46-58. 

Bibliography Page 42 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Patch, J., et al. 1996. “Foundation Engineering on Contaminated Land Sites.” Polluted & Marginal 

Land - 96, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Re-use of Contaminated Land 

and Landfills. 

Pioneer Manufacturing Co. (Cleveland, Ohio). 1999. 

Paukstis, S. 1993. “Landfill Transformed into Recreation Area.” American City & County (June), 30. 

Prince William County. 1996. Design Standards. 

Puhalla, J. 1999. Sports Field Design and Construction. Michigan: Ann Arbor Press. 

Sachs, J. 1997. “At Play on a Field of Trash.” Discover (June), 55-59. 

Schlect, E. 1996. “Tacoma Asphalt Cap is Tough and Impermeable.” Asphalt, vol. 5, no. 1 

(Summer). 

Smith, Roger. 1995-1996. “Asphalt Pavement Doubles as Hazardous Soils Cap and Loading Area.” 

Asphalt, vol. 9, no. 3 (Winter). 

Soccer Industry Council of America. 1998. Soccer Planning System: A Guide for Community Soccer 

Center Management. 

Spreull, W. J. and Cullum, S. 1986. “Landfill Gas Venting for Agricultural Restoration.” Waste 

Management & Research, vol. 5, 1-12. 

U.S. Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and Public Affairs. “Handbook for Public 

Playground Safety.” Publication no. 32. 

U.S. EPA. 1979. Design and Construction of Covers for Solid Waste Landfills, EPA 600/2-79/165. 

U.S. EPA. 1980. Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste, EPA 530/SW-867c. 

U.S. EPA. 1983. Standardized Procedures for Planting Vegetation on Completed Sanitary Landfills, 

EPA 600/2-83/055. 

U.S. EPA. 1985a. Covers for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA 540/2-85/002. 

U.S. EPA. 1985b. Settlement and Cover Subsidence of Hazardous Waste Landfills, EPA 

600/2-85/035. 

Bibliography Page 43 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

U.S. EPA. 1987a. Engineering Guidance for the Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Cover 

Systems for Hazardous Waste, EPA 600/2-87/039. 

U.S. EPA. 1987b. Prediction/Mitigation of Subsidence Damage to Hazardous Waste Landfill Covers, 

EPA 600/2-87/025. 

U.S. EPA. 1989. Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and 

Surface Impoundments, EPA 530/SW-89/047. 

U.S. EPA. 1991. Seminar Publication: Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers, 

EPA 625/4-91/025. 

U.S. EPA. 1995. Presumptive Remedies: CERCLA Landfill Caps RI/FS Data Collection Guide, EPA 

540/F-95/009. 

U.S. EPA. 1999. Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites, EPA/540-F-99-015. 

U.S. EPA. Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment 

Areas for Commercial and Light Industrial Facilities (Planned 2001). 

U.S. EPA. Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment 

Areas for Golf Facilities (Planned 2001). 

U.S. EPA. Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers (Planned 2001). 

U.S. EPA. Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Ecological Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste 

Containment Areas (Planned 2001). 

Bibliography Page 44 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Appendix A.

Size and Configuration of Sports Fields

The size and configuration of a site and any accessible adjacent properties can have a major impact on

the kinds of recreational use it can support. For example, a large, regularly shaped site may be well

suited for a multiple athletic field complex (e.g., soccer or baseball). A smaller, irregularly shaped site

may not be able to support this level of development and may be better used for smaller athletic fields

or courts (e.g., basketball or tennis courts). In addition to the area requirements for the selected

recreational activity, space may be needed for supporting facilities such as parking lots, concession

stands, spectator areas, and storage buildings. At multiple athletic field complexes, space also may be

needed for buffer zones between fields, drainage features, access areas and adjacent properties. 

Exhibit A-1 provides standard field dimensions

and acreage for common athletic fields. The area

required for most playing fields ranges from

approximately 0.05 acres (a volleyball court) to

three acres (an adult level baseball field). 

