EPA/600/R-10/001/June 2010/www.epa.gov/landscience 

Land Research Program

Science Applications Through

Partnerships: A Progress Report

2005-2009
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Research and Development 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development 

Land Research Program

Science Applications Through 

Partnerships: A Progress Report 

2005-2009
 
NOTICE 

This report has been reviewed and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Office of Research and Development. Approval does not signify that the contents 

necessarily refl ect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names 

or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 
Contents
 

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. iii
 

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
 

Relevance: Uses and Outcomes of Land Research Program Activities ................................. 2 

Groundwater Contamination.................................................................................................. 3
 

Contaminated Sediments ....................................................................................................... 7
 

Site Characterization.............................................................................................................11
 

Landfills ............................................................................................................................... 15
 

Underground Storage Tanks ................................................................................................. 19
 

Materials Management......................................................................................................... 23
 

Appendix A. Acknowledgement of ORD, Regional, and State Partnerships ...................... 27
 

Appendix B. Performance Measures for Research Organizations ....................................... 29
 

Appendix C. Landfill Research: Alternative Covers Assessment Program Cost Analysis. . 31
 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Land Research Program Logic Diagram ................................................................ 2
 

Figure 2. Alternative Cover Sites: Cost Savings per Acre ................................................... 32
 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Applications for Groundwater Contaminants........................................................... 4
 

Table 2. Sediment Technology Applications .......................................................................... 8
 

Table 3. Sediment Methods and Models Used in Site Assessment ........................................ 9
 

Table 4. Statistical Methods ................................................................................................. 12
 

Table 5. Analytical Methods ................................................................................................ 13
 

Table 6. Technology Transfer of Alternative Landfi ll Covers.............................................. 16
 

Table 7. Underground Storage Tank Groundwater Remediation ......................................... 20
 

Table 8. Materials Management ........................................................................................... 24
 

i 
This page left intentionally blank. 
Executive Summary
 

The purpose of this report is to present examples of research by EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

(ORD) that have contributed to addressing complex, environmental cleanup issues at hazardous waste sites 

from 2005 to 2009. Research activities, which lead to environmental outcomes, are key measures of a high 

performing research organization. 

ORD partnered with EPA’s Regional staff to document where scientific findings contributed to site-specific 

decisions and also reduced the cost of cleanup. ORD also compiled information on use of ORD methods 

and models in EPA and State guidance documents for remediation of hazardous waste sites. 

The report highlights six research areas in which ORD has contributed to addressing technical and scientific 

challenges, and describes the outcomes resulting from partnering with various stakeholders. The research 

areas are: 1) groundwater contamination, 2) contaminated sediments, 3) site characterization, 4) landfi lls, 5) 

underground storage tanks, and 6) materials management. 

Research has led to improved remediation and mitigation of pollution at hazardous waste sites and reduced 

the cost of cleanup. Outcomes include: 

• Saving more than $100 million to remediate contaminated groundwater as a result of partnering with site 

managers across the country to use improved technologies. 

• Assisting States with contaminated sediment assessment and remediation problems by applying new 

methodologies. The methods have been included in State guidance for hazardous waste cleanup. 

• Applying statistical methods for site characterization in State guidance documents. 

• Transferring an alternative cover technology for landfills to States, counties, and Federal agencies to 

provide a cost-effective alternative to traditional landfill covers. The technology transfer is estimated to 

have saved over $200 million. 

• Providing new methods and models to States to better assess and remediate leaking gasoline and 

gasoline additives from underground storage tanks. 

• Supporting EPA’s Regions and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) with technical 

reports and guidance on material management issues. 

The report provides examples of research outcomes to support the priority of EPA’s Administrator for 

“Cleaning Up Our Communities.” Scientific solutions described in the report can be applied to other sites 

or documents. 

iii 
This page left intentionally blank. 

iv 
The Office of Research and Development challenges and the outcomes resulting from 

(ORD) is the research arm of the U.S. partnering with various stakeholders. Most LRP 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). outcomes are the result of partnerships with 

ORD provides policy makers and environmental remedial project managers, staff from other 

managers with innovative tools, based on sound EPA offices, Federal agencies, States, and local 

scientific research, to make informed environmental governments (Appendix A). For some projects, 

decisions that protect the environment and public cost savings are documented based on projected 

health. The science conducted by ORD’s research savings from a Record of Decision (ROD), which is 

programs provides critical information required a legal agreement that provides justification for the 

to solve environmental issues and protect our air, remedial action (treatment) at a Superfund site. 

water, and land. 

ORD’s research supports EPA’s Office of Solid 

ORD’s Land Research Program (LRP) focuses Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and 

on developing the science and technology needed EPA Regional offices that work with States and 

to restore and revitalize land contaminated by communities to clean up hazardous waste sites. 

hazardous waste. The research program is aligned Within OSWER, ORD’s partners include the 

with the EPA Administrator’s priorities of cleaning Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

up our communities and assuring the safety of Innovation (OSRTI), Office of Resource 

chemicals. Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), Offi ce of 

Emergency Management (OEM), and the Offi ce of 

This report provides examples of responsive, Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). Additional 

relevant research supporting decisions addressing research partners include Regional and State staff 

cleanup issues at hazardous waste sites, primarily who implement the programs as well as regulated 

from 2005 to 2009. The report presents research and responsible parties and contractors that perform 

topics and includes tables identifying where ORD site specific assessment and remediation. 

contributed to address technical and scientific 

Introduction 

1 
 

Relevance: Uses and Outcomes of 

Land Research Program Activities 

ORD programs produce relevant, high quality 

research products that partners use to make 

scientifically sound decisions.1 Measuring the 

outcomes of research products is important in 

judging the relevance of a research program. 

Figure 1 presents the flow of research outputs 

(e.g., publications, methods, and models) 

to clients, resulting in short-term outcomes, 

intermediate outcomes and, then, with actions 

from the research user, environmental outcomes 

leading to long-term outcomes.2 

The Logic Diagram (Figure 1) describes three 

levels of outcomes: 

1. Short-term outcomes—Partners use 

2. Intermediate outcomes—Regions, States, and 

private sector use 

3. Environmental outcomes—cost-effective 

reductions in risk 

For further information on performance measures 

see Appendix B. 