However, recreational facilities consist of more

than just a playing field. When estimating the area

needs for a recreational facility, the size of the fields

and the space requirements for supporting features

or areas, such as those listed below, need to be

considered.

C Parking

C Bathrooms

C Storage facilities

C Concession facilities

C Bleachers or other spectator areas

C Spillover noise and activity areas

C Surface drainage features

C Buffer zones 

C Access areas

• Remedy criteria/layout (building, 

drainage, piping, etc.) 

Exhibit A-1: Common Field Dimensions 

Sport Field Dimensions Minimum 

Acreage 

Field Hockey 100 yds x 60 yds 1.25 

Lacrosse 119 yds x 69 yds 1.7 

Football 120 yds x 53 yds 1.3 

Tennis 78 ft x 36 ft 0.06 

Softball 325-ft radial arc from 

backstop 

2.0 

Baseball 200-ft (little league) -

350-ft (adult) radial arc 

from backstop 

0.75 - 3.0 

Soccer 100+ yds x 60+ yds 1.0 - 2.0 

Basketball 50 ft x 94 ft 0.01 

Volleyball 29.5 ft x 59 ft 0.05 

Golf Range (35 

tees) 

240 yds wide x 300 yds 

deep 

15 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-1 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Exhibit A-2 lists typical minimum parking needs for sports fields and the approximate area required for 

the parking spaces. 

Exhibit A-2: Minimum Suggested Parking for Sports Fields 

Sport Minimum Parking 

Spaces 

Approximate Area 

(Acres) 

Softball 15 Spaces / Diamond 0.2 

Baseball 20 Spaces / Diamond 0.27 

Volleyball 6 Spaces / Court 0.08 

Tennis 2 Spaces / Court 0.03 

Basketball 6 Spaces / Court 0.08 

Soccer, football, 

lacrosse, etc. 

16 Spaces / Field 0.22 

Source: Carpenter, Handbook of Landscape Architectural Construction (1976) 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-2 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Softball and Baseball Fields 

Field size varies from approximately three-quarters of an acre for a little league baseball field to 

approximately three acres for an adult baseball field with the center field fence 375-feet away from 

home plate. Accounting for additional space for errant balls, spectator areas, and other features, a full 

size baseball field may need up to six acres. Exhibit A-3 lists the dimensions for little league baseball, 

adult baseball and softball fields and Exhibit A-4 provides a typical diagram of a softball field. 

Exhibit A-3 Baseball and Softball Field Dimensions 

Standard Dimensions Little League Baseball (Adult) Softball (Adult) 

Length of Baseline 60' 90' 65' 

Pitching Distance 46' 60' 46' 

Batters Box 3' x 6' 4' x 6' 3' x 7' 

Rise of Pitching Mound 6" 10" none 

Coaches Box 4' x 8' 10' x 20' 10' x 15' 

Home Plate to Backstop 25' 60' 25' 

Left Field Distance 200' 320' 300' 

Center Field Distance 200' 350' - 375' 300' 

Right Field Distance 200' 320' 300' 

Infield Radius 50' 95' -

Radius of Infield Mix Around 

Bases (for grass infields only) 

9' 13' -

Diameter Pitcher’s Mound 10' 18' -

Approximate Acreage 0.75 3 2 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-3 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Exhibit A-4 Softball Field Diagram 

(adapted from Pioneer Manufacturing Co.) 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-4 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Soccer and Other Athletic Fields 

Many large athletic fields can be used for multiple purposes and sports due to their similar sizes and 

dimensions. Exhibit A-5 provides the field dimensions of typical sports fields. Football and soccer are 

two of the most popular sports and their field sizes are quite compatible for dual use. Typical football 

and soccer fields layouts are provided as Exhibits A-6 and A-7. As noted earlier, the age and level of 

play is one factor to consider when determining the appropriate field size. 