Figure 1. Land Research Program Logic Diagram 

1

 Further information on research outcomes and related annual 

performance measures are available at epa.gov/landscience 

2 The National Research Council (2008) defi ned research 

activities leading to intermediate and ultimate outcomes.

Evaluating Research Efficiency in the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, National Research Council, 2008 “In 

its discussion the committee uses the terms inputs, outputs,

and outcomes as defined by OMB, except as modified: 

Inputs are agency resources—such as funding, facilities, and

human capital—that support research. Outputs are activities

or accomplishments delivered by research programs, such

as research findings, papers published, exposure methods

developed and validated, and research facilities built or

upgraded. Outcomes are the benefits resulting from a research

program, which can be short-term, such as an improved

body of knowledge or a comprehensive science assessment,

or long-term, such as lives saved or enhancement of air

quality, that may be based on research activities or informed 

by research but require additional activities by many others.

The committee distinguishes these two types of outcomes

using the terms, intermediate outcomes and ultimate or end

outcomes.” 

2 
Groundwater Contamination 

that cleaning up contaminated groundwater using conventional 

Over 80 percent of the most serious hazardous waste 

sites in the United States have adversely affected the 

quality of nearby groundwater. Experience has shown 

methods can be time-consuming and costly, and is often not 

completely effective in reducing pollution. 

EPA research is providing innovative solutions to cleaning 

up groundwater contaminants, resulting in more effective 

removal or containment of the pollutants, and reduction in 

cost and often cleanup time. Three classes of groundwater 

contaminants are being studied – dense non-aqueous phase 

liquids (DNAPLs), inorganic species, and fuel components, 

including oxygenates. 

Researchers are advancing the development of remediation 

techniques, such as in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO), 

monitored natural attenuation (MNA), and permeable 

reactive barriers (PRBs) to treat groundwater contaminants. 

Investigating site characterization improvements ensures that 

contaminants can be better evaluated and the most effective 

remediation technique can be selected. 

EPA scientists and Remedial Project Managers (RPM) have 

worked together to apply these technologies to solve a variety 

of groundwater contamination challenges. Projected cost 

savings, typically from Records of Decision (ROD), indicate 

the benefits of this working relationship, totaling over $100 

million for the 14 sites presented in Table 1. The application 

of these technologies enables site managers to reach solutions 

to complex environmental problems that are cost-effective and 

reduce risks to the public. 

 

APPLICATION 

A new ORD technology 

developed and applied 

to treat hexavalent 

chromium at the Macalloy 

Corporation Superfund 

Site in Charleston, SC 

successfully reduced 

contaminant levels and 

resulted in an estimated 

$500,000 cost savings. 

Table 1 provides other examples 

of how research has contributed to 

solving site-specifi c groundwater 

contamination problems. 

3 
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 

Table 1. Applications for Groundwater Contaminants 

Site Problem/ Technology 

Applied Outcome Reference 

Parkview Well ORD partnered with Region Cost savings is Record of Decision (ROD), OU2 2007 

Superfund Site 7 staff to provide technical estimated to be $70 (see pages 26-33, and 52): http://www. 

Operable Unit guidance on the use of in-situ million compared epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/ 

(OU) 2: Grand chemical oxidation (ISCO) to conventional r2007070002056.pdf 

Island, NE, process to remove volatile pump and treat 

EPA Region 7 organic compounds (VOCs) 

from groundwater 

(P&T) alternative 

Industri-Plex ORD partnered with Region 1 Cost savings is ROD for OU2 and Wells G&H OU3 

Superfund Site staff on site characterization, estimated to be $11 2006 (see tables K-3 & K-8). ROD 

OU2 (including remedy selection, the field million compared OU2 and Wells G&H OU3 2006 (see 

Wells G&H investigation, and was to conventional page 97 and tables K-3 & K-8): http:// 

Superfund Site instrumental in selecting a P&T alternative www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/ 

OU3): Woburn, cost-effective remedy solution. industriplex/70376.pdf 

MA, EPA Monitored Natural Attenuation 

Region 1 (MNA) technology and 

in-situ enhanced 

bioremediation (ISEB) 

were used to reduce arsenic 

transport from the site to a 

wetland 

Proposed Plan 2005 (see pages 6-8): 

http://www.epa.gov/region01/superfund/ 

sites/industriplex/233375.pdf 

Billings PCE ORD partnered with Region On-site treatment “Billings PCE On-site Soil Treatment 

Groundwater 8 staff to provide technical resulted in cost Cost Savings,” 

Site: Billings, guidance to apply a new savings estimated 

MT, EPA soil treatment using sodium to be $700,000 January 29, 2009, provided by on scene 

Region 8 permanganate to remove 

chlorinated VOCs from soil 

compared to offsite 

treatment 

coordinator (OSC) 

Pemaco ORD partnered with Region ERH, combined ROD 2005 (see pages 100-103): 

Superfund Site: 9 staff to serve as a technical with P&T, and http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/ 

Maywood, CA, lead to apply electrical MNA, is believed r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f882574 

EPA Region 9 resistance heating (ERH) to be the only 26007417a2/a92b6aa03e48088088257 

to remove VOCs from method that will 1a000592991/$FILE/PEMACO_ROD_ 

groundwater meet cleanup goals 

and is anticipated 

JAN_2005.pdf 

to meet remedial Proposed Plan 2004 (see pages 11-16): 

action objectives in http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/SFUND/ 

the shortest amount R9SFDOCW.NSF/db29676ab46e808188 

of time 25742600743734/8fe2b4e33364497e882 

57007005e9404!OpenDocument 

Solvents 

Recovery 

Service of 

New England: 

Southington, 

CT, EPA 

Region 1 

ORD partnered with Region 1 

staff to apply in-situ thermal 

treatment and MNA to remove 

VOCs. ORD assisted on 

site characterization and 

the remedial investigation/ 

feasibility study (RI/FS) 

process, countered technical 

positions held by the principal 

responsible party (PRP) 

consultants, and articulated 

the scientific basis for EPA’s 

decision 

As a result of 

ORD’s work, the 

Region is applying 

a groundwater 

remediation 

technology, even 

though the site 

was originally 

considered too 

technically 

impractical to 

clean up. This 

treatment is the 

most cost-effective 

of the alternatives 

evaluated 

ROD OU3 2005 (see pages 57-62 & 

110-112): http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

sites/rods/fulltext/r0105008.pdf 

Proposed Plan 2005 (see pages 10-11): 

http://www.epa.gov/region01/superfund/ 

sites/srs/229296.pdf 

Draft Feasibility Study 2005 (see pages 

5-6): http://www.epa.gov/region01/ 

superfund/sites/srs/222220.pdf 

4 
 

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 

Table 1. Applications for Groundwater Contaminants 

Site Problem/ Technology 

Applied Outcome Reference 

Savage ORD partnered with By speeding up The preliminary closeout report indicated 

Municipal Region 1 staff on pilot tests the remediation, using ISCO is planned and that these 

Water Supply and field application of this method is treatments will result in reduced 

Well Superfund ISCO remediation to treat expected to result contaminant levels. Preliminary Close 

Site OU1: contamination by chlorinated in signifi cant cost Out Report 2006 (see pages 3-4 & 8-9): 

Milford, NH, solvents savings to the State http://www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/ 

EPA Region 1 due to less time for 

P&T 

sites/savage/256592.pdf 

Fulton Avenue ORD partnered with Region ISCO accounts ROD 2007 (see pages 25, 33, & 

Superfund 2 staff to identify technical for 16% of total Appendix VI): http://www.epa. 

Site: North issues to address in the draft project costs, gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/ 

Hempstead, feasibility study report. but significantly r2007020002542.pdf 

NY, EPA ISCO was used to treat contributes 

Region 2 perchloroethylene (PCE) 

contamination and to restore 

the water quality in the aquifer 

more quickly than the other 

methods 

to improved 

outcomes because 

the timeframe of 

remediation is 

shortened. 

ISCO technology 

has a $1.2M cost 

savings over P&T 

Savannah River ORD’s technical Cost savings is ROD LASG 2007 (see pages 42-43 & 

Site, L-Area review recommended a $13 million (co­ 52): http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/ 

Southern comprehensive performance mingled VOCs rods/fulltext/r2007040001556.pdf 

Groundwater monitoring program to ensure and Tritium Plume 

(LASG): that remedial action objectives = $3,346,000 and 

Aiken, SC, were met. MNA was used Tritium Plume 

EPA Region 4 to treat contamination of 

groundwater from PCE, 

trichloroethylene (TCE), and 

tritium 

West of the Reactor 

= $10,125,000) 

when compared to 

the next cheapest 

alternative 

10th Street ORD partnered with Region Cost savings is ROD OU2 2005 (see pages 27-32 & 

OU2 7 staff to review documents estimated to be $1.3 38-39): http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

Superfund Site: and apply pilot study results million compared sites/rods/fulltext/r0705051.pdf ROD 

Columbus, NE, into the final design. ISCO to other treatments 2005; semi-annual chemical oxidation 

EPA Region 7 was determined to be injections began 2007 and additional 

the most effective of the 

treatment alternatives at the 

least cost for PCE and TCE 

contaminated groundwater 

injections were completed in 2009 

Altus AFB, ORD partnered with Cost savings is ORD highlight: http://www.epa.gov/ 

OK, EPA Region 6 and AF staff to estimated to be region6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-c/altus.pdf 

Region 6 apply a permeable reactive 

barrier (PRB) to treat TCE 

contaminated groundwater 

instead of conventional P&T 

$8 million 

5 
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 

Table 1. Applications for Groundwater Contaminants 

Site Problem/ Technology 

Applied Outcome Reference 

ASARCO East ORD partnered with Region Studies showed The case was settled in December, 2009 

Helena plant: 8 staff in the evaluation of that zero valent and the increased cost settlement was 

Helena, MT, cleanup technologies that iron (ZVI) PRB in the best interest of the environment 

EPA Region 8 would be appropriate to 

treat arsenic and selenium 

contaminated groundwater 

converted mobile 

dissolved arsenic 

into immobile 

arsenic compounds, 

but the PRB was 

not effective 

in removing 

selenium. So PRBs 

were removed 

as an available 

technology 

and the East Helena community. January 

4, 2010 letter of thanks from Region 8 

Enforcement Office to the groundwater 

team managed by Dr. Robert Puls 

Hollingsworth ORD partnered with Region Cost savings is Technical memorandum to Galo Jackson 

Solderless 4 staff on the application $600,000 when from Shaw Environmental, Inc. regarding 

Terminal: Ft. of ISEB to remediate TCE compared to ISCO Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal Site 

Lauderdale, contamination (HSTS)-Remedial Evaluation (see page 

FL, EPA 6) 

Region 4 

Macalloy ORD patented technology Cost savings is Site delisted in 2006. ROD 2002 (see 

Corporation for in-situ reduction was $500,000 when pages 9-35 & 9-36): http://www.epa.gov/ 

Superfund Site: used to remediate hexavalent compared to superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0402084. 

Charleston, SC, chromium the ZVI-PRB pdf 

EPA Region 4 alternative 

Ogden Railyard Used guidance for MNA ORD partnered ESD OU 4 2006: 

OU4: Odgen, remediation of chlorinated with OSWER http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/ 

UT, EPA VOC contamination staff to produce fulltext/e0806001.pdf 

Region 8 an OSWER 

Directive. The 

Directive will result 

in comprehensive 

data gathering 

requirements 

and will improve 

monitoring and 

remediation 

performance data 

6 
Contaminated Sediments 

Contaminated sediments continue to cause significant 

environmental problems that impair the uses of many 

water bodies and are often a contributing factor to the 

more than 3,200 total fish consumption advisories that have 

been issued nationwide. When addressing remediation of 

chemically contaminated sediments in rivers, lakes, and other 

water bodies, which can cause harm to aquatic life and public 

health, EPA works with States and responsible parties to clean 

up these hazardous releases. Their removal or containment, 

however, poses considerable remediation challenges, often 

requiring new scientific and technological approaches. 

EPA research into conventional and innovative sediment 

remediation techniques—including dredging, capping, 

and monitored natural attenuation—is addressing the cost, 

limitations, and uncertainties of cleanup efforts. Research 

products to support ecological and human health risk 

assessments include: Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factors 

(BSAF), a PCB Residue Effects Database (PCBRes), and 

Ecological Sediment Benchmarks (ESB). BSAFs are used 

to evaluate the transfer of chemicals from sediments into 

the aquatic food chain. Output from the BSAF dataset can 

interface with the PCBRes to determine if accumulated levels 

may be of concern relative to effects documented in the 

toxicological literature. 