Exhibit A-5 Typical Sports Field Dimensions 

Sport Field 

Dimensions 

Approximate 

Acreage 

Adult Soccer 110+ yards x 80 yards 1.8 

Football 120 yards x 53 yards 1.3 

Field Hockey 100 yards x 60 yards 1.3 

Lacrosse 119 yards x 69 yards 1.7 

Exhibit A-6 Football Field Diagram 

(adapted from Pioneer Manufacturing Co.) 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-5 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Exhibit A-7 Soccer Field Diagram 

(adapted from Pioneer Manufacturing Co.) 

Soccer fields vary greatly in size depending on the age and level of play. As shown in Exhibit 

A-8, a field for players age six and under is approximately 0.12 acres in area while a field for adults can

require nearly two acres. Additional area is also required for spectator areas, bad shots and errant

passes. An adult soccer field with supporting areas may need up to three acres of land. 

Exhibit A-8 Soccer Field Dimensions 

Age/Level Length 

(yds) 

Width 

(yds) 

Goal Width 

(yds) 

Approx. 

Acreage 

Under 6 

(3 on 3) 

20 - 30 15 - 20 6 0.1 

Under 8 

(4 on 4) 

40 - 50 20 - 30 6 0.3 

Under 8 

(11 on 11) 

80 60 8 1.0 

Under 10 90 60 8 1.1 

Under 12 100 60 8 1.2 

Under 14 110 65 8 1.5 

16 and over 110+ 80 8 1.8 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-6 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Sand Volleyball Court 

A standard volley ball court is 29.5 feet by 59 feet, the sand area is 49 feet by 78.5 feet, and a 12 feet 

wide zone beyond the sand is typically allowed around the court for players to pursue the ball. The 

total required area is approximately 0.2 acres. Although sand thickness varies, a layer between 2 and 

3.5 feet thick is preferred. Refer to Exhibit A-9 for a diagram of a typical volleyball court. 

Exhibit A-9 Volleyball Court Diagram 

(adapted from Pioneer Manufacturing Co.) 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-7 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Basketball 

Exhibit A-10 lists common dimensions and areas for basketball courts of different level of play. As 

shown in this table, basketball courts for the various levels are approximately the same size. A 

diagram of a typical basketball court is provided as Exhibit A-11. 

Exhibit A-10 Basketball Court Dimensions 

Level High School College Professional 

Size 50' x 84' 50' x 94' 50' x 94' 

Distance from free 

throw line to backboard 

15' 15' 15' 

Width of free throw 

lane 

12' 12' 16' 

3-point arc distance 

(measured from center 

of hoop) 

19' 9" 19' 9" 21' 9' 

Approximate Acreage 0.1 0.11 0.11 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-8 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Exhibit A-11 Basketball Court Diagram 

(adapted from Pioneer Manufacturing Co.) 

Appendix A: Size and Configuration of Sports Fields A-9 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Appendix B.

Information Sources for Recreational Reuse

Sports Fields - General 

• The book, Stadia, Arenas and Grandstands, by Jean Benedetti (2000) contains general 

information about designing and building sports fields. 

• United States Department of the Army. “How to Plan, Design and Build Outdoor Sports 

Facilities.” Sterling Publishing Co, IRC.: New York. 

• Sports Turf: Science, Construction and Maintenance by V.I. Stewart 

• For more information about the proper installation and care of turfgrass for sports fields, 

access the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program Internet Site at http://www.ntep.org . 

• Prince William County, Virginia, Design Standards (1996), shows examples of sport field 

designs that have been implemented by Virginia’s Prince William County. 

• “Vigilance and Sound Advice Help Spell Relief from Landfill Gag,” an article by Shapard, 

Rob (1996 page 22-28) published in American City and County describes dramatic 

change that can occur when a former toxic site is transformed into use as a recreational 

site. 

Softball and Baseball Fields 

• Handbook of Sports and Recreational Building Design: Outdoor Sports by John 

Geraint, (1993) 

• For step-by-step instructions on how to develop land into sport fields, setting up drainage 

systems, and other helpful information about soil and turf maintenance access the Landco 

Company Internet site at http://www.lancoturf.com/cadre-sports.htm 

• Sports Fields: A Manual for Design, Construction, and Maintenance by J. Puhalla 

(1999) Ann Arbor Press: Michigan. 