Scientists are collaborating with partners to evaluate 

remediation methods and monitoring tools at contaminated 

sites. They are also evaluating the use of passive samplers 

that can simulate the uptake of PCBs in fi sh. These samplers 

may be an effective tool to determine the effectiveness of 

risk management approaches to cleaning up contaminated 

sediments. 

Examples of sediment research 

products and site-specifi c support 

are in Tables 2 and 3. 

7 

APPLICATION 

ORD’s technical expertise 

and assistance led to 

the effective treatment 

of arsenic in sediment 

and groundwater in Fort 

Devens, MA. The project 

manager in EPA’s Region 

1 Office called the support 

“priceless.” 
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 

Table 2. Sediment Technology Applications 

SITE Problem 

Addressed 

Why Chosen Outcome 

Fort Devens Superfund Source control ORD’s work will be the “...their [ORD] assistance, support 

Site, Plow Shop Pond of a groundwater foundation for the remedial and the results on this research 

(Red Cove) AOC72: (GW) plume so investigation (RI) and for project are priceless. ORD’s project 

Worcester, MA, that remediation a remedy, if needed. ORD has been an incredible jump start 

EPA Region 1 of contaminated suggested soil volatile for Red Cove.”- G. Lombardo, 

sediments will extraction (SVE) as more cost Regional Project Manager (RPM) 

have long-term effective remedy than in-situ 

effectiveness chemical oxidation (ISCO) OSWER 2009 National Notable 

at the site. Recommendations Achievement Award to the ORD 

for remediation include team. ORD research began in 2005, 

supplemental pump and treat participation ongoing; RI began in 

(P&T) system, permeable 2009 

reactive barrier (PRB), or insitu manipulation of an aquifer 

impacted by landfill 

Tennessee Products Polycyclic Active Sediment Caps, ORD’s suggested monitoring plan 

(Chattanooga Creek): aromatic AquaBlok®, is a cost effective will save $10,000 annually. 

Chattanooga, TN, 

EPA Region 4 

hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) (creosote) 

contamination 

alternative to dredging and it will 

minimize advective transport Record of Decision (ROD) 2006; 

Final Close Out Report for the site 

2008: http://www.epa.gov/Region4/ 

waste/npl/npltn/tennprtn.htm 

Grand Calumet River, Contamination by Active Sediment Caps, Research on sorbents and sorption 

IN, Area of concern PAHs AquaBlok®, is a cost effective capacity and studies on the physical 

(AOC), Great Lake alternative to dredging and it will stability of various active caps in 

National Program minimize advective transport dynamic environmental settings 

Office (GLNPO) at will improve the feasibility study 

EPA Region 5 process by realistically estimating 

the caps’ ability to reduce advective 

transport, physical longevity, 

and replacement cost. Design 

2008/2009 

Olin Chemical Mercury Active Sediment Caps, As described above research will 

(Macintosh Plant): contamination AquaBlok®, is a cost effective improve the feasibility study 

Macintosh, AL, alternative to dredging and it will process. RI/FS due fall 2009; ROD 

EPA Region 4 minimize advective transport 2010 

Lake Hartwell, SC, Polychlorinated ORD team collected monitoring Technical guidance on Monitored 

EPA Region 4 biphenyls (PCB) data to show the effectiveness of Natural Remediation (MNR) was 

contamination the remediation used at the sediment sites. ORD 

of lake; fish worked with the RPM on a ROD 

contamination mandated monitoring plan 

Ashtabula River, PCB ORD team collected data on Data supports GLNPO remediation 

OH, AOC GLNPO at contamination dredging residuals/resuspension, effectiveness evaluation by 

EPA Region 5 of river, fish 

contamination 

bioavailability, risk reduction, 

and application of new tools 

generating field information on 

application of biological methods 

and semi-permeable membrane 

devices (SPMDs) 

8 
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 

Table 3. Sediment Methods and Models Used in Site Assessment 

Site Name or User Problem 

Addressed User Application Outcome, Documentation 

Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factors (BSAF) 

Lower Passaic River Lack of site- Used BSAF dataset to help Risk assessment still in draft form; 

Restoration Project: specifi c BSAF; bound the value chosen from Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) uses 

NJ, EPA Region 2 therefore, needed a the literature ORD databases (BSAF, Eco-SSL) for 

literature value value guidance Draft FFS: 2007 

http://www.ourpassaic.org/ 

projectsites/premis_public/index. 

cfm?fuseaction=EarlyAction 

Portland Harbor Sediments BSAFs used to describe the Portland Harbor RI/FS: Comprehensive 

Superfund Site: contaminated accumulation of sediment- Round 2 Site Characterization Summary 

Harbor Oil site; with PCBs, associated organic compounds and Data Gaps Analysis ReportPortland, OR, metals, arsenic, or metals in tissues of Appendix E: 2007. EPA/600/R-06/045: 

EPA Region 10 pesticides, and 

PAHs 

ecological receptors. Guidance 

was followed in developing 

BSAFs in Remedial 

investigation/feasibility study 

(RI/FS) 

http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/cleanup/ 

PH/Round2/2007-02-21_CompR2Rep_ 

AppE.pdf 

Ecological Sediment Benchmarks (ESB) 

Big John Salvage- Monongahela ESBs are the most complete The analytical data collected have been 

Hoult Road River and compilation on the relative used in the weight of evidence approach 

Superfund Site: tributary sediment toxicity of PAHs and their to derive an ecologically-protective 

Fairmont, WV, EPA contamination derivatives concentration of PAHs in the river 

Region 3 from this site and 

potentially from an 

adjacent national 

priorities list 

(NPL) site 

sediments. It will be used to determine 

relative contribution from each of the 

NPL sites. 2006. PAH Mixtures: EPA600-R-02-013 

Hog Island Inlet: St. Sediment Benchmarks address ESBs were used to develop/evaluate 

Louis River AOC, contamination bioavailability to support sediment remedial target for PAHs. 