Soccer 

• Geraint, John. (1993). “Handbook of Sports and Recreational Building Design: Outdoor 

Sports,” available through the Urban Land Institute. 

• Soccer Industry Council of America. (1998). “Soccer Planning System: A Guide for 

Appendix B: Information Sources A-1 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Community Soccer Center Management.” 

• Purdue Turf Grass Science Program internet site: 

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/turf/pubs/ay31.htm 

Golf Driving Ranges 

• Guidelines for Planning and Developing a Public Golf Course, National Golf 

Foundation (1995). 

• “A Study of Designing/Reclaiming a Sanitary Landfill as a Future Golf Course: A 

Thesis,” by Chiaojung Charles Yang (1993) Louisiana State University and Agricultural 

and Mechanical College. 

• “Enhancing Golf and the Environment,” by Jerry Matthews (1994) published in Parks 

and Recreation. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Use of 

Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas for Golf Facilities” (Planned 2001). 

• United States Golf Association internet site: 

http://www.usga.org/green/index.html 

• The Lanco Company, Golf Course Construction internet site: 

http://www.lancoturf.com/golf1.htm 

Volleyball Courts 

• USA Volleyball Guidelines internet site: 

http://www.volleyball.org 

• Volleyball Magazine Site Construction internet site: 

http://volleyball.about.com/sports/volleyball/cs/courtconstruction/index.htm 

Playgrounds, Picnic Areas, and Trails 

• “The Creation of a Park” by Karen Arent published in Public Works (1989). 

• “The Complete Guide to Trail Building and Maintenance,” by Carl Demrow and David 

Salisbury published in Appalachian Mountain Club (1998). 

• “Today’s Landfill is Tomorrow’s Playground,” by T. Naber published in Waste Age 

(1987, September, pages 46-58). 

Appendix B: Information Sources B-2 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

• “Landfills Become Landscapes: The American Park Revolution,” by Dan Treadway 

published in American City and County (1987, September). 

• U.S. Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and Public Affairs. “Handbook 

for Public Playground Safety.” Publication no. 32. 

Ice Skating 

• Ice Rink Design and Construction: A Bibliography of Recent Literature #a1997, by 

Mary Ellen Huls (1998). 

Horseback Riding 

• Equestrian Facilities: Planning and Design, Alexander Bigler. 

Paved Surfaces, Parking, Buildings, and Utilities 

• “Handbook of Landscape Architectural Construction.” J.D. Carpenter (1976). McLean, 

Virginia: Landscape Architecture Foundation. 

• Prince William County, Virginia, Design Standards (1996). 

• Smith, Roger. (1995-1996, Winter). “Asphalt Pavement Doubles as Hazardous Soils 

Cap and Loading Area.” Asphalt, vol. 9, no. 3. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Use of 

Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas for Commercial and Light Industrial 

Facilities” (Planned 2001). 

Appendix B: Information Sources B-3 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Appendix C.

Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts

Table 1: Superfund Waste Containment Sites with Recreational Reuse 

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary 

Contaminants Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

MULTIPLE RECREATIONAL USES 

Dupage County 

Landfill/Blackwell Forest 

Preserve Warrenville, IL 

Picnic and camping 

areas, trails, a lake, a 120-

ft sledding hill, and a 

soccer field 

Municipal landfill 

including 2.2 million 

cubic yards of waste 

material 

- Repairs and improvements to existing cap 

- Adding clay to needed areas 

- Enhancing surface drainage 

- Installing a leachate extraction and 

treatment system 

- Installing additional landfill gas 

venting 

- Long-term groundwater monitoring 

Tim Prendiville (RPM) 