GLNPO at EPA assessment/remedial target Also, the following reports were used 

Region 5 review to evaluate post-remediation conditions: 

2005-2006. PAH Mixtures: EPA600-R-02-013; Metal Mixtures: EPA600-R-02-011 

Ruddiman Black Sediment Benchmarks address ESBs supported the use of a residual 

Lagoon – Trenton contamination bioavailability to support cover after sediment remediation 

Channel: Detroit assessment/remedial target based on projected residual sediment 

River and Creek review concentrations (PAHs and metals). 

– Muskegon, MI, Also, the following reports were used 

GLNPO. Similar to evaluate post-remediation conditions: 

support at 8 GLNPO PAH Mixtures: EPA-600-R-02-013; 

sites. EPA Region 5 Metal Mixtures: EPA-600-R-02-011 

9 
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 

Table 3. Sediment methods and models used in site assessment 

Site Name or User Problem Addressed User Application Outcome, Documentation 

Indian River Sediment Chemical partitioning Quotient summed to yield a Toxicity 

Power Plant: DE, contamination (EqP) was used in Unit (TU). TU used to estimate 

EPA Region 3 estimating pore water 

concentrations and to 

evaluate the toxicity of the 

PAHs to benthic organisms 

benthic toxicity and identifies 

PAHs that may be responsible. 

Bioavailability data used to establish 

cleanup level. PAH Mixtures: EPA600-R-02-013 

(Former) General Contamination by Both simultaneously Toxicity data supported clean-up 

Motors Corporation metals, PAHs, and extracted metals/acid agreement. Work Plan: Supplemental 

(GM) Assembly petroleum compounds volatile sulfi de (SEM/ Sediment Investigation Work Plan 

Plant Site: the lower AVS) and interstitial (pore) for Brownfi eld Cleanup AgreementHudson River estuary water benchmarks used for West Parcel Former General Motors 

Sleepy Hollow, NY, toxicity evaluation Assembly Plant Site.” 2006. Metal 

EPA Region 2 Mixtures: EPA-600-R-02-011 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/ 

remediation_hudson_pdf/swpwoutfig.pdf 

ESB used in guidance Ecological risk TCEQ: Update to Guidance http://www.tceq.State.tx.us/ 

Texas Commission assessment for Conducting Ecological remediation/trrp/guidance.html 

on Environmental Risk Assessments at (guidance temporally unavailable 

Quality (TCEQ) Remediation Sites in Texas 

RG-263 

online as of 8/26/09), 2006 

ESB used in guidance 

U.S. Geological 

Survey 

Water quality 

assessment 

Website Guidance USGS: 

National Water-Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) 

Program 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/ 

benchmarks/source.html#II 

ESB used in guidance, 

Europe 

Water management EUGRIS: portal for soil 

and water management in 

Europe 

http://www.wugris.info/ 

displayresource.asp?ResrouceID=64 

10&Cat=document 

ESB used in guidance, 

SedWeb 

Sediment assessment SedWeb: Links to EPA 

documents, guidance, and 

databases 

http://www.sediments.org/ 

PCB Residue Effects Database (PCBRes) 

Portland Harbor Sediment and biota Benchmark data used for 1) Draft RI report, and 2) 

(Oregon) Superfund contamination Hazard Quotient (HQ) methodology as a case study for the 

Site: Portland, OR, calculations. PCBRes Pellston workshop book on tissue 

EPA Region 10 information used to derive 

tissue based toxicity 

reference values, EqP 

PAH benchmarks used as 

comparison in baseline RA 

residue approaches (in collaboration 

with Dave DeForest). Draft RI: End 

of July, 2009 

LCP Chemicals site, 

Georgia; Holtra 

Chem/Honeywell, 

NC; Anniston, AL; 

EPA Region 4 

Sediment and biota 

contamination 

PCBRes used to obtain 

toxicity information and 

tissue residue effects levels 

PCBRes used in draft risk assessment 

10 
Site Characterization 

present and their concentrations in soil, groundwater

Hazardous waste sites must be properly characterized 

before appropriate remedial actions can be developed. 

This involves determining what contaminants are 

, and 

any other media. Many conventional site characterization 

techniques are time-consuming and may not provide 

appropriate data, leaving considerable uncertainty about key 

issues. 

EPA research is leading to faster and more accurate methods 

to identify and quantify commonly occurring and difficultto-address contaminants, including dioxins, polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and metals. Immunochemical 

and other bioanalytical methods that promote more rapid site 

characterization and monitoring of remediation effectiveness 

have also been developed. Field sampling and analytical 

methods have been proven, and guidance from these efforts 

has been widely disseminated to site managers and other 

decision makers. 

Researchers are developing statistical methods to reduce data 

uncertainty, as well as advanced statistical analysis software 

to assess the validity of analytical data. ProUCL, a statistical 

software EPA typically uses for determining exposure point 

concentrations, has gained acceptance in State guidance and 

is used by thousands of registered risk assessment users. The 

SCOUT software program (http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/ 

databases/scout/abstract.htm), a compilation of the latest 

statistical techniques that help site managers evaluate data, is 

used worldwide in academia, industry, and government. 

Research is solving many site-specific problems across the 

nation. 

APPLICATION 

ORD’s latest statistical 

techniques for site 

characterization, compiled 

in a database called 

SCOUT 2008, have been 

downloaded more than 

2,000 times worldwide and 

are used by scientists in 

academia, industry, and 

government. 

Tables 4 and 5 provide other 

examples of the applications of 

several analytical methods and 

the use of the ProUCL model by 

various States. 

11 
SITE CHARACTERIZATION 

Table 4. Statistical Methods 

State, Federal Agency or Country Title of Guidance Document Website Link 

ProUCL Statistical Method Applications 

ProUCL defi nition: Statistical 

software for the determination of 

upper confidence limits typically used 

by regulators for the determination 

exposure point concentrations, 2007 

http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/tsc/ 

software.htm 

Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management 

ProUCL Statistical Analysis Tool http://www.in.gov/idem/4209.htm 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Guidance Document: Directions to 

Determine 95% Upper Level of the 

Mean Using ProUCL Version 4.0, 2008 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/ 

rs/proucl.pdf 

Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Tank Programs Division: Introduction 

to underground storage tanks (UST) 

Tier 2 Evaluation Software, 2008 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/waste/ 

ust/lust/tier2.html 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(LANL) and the Environmental 

Programs (EP) Directorate 

SOP for Performing Human and 

Ecological Risk Screening Assessments, 

2009 

http://www.lanl.gov/environment/all/ 

docs/qa/ep_qa/SOP-5244.pdf 

Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Calculating the One-Sided 90% Upper 

Confidence Limit of the Mean 

http://www.deq.State.or.us/lq/ 

upperconfidencelimit.htm 

Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Guidance for Computing the 95% UCL 

of an Environmental Data Set, 2005, 

updated 2009 

http://www.epa.State.oh.us/derr/vap/ 

tgc/VA30007-09-028.pdf 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/ 

vap/tgc/VA30007-09-028.pdf 

Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality Remediation Division Action 

Level for Arsenic in Surface Soil, 2005 

http://deq.mt.gov/Statesuperfund/ 

PDFs/ArsenicPositionPaper.pdf 

Italy Allegato2: Elaborazioni mediante 

software ProUCL 3.0 delle 

concentrazioni di PCBtot sugli alimenti 

di origine vegetale 

http://www.aslbrescia.it/asl/ 

media/documenti/pcb/brescia_ 

aprile_2008/15%20-%20 

Allegato%201%20-%202.pdf 

Federal Remediation Technologies 

Roundtable 

Site Screening http://www.frtr.gov/decisionsupport/ 

DST_Tools/ProUCL.htm 

Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Voluntary Remediation Program Risk 

Assessment Guidance, 2008 

http://www.deq.State.va.us/vrprisk/ 

raguide.html 

State of Hawaii Department 

of Health: Office of Hazard 

Evaluation and Emergency 

Response 

Technical Guidance Manual for the 

Implementation of the Hawaii State 

Contingency Plan, 2009 

http://www.hawaiidoh.org/tgm.aspx 

New Hampshire Department 

of Environmental Services: 

Environmental Health Program 

Technical Background for the 2008 

Update to the New Hampshire 

Statewide Mercury Fish Consumption 

Advisory, 2008 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/ 

commissioner/pip/publications/ard/ 

documents/r-ard-08-1.pdf 

12 
SITE CHARACTERIZATION 

Table 5. Analytical Methods 

Problem Addressed Why Chosen User Application Outcome, Documentation 

Volatile organic Vacuum distillation method Technique was used to create RCRA SW-846 methods 

carbon (VOC) has been successfully two SW-846 methods (8261A (8261A and 5032) 

extraction and developed to improve the and 5032) and has been 

analysis extraction of VOCs from 

diffi cult matrices 

practiced in several Regional 

laboratories and Superfund’s 

Quality Assurance Testing 

laboratory 

Polychlorinated Lack of a sensitive method to ORD developed a New method is capable 

biphenyls (PCB) distinguish PCB congeners comprehensive method for the of distinguishing 196 of 

Congener Analysis determination of PCB congener 

analysis (journal article) 

the 209 PCB congeners. 

Method provides superior 

separation of PCB 

congeners that were 

difficult to separate 

Toxaphene Initial research was in support 

of Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) request (2005­

P-00022) for information 

on the effectiveness of the 

existing methodology to 

determine toxaphene and its 

congeners 

ORD developed a method to 

improve the analysis and it is 

currently undergoing roundrobin studies in conjunction 

with the Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery 

to determine the method’s 

robustness 

Method for the analysis 

of toxaphene to be 

incorporated into SW-846 

methods manual 

Field portable 

X-ray Fluorescence 

(FPXRF) 

technologies 

The purpose of field 

demonstrations is to test 

multiple technologies 

that accomplish the same 

analytical objective (e.g., 

measure dioxins in soils and 

sediments) 

Reports are produced for each 

manufacturer’s technique, 

method, instrument, etc. 

Data from the XRF 

demonstration was 

incorporated directly into 

the new SW-846 Method 

6200 

Leaching Test Standard leaching method is ORD developed an improved SW-846 Draft Method 

Methods too simplistic to be applicable leaching test method. It 

provides information pertinent 

to the draft regulation of coal 

combustion ash 

1313 - 1316: Liquid-Solid 

Partitioning as a Function 

of Eluate pH Using a 

Parallel Batch Extraction 

Test: http://www.epa.gov/ 

waste/hazard/testmethods/ 

sw846/pdfs/6200.pdf 

Leaching Test Standard leaching method is ORD developed tests for SW-846 Draft Method 

Methods too simplistic to be applicable determining consistency in 

leaching test data. It provides 

information pertinent to 

the draft regulation of coal 

combustion ash 

1317: Concise Test for 

Determining Consistency 

in Leaching Behavior 

13 
This page left intentionally blank. 

14 
Landfills 

EPA engineers and scientists are working to make 

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills more sustainable 

by reducing the potential for greenhouse gas emissions 

generated at landfills, while providing the nation with an 

economical disposal option and reducing long-term risks 

associated with landfills. 

Researchers are focusing on two innovative approaches to 

make landfills more sustainable: bioreactor landfi lls and 

alternative landfill covers. Bioreactor landfills use moisture 

to enhance the waste degradation process. Researchers are 

examining the effects of introducing different types of liquid 

waste into solid waste landfills. Studies suggest that bioreactor 

landfills encourage the settlement of solid waste and increase 

the generation rate of methane to approximately five times that 

of conventional landfills. Captured methane can be used to 

produce energy. 

Alternative covers for landfills promote evapotranspiration 

(ET) for environmentally protective and less costly solutions 

compared to traditional landfill covers. Technology transfer 

activities have included training and installation of ET covers 

at State, local, and U.S. Department of Defense facilities. 

Over the last five years, EPA’s Alternative Covers Assessment 

Program (ACAP) partnered with over 40 facility managers 

to receive regulatory approval for alternative covers, which 

resulted in significant cost savings of tens of millions 

of dollars per year, compared to conventional Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-engineered covers. A 

discussion of costs for ET covers is presented in Appendix C. 

APPLICATION 

Over the last fi ve years, 

ORD scientists have 

partnered with over 40 

landfill managers to 

transfer technology on 

alternative landfill covers. 

This resulted in installation 

cost savings totaling over 

200 million dollars. 

Table 6 highlights 12 examples of 

how research has contributed to 

solving landfi ll problems. 