(312) 886-5122 

prendiville.timothy@ 

epa.gov 

Tar Creek 

Ottawa County, OK 

Picher Sports Complex 

with baseball field and 

playground 

Lead, cadmium, zinc - Excavation of lead-contaminated soil 

and replacement with clean fill 

- Institutional controls 

- Diversion and diking of inflow areas 

Rafael Casanova 

(214) 665-7437 

casanova.rafael@ 

epa.gov 

Ohio River Park 

Neville, PA 

Sports-recreation center 

with 2 indoor ice-skating 

rinks, and other 

recreation facilities 

Benzene, 2,4.6 

Trichlorophenol, 

magnese, benzo (a) 

pyrene, dibenz (a,h) 

anthracene, 

beryllium, and 

mercury 

- Capping of concentrated waste with a 

multilayer cap 

- Construct a landfill with a synthetic 

membrane cover 

- Install extraction and injection wells 

within landfill 

Romuald A. Roman 

(215) 814-3212 

roman.romuald@ 

epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-1 
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary 

Contaminants Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

ATHLETIC FIELDS 

American Cyanamid 

Company 

Bound Brook, NJ 

Minor league baseball VOCs, acetone, 

ethylbenzene 

chloride, toluene, and 

xylene, copper, 

chromium, lead, 

mercury, nickel, zinc, 

arsenic, and cadium 

- Contain the contaminants Jeff Catanzarita (RPM) 

(212) 637-4409 

catanzarita.jeff@epa.gov 

Chisman Creek 

Seaford, VA 

2 softball fields and 4 

soccer fields 

Fly ash including 

trace metals, 

inorganics, arsenic, 

cadmium, copper, 

lead, nickel, 

vanadium. 

- Low-permeability soil cap 

- Ground water collection system and 

treatment system 

- Alternate water supply for those homes 

still on residential wells 

- Relocating a portion of the tributary, 

deed restrictions 

Andrew C. Palestini 

(RPM) (215) 814-3233 

palestini.andrew@ 

epa.gov 

East Mt. Zion Landfill 

Springettsbury Township, 

PA 

Baseball fields Municipal and 

industrial wastes, 

including vinyl 

chloride and benzene 

- Multilayered cap 

- Vent system 

- Surface water control system 

John Banks (RPM) 

(215) 814-3214 

banks.john-d@epa.gov 

International Minerals 

Company 

Terre Haute, IN 

Little-league ball fields VOCs and BHC - Placing a clay cap and a fence around 

the site 

- Continually monitor the site 

Gladys Beard 

(312) 886-7253 

beard.gladys@epa.gov 

Lipari Landfill 

Pitman, NJ 

Baseball and soccer 

fields 

Solvent, paint, paint 

thinner, 

formaldehyde, and 

resins 

- Security fence 

- Construction of a landfill containment 

system 

- Capping of the landfill with a synthetic 

membrane cover 

- Installation of extraction and injection 

wells within the landfill 

Fred Cataneo 

(212) 637-4428 

cataneo.fred@epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-2
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary 

Contaminants Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

Silver Bow Creek/Butte/ 

Silver Bow 

Deer Lodge Country, MT 

Baseball, soccer, tennis, 

hiking, and basketball 

areas 

Mining wastes 

including metals, 

arsenic, and lead 

- Construction of a cover of lime, fill and 

soil 

- Removal of hazardous materials 

Sara Weinstock (RPM) 

(406) 782-7415 

weinstock.sara@epa.go 

v 

Silver Bow Creek/Butte 

Area (Clark Tailings)/ 

Silver Bow 

Deer Lodge County, MT 

Baseball fields, courts, 

and picnic areas 

Metals including, 

arsenic, lead, copper, 

zinc, and cadmium 

- Stabilization of soil containing lead 

- Covering the site with 18 inches of clean 

soil 

Sara Weinstock (RPM) 