15 
LANDFILLS 

Table 6. Technology Transfer of Alternative Landfi ll Covers 

Site Name or User Problem addressed/ User 

Application Outcome Documentation and Contacts 

Altamont Landfi ll & 

Resource Recovery 

Facility: Altamont, CA 

(Private, Municipal 

solid waste (MSW), 

active), EPA Region 9 

Evapotranspiration (ET) 

cover Prairie 

Total Savings = 

$11,800,000 

(Cover Size = 472 x 

Savings per Acre of 

$25,000) approved full 

scale 

Waste Management Inc. 

Ken Lewis 

http://www.cluin.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=1 

Douglas County 

Recycling and 

Disposal Facility: 

Omaha, NE (Private, 

MSW, active), 

EPA Region 7 

ET Prairie Total Savings = $1,650,000 

(Cover Size = 55 acres 

x Savings per Acre of 

$30,000) Installed 

Waste Management Inc. 

Ken Mertl, District Manager 

http://www.cluin.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=11 

Lewis and Clark 

County Landfill: 

Helena, MT 

(Municipal, MSW, 

active), EPA Region 8 

ET Prairie Total Savings = $430,000 

w/ + $1million potential 

(Cover Size = 8.9 acres 

so far [240 acres planned] 

x Savings per Acre of 

$48,000) 

Lewis & Clark County Public 

Works Department, Will Selser 

http://www.cluin.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=34 

Milikin Landfi ll: San Monolithic ET Cover with Total Savings = $3,200,000 GeoLogic Associates 

Bernardino County, native seasonal grasses, (Cover Size = 80 x Savings Gary Lass 

CA, EPA Region 9 perennial bunch grasses, 

and shallow rooting shrubs 

could be expected to limit 

infiltration to less than 

0.04% of rainfall 

per Acre of $40,000) 2005 http://www.clu-in.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=42 

U.S. Marine Corps Air Monolithic ET Cover Total Savings = $1,600,000 MCAGCC, Clay Longson, 

and Ground Combat (Cover Size = 40 x Savings Offi cer-in-Charge of 

Center (MCAGCC) at per Acre = $40,000) 2005 Construction 

Twenty-nine Palms: 

Twenty-nine Palms, 

CA, EPA Region 9 

http://www.clu-in.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=62 

Denver Arapahoe Monolithic ET Cover-Full Total Savings = $4,725,000 Colorado Department of Public 

Disposal Site scale (Cover Size = 1350 x Health 

(DADS) Landfill: Savings per Acre of $3,500) Ron Forlina 

Arapahoe County, CO, 

EPA Region 8 

2006 http://www.clu-in.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=70 

Finley Buttes Regional Monolithic ET Prairie Total Savings = Waste Connections, Inc. 

Landfi ll: Bordman, $75,000,000 Dan Swanson 

OR, EPA Region 10 (Cover Size = 510 x 

Savings per Acre of 

$147,000). 2006 

dansw@wcnx.org 

http://www.cluin.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=15 

16 
LANDFILLS 

Table 6. Technology Transfer of Alternative Landfi ll Covers 

Site Name or User Problem addressed/ User 

Application Outcome Documentation and Contacts 

Marine Corps Pilot study found that Total Savings = $5,000,000 http://www.cluin.org/products/ 

Logistics Base ET cover had superior (Cover Size = 12 x Savings altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

Superfund Site: performance in comparison per Acre of $416,000) 2005 cfm?Project_ID=37 

Albany, GA (DOD, to a traditional clay cover. 

mixed, Superfund), 

EPA Region 4 

It was chosen for use at 

the site and eliminated the 

clay cap as a contingency 

remedy in the Engineering 

Study Design 

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

sites/rods/fulltext/e0405040.pdf 

Walsh Landfill Focused Feasibility Study Total Savings = $350,000 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

Superfund Site (aka (FFS) showed that ET (Cover Size = 7 x Savings sites/rods/fulltext/a0303066.pdf 

Welsh Landfill): cover would meet remedial per Acre of $50,000) [S. 

Honeybrook, PA, 

EPA Region 3 

action objectives and 

prevent further degradation 

of groundwater quality. 

Density of trees will be 

Acre Estimate] 

Record of Decision (ROD) 

Amendment estimates cost 

http://www.clu-in.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=69 

approximately 770 trees per 

acre. 

savings approximately 

$1,220,000 when ET 

is compared to the cap 

components of the 1990 

ROD remedy, installed 

2006 

ROD Amendment 2003 

Solvents Recovery Volatile Organic Anticipated cost savings of http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

Service of New Compounds (VOC) $12,170,000. ACAP was sites/rods/fulltext/r0105008.pdf 

England: NJ (also a groundwater plume. over 90% less expensive 

groundwater site), EPA 

Region 2 

Decrease the groundwater 

flow into the pump and 

treat (P&T) system and 

than excavation and 

off-site disposal of the 

contaminated soils. Capping 

http://www.epa.gov/region01/ 

superfund/sites/srs/229296.pdf 

contribute to cleaning in conjunction with deed 

the groundwater of the restrictions and long-term http://www.epa.gov/region01/ 

site. 2,500 mixed-species maintenance offers the same superfund/sites/srs/222220.pdf 

trees were planted over overall protection of human 

the plume area. Ongoing health and environment as 

monitoring tests indicate excavation. ROD 2005 

signifi cant reduction 

of contamination and 

contribution to remediation 

between 25 and 30% of 

annual flow 

Sunshine Canyon Monolithic ET Arid Total Savings = $6,480,000 GeoSyntec Consultants 

Landfi ll: San Ecosystem achieves (Cover Size = 162 x Tarik Hadj-Hamou 

Bernardino, CA, regulatory approval using Savings per Acre of THadj-Hamou@geosyntec.com 

EPA Region 9 ACAP data and designs $40,000) http://www.clu-in.org/products/ 

altcovers/usersearch/lf_details. 

cfm?Project_ID=83 

17 
LANDFILLS 

Table 6. Technology Transfer of Alternative Landfi ll Covers 

Site Name or User Problem addressed/ User 

Application Outcome Documentation and Contacts 

Fort Carson: Achieves regulatory Total Savings = $1,500,000 Earth Tech 

Fort Carson, CO, approval using ACAP data (Cover Size = 15 x Savings Pat McGuire, Senior 

EPA Region 8 and designs. Monolithic ET 

Prairie-Native warm- and 

cool-season prairie grasses 

per Acre of $100,000) Hydrologist 

pat_mcguire@earthtech.com 

USACE-Omaha 

Don Moses 

donald.d.moses@nw02.usace. 

army.mil 

Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment 

Susan Chaki 

Susan.Chaki@State.co.us 

18 
Underground Storage Tanks 

Releases from leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) 

require States to spend nearly $1 billion annually for 

remediation efforts. Conventional site characterization 

techniques often result in inadequate conceptualization of the 

site, leading to ineffective and inefficient remedial actions. 