(406) 782-7415 

weinstock.sara@epa.go 

v 

GOLF COURSES / DRIVING RANGES 

Anaconda Company Smelter 

Anaconda, MT 

Golf course Arsenic, metals 

including copper, 

cadmium, lead, and 

zinc 

- Relocated residents 

- Removal of contaminated soil and 

placement of clean soil 

Charles Coleman 

(612) 296-7813 

coleman.charles@ 

epa.gov 

Kane and Lombard Streets 

Drum 

Baltimore, MD 

Golf driving range VOCs and metals 

including cadmium, 

lead, magnesium, 

nickel 

- Constructed a surface barrier wall 

- Constructed a permeant cap 

Lesley Derascavage 

(215) 814-3239 

derascavage.lesley@ 

epa.gov 

Lexington County Landfill 

Cayce, SC 

Golf driving range Benzene, bisphthlate 

bromodichloromethane, and 

chlorobenzene 

- Consolidation and capping the waste 

piles with clay and soil 

- Control the venting of the methane gas 

Terry Tanner 

(904) 562-8797 

tanner.terry@epa.gov 

McColl 

Fullerton, CA 

Golf course Sulfur dioxide, VOCs, 

inorganic chemicals, 

volatile, and semivolatile compounds 

- Removal of wastes 

- Temporary caps placed 

David Seter 

(415) 744-2212 

seter.david@epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-3
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary 

Contaminants Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

Mill Creek Dump 

Erie, PA 

Golf course Polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, PCBs, 

and heavy metals 

- Removal of material 

- Soil cap 

- Flood retention basin 

Romuald A. Roman 

(215) 814-3212 

roman.romuald@ 

epa.gov 

Monticello Mill Tailing 

Monticello, UT 

Golf course Uranium, thorium230, radium 226, 

radon 222, heavy 

metals including 

arsenic, selemum, 

vanadium, 

molybdenum, 

manganese, and 

uranium 

- Removal of contaminated material 

- Place an evapo-transpiration cover on 

site 

Paul Mushovic 

(303) 312-6662 

mushovic.paul@ 

epa.gov 

PAB Oil and Chemical 

Services, Inc., 

Abbeville, LA 

Golf driving range Arsenic, barium, 

chromium, lead, 

manganese, and 

acetone 

- Remove top layer or soil 

- Install a clay cap 

Caroline A. Siegler 

(214) 665-2178 

South Weymouth Naval Air 

Station (SWNAS) 

Weymouth, MA 

Golf course and 

recreational and open 

space 

Battery acid, lead, 

VOCs, and heavy 

metals 

- Removal of drums and containers 

- Removal of soil 

- Place soil cap on surface 

Patty Whittemore 

(617) 918-1382 

whittemore.patty@ 

epa.gov 

Stauffer Chemical 

Tarpon Springs, FL 

Golf course Phosphorous, 

arsenic, radium-226, 

beryllium, and heavy 

metals 

- Removal of hazardous material and soil 

- Consolidation and capping of the site 

- Establish land use ordinances 

- Construct physical barriers 

John Blanchard 

(404) 562-8934 

blanchard.john@ 

epamail.gov 

PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-4
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary 

Contaminants Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

Bangor Gas Works 

Bangor, ME 

Community park Coal tar - Emptied tank and demolished buildings 

- Built cap and paved over as a parking lot 

Don Berger 

(617) 918-1351 

berger.don@epa.gov 

Central City-Clear Creek 

Central City, CO 

Outdoor recreation Zinc, lead, cadmium, 

and arsenic 

- Build a water treatment plan 

- Remove and cap waste files 

Holly Fliniau 

(303) 312-6535 

fliniau.holly@ 

epa.gov 

Chemical Metals Industries 

Baltimore, MD 

Neighborhood parks DCE, TCE, and PCEs - Remove the deteriorating asphalt 

- Recap and remove any contaminants that 

surface 

Stephen D. Jarvela 

(215) 814-3259 

jarvela.stephen@ 

epa.gov 

Port Hadlock 

(US NAVY) 

Indian Island, WA 

Recreational beach Ordnance 

compounds, heavy 

metals, PCBs, and 

pesticides 

- Removal of debris 

- Construction of a landfill/erosion 

prevention measures 

Bob Kievit (RPM) 

(360) 753-9014 

kievit.bob@epa.gov 

PATHS AND TRAILS 

Bunker Hill Mining 

Smelterville, ID 

Hiking trails and ski area Lead, arsenic, and 

cadmium 

- Cap and close area deemed unacceptable Earl Liverman 

(208) 664-4858 

liverman.earl@epa.gov 

Fulbright Landfill 

Springfield, MO 

Walking trails Landfill wastes 

including cyanides, 

acids, plating, paint 

sledges, solvents 

and pesticides 

- Removal of drums and drum remnants 

- Monitoring groundwater and leachate 

- Institutional controls 

Mary Peterson (RPM) 

(913) 551-7882 

peterson.mary@epa.gov 

Milltown Reservoir 

Milltown, MT 

Walking trails including 

a foot bridge 

Heavy metals and 

arsenic 

- Dig new well from separate aquifer 

- Construct new distribution system 

- Flush current plumbing system 

- Continually test water quality 

Russ Forba 

(406) 441-1123 

forba.russ@epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-5
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary 

Contaminants Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

Northwest 58th Street 

Landfill 

Miami, FL 

Hiking trails Pesticides, paints, 

solvents, heavy 

metals, arsenic, and 

VOCs 

- Grade and cap landfill with synthetic 

membranes 

- Construct a storm water management 

system 

Pam Scully 

(404) 562-8935 

scully.pam@epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-6
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary 

Contaminants Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

OTHER 

Asarco Smelter 

Tacoma, WA 

Amphitheater Metals, arsenic, 

cadium, copper, and 

lead 

- Demolish building 

- Remove and disposal of soil 

- Plug/abandon surface water 

- Cap area 

- Reinforce the shoreline of the plant site 

and slag peninsula against erosion 

- Long term monitoring 

Kevin Rochlin 

(206) 553-2106 

rochlin.kevin@epa.gov 

Smuggler Mountain 

Aspen, CO 

Homes and historic tour 

service 

Lead - Install a clean soil cap Armando Saenz 

(303) 312-6559 

saenz.armando@epa.go 

v 

Whitewood Creek 

Whitewood, SD 

Creek used for irrigation, 

watering livestock, and 

recreation 

Heavy metals, 

arsenic, cadmium, 

copper, silver, 

mercury, and cyanide 

- Remove soil 

- Monitoring water quality 

- Limit future uses of contaminated areas 

Gwen Hooten 

(303) 312-6646 

hooten.gwen@epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-7
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Table 2: Superfund Treatment Sites with Recreational Reuse

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary Contaminants 

Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

MULTIPLE RECREATIONAL USES 

Abex 

Portsmouth, VA 

Recreation center Heavy metal, lead, antimony, 

nickel, tin, copper, zinc, 

cadmium, chromium, silver, 

and PAHs 

- Removal of soils 

- Fenced off areas of the 

site 

Randy Sturgeon 

(215) 814-3227 

sturgeon.randy@epa.gov 

Bayou Bonfouca 

Slidell, LA 

Boat landing and recreational 

area 

Creosote compounds and 

PNA 

- Dredging contaminated 

sediments 

- Incineration of soils and 

sediments extraction 

- Treatment of 

groundwater 

Katrina Coltrain 

(214) 665-8143 

coltrain.katrina@epa.gov 

Peterson Sand & Gravel 

Liberytville, IL 

Boat launch, canoes, picnic 

area, swimming beach, and 

hiking trails 

Industrial waste including 

solvents and paints 

- Removal of toxic drums 

and contaminated soil 

Gladys Beard (RPM) 

(312) 886-7253 

beard.gladys@epa.gov 

Pepe Field 

Boonton, NJ 

Restored recreation facility 

with a regulation little league 

field, walking path, 

playground, basketball court, 

gazebo, flag pole area and 

concession stand 

High levels of hydrogen 

sulfide waste 

- Stabilization and 

excavation of 

approximately 50,000 

cubic yards of waste 

material 

- Pumping and pretreatment of leachate 

before discharge to the 

Rockaway Valley 

Regional Sewerage 

Authority 

- Backfilling of waste 

John Frisco 

(212) 637-4419 

frisco.john@epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-8
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary Contaminants 

Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

ATHLETIC FIELDS 

East Helena 

East Helena, MT 

Baseball fields Lead, arsenic, and cadmium - Remove soil 

- Isolating the processed 

water from ground 

water by constructing 

steel storage tanks 

and replacing the leaky 

equipment 

Scott Brown 

(406) 441-1123 

brown.scott@epa.gov 

Reilly Tar&Chem (St. Louis 

Park Plant) Hennepin, MN 

Soccer field and a park Wood preserving wastes 

including creosote, coal tar, 

and polynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons 

- Groundwater wells 

closed 

- Groundwater treatment 

Darryl Owens (RPM) (312) 

886-7089 

owens.darryl@epa.gov 

Spokane Junkyard Spokane, 

WA 

Baseball field, softball field, 3 

regulation-sized soccer 

fields, and 8 smaller soccer 

fields 

Asbestos, oil containing 

PCBs, lead, and VOCs 

- Removal and off site 

disposal of drums, 

solids, and asbestos 

Paul Crutchfield, Assistant 

Director of Parks, Spokane 

(509) 625-6455. 

Kevin Rochlin (RPM) 

(206) 553-2106 

rochlin.kevin@epa.gov 

Waite Park Wells 

Waite Park, MN 

Little league baseball fields TCE, PCE, lead, heavy 

metals, and VOCs 

- Removal of 

contaminated soil 

- Setting up a groundwater 

monitoring plan 

Brenda Winkler 

(612) 296-7813 

GOLF COURSES / DRIVING RANGES 

Gratiot County Golf 

St. Louis, MI 

Golf course Industrial waste including 

DDT, VOCs, heavy metals, 

and benzene 

- Removal of 

contaminated soils 

- Groundwater treatment. 

Rosita Clarke-Moreno (RPM) 

(312) 886-7251 

clarkemoreno.rosita@ 

epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-9
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary Contaminants 

Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

Roebling Steel Company 

Site 

Roebling, NJ 

Driving range and park Compressed gas tanks, 

numerous types of acids, 

and solid wastes 

- Construction of a cover 

of lime, fill, and soil 

- Removal of 

contaminated soil 

Site Repository Florence 

Township, 711 Broad Street, 

Florence, NJ 08518 

(609) 499-2525 

PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS 

Westline Site 

Westline, PA 

Recreational area VOCs and PAH - Soil excavation 

- Cover graded area with 

clean fill and seeded 

mulch 

Roy Schrock 

(215) 814-3210 

schrock.roy@epa.gov 

PATHS AND TRAILS 

DeRewal Chemical Company 

Kingwood Township, NJ 

Bike path Cadmium, chromium, copper, 

lead, VOCs, and polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons 

- Remove contaminated 

soil 

- On-site treatment of soil 

Larry Granite 

(212) 637-4423 

granite.larry@epa.gov 

French, Ltd. 

Crosby, TX 

Nature walks and fishing VOCs, phenols, heavy 

metals, and PCB 

- Groundwater extraction 

- Place sheet pile wall 

around part of the site 

- On-site treatment of soil 

with in-situ biodegration 

Ernest Franke 

(214) 665-8521 

franke.ernest@epa.gov 

Time Beach Site 

Times Beach, MO 

Horse back riding Dioxin - Construction of a series 

of spur levees 

- Removal and treatment 

of contaminated soil 

Bob Feild 

(913) 551-7697 

feild.robert@epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-10
Reusing Superfund Sites:

Recreational Use of Land Above Hazardous Waste Containment Areas

Site Name/Location Recreational Uses 

Primary Contaminants 

Remedial Activities EPA Contact 

OTHER 

Army Materials 

Technological Laboratory 

Watertown, MA 

Yacht club PAH’s, PCB’s, pesticides, 

and various chemical and 

radiological contamination 

- Removal of hazardous 

material and soil 

- Decommissioning of the 

nuclear reactor 

Meghan Cassidy (RPM) 

(617) 918-1387 

cassidy.meghan@epa.gov 

Appendix C: Superfund Recreational Reuse Sites and EPA Contacts C-11