Our scientists and researchers in ORD are working with States 

and industry to address major challenges faced in developing, 

selecting, and implementing efficient and cost-effective 

clean-up remedies for UST sites. These challenges include 

developing accurate conceptual site models, installing adequate 

monitoring well networks, and effectively characterizing the 

chemical compositions present in the fuels stored in USTs. 

Accurate computer models can be used to refi ne conceptual 

site models and predict contaminant behavior and remedial 

effectiveness. Scientists developed Optimal Well Location 

(OWL), a simple tool to evaluate existing monitoring well 

networks and assist in selecting new monitoring well locations. 

The Plume Diving Calculator, which estimates prospects for 

plume diving, was also developed and disseminated to address 

problematic issues associated with USTs. 

Other research into UST issues, including widespread 

groundwater contamination from methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE), 

other oxygenates, and lead-scavenger additives, has increased 

understanding of the effects these fuel components have on 

contaminant fate and transport, toxicology, characterization, 

and remedial technologies for UST sites. Studies on fuel 

composition have led to identification and documentation of 

issues with lead scavengers and biofuels, as well as a better 

understanding of MTBE biodegradation and vapor releases 

from USTs. These studies are helping States improve the 

quality of their collected data, thereby enabling better remedial 

and risk management decision making. 

APPLICATION 

To cleanup leaking 

underground storage 

tanks, ORD has provided 

extensive technical 

information about the 

fate of gasoline and 

fuel additives in the 

environment and offered 

remediation expertise 

directly to State project 

managers. 

Table 7 presents the tools and 

training activities ORD produces to 

support States in UST remediation 

activities. 

19 
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS 

Table 7. Underground Storage Tank Groundwater Remediation 

Problem Addressed Why 

Chosen User Application Outcome, Documentation 

ORD Underground Storage Tank (UST) Models 

Develop a simple tool to ORD developed the API Technical http://www.api.org/ehs/ 

evaluate existing monitoring Optimal Well Location Protocol for groundwater/oxygenates/ 

well networks and assist (OWL) model. It was Evaluating the Natural upload/4761new.pdf. 2007 

in the selection of new used by the American Attenuation of 

monitoring well locations Petroleum Institute 

(API): Regulatory 

and Scientifi c Affairs 

Department 

methyl t-butyl ether 

(MTBE) 

Plumes can dive because The Plume Diving Task Force Report; http://www.api.org/ehs/ 

of aquifer recharge. The Calculator was used Downward Solute groundwater/upload/bull24-2.pdf. 

Plume Diving Calculator by API Soil and Plume Migration: 2006 

can estimate the prospects Groundwater Technical Assessment, 

for plume diving assuming Task Force Signifi cance, and 

simplified flow in a water Implications for 

table aquifer. Inputs to the Characterization and 

calculator are the hydraulic Monitoring of “Diving 

conductivity and recharge Plumes” 

rate 

Plumes can dive because of InterState Technology ITRC Technology http://www.itrcweb.org/ 

aquifer recharge Regulatory Council Overview: Overview Documents/MTBE-1.pdf. 2005 

(ITRC) chose the of Groundwater 

Plume Diving Remediation 

Calculator as the best Technologies for 

model for its guidance MTBE and TBA 

document 

Plumes can dive because of The Plume Diving Leaking UST Line: http://www.deq.louisiana. 

aquifer recharge Calculator was cited A Report on Federal gov/portal/Portals/0/ 

for use in New England and State Programs UndergroundStorageTank/ 

InterState Water to Control Leaking lustline52.pdf. 2006 

Pollution Control Underground Storage 

Commission report Tanks 

MTBE/ Ethylene dibromide Data obtained by ORD The New Hampshire ORD’s research directly 

(EDB) biodegradation, on EDB concentrations Department of influenced the State’s program 

vapor releases of gasoline in New Hampshire non- Environmental implementation, enhancing the 

from USTs and EDB aqueous phase liquids Services (DES) science behind their prioritization 

contamination levels in light (NAPL) drew attention responded to of release management 

non-aqueous phase liquids 

(LNAPL) at leaded gasoline 

release sites 

to ongoing EDB threat 

from large, poorly 

weathered leaded 

gasoline releases 

ORD’s information 

with a large-scale 

investigation of EDB 

at gasoline releases 

Letter of commendation from 

Thomas Burack, New Hampshire 

DES Commissioner, May 2009 

sites and found EDB 

to be an issue at over 

60 sites 

20 
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS 

Table 7. Underground Storage Tank Groundwater Remediation 

Problem Addressed Why 

Chosen User Application Outcome, Documentation 

Underground Storage Tanks Research Applications (UST) 

The unique properties ORD provided research ORD sponsored a ORD enabled the States to 

of MTBE (and other into transport and field demonstration of develop a better understanding 

oxygenates) led to increased fate, toxicology, and three drinking water of the transport, fate, and 

incidents release from remedial technologies treatment methods for characterization of MTBE 

conventional UST systems, for MTBE (and other removal of MTBE. plumes leading to an enhanced 

resulting in widespread oxygenates) It documented understanding of plume diving. 

groundwater contamination. the applicability States also improved the quality of 

MTBE releases have been of analytical collected data on the presence of 

documented in every State methods for MTBE. 

Through various 

communication 

methods, ORD 

provided aid to 

States with analytical 

methods, effective 

characterization 

methods, and tools 

for cleanup of MTBE 

releases 

MTBE and other fuel oxygenates 

at leaking UST sites, thus enabling 

more effective remedial and riskmanagement decision making 

Lead Scavengers, EDB and Assistance was needed ORD analyzed ORD enabled the States to 

1,2-dichloroethane, may to determine the scope groundwater samples develop a better understanding 

persist for long periods of and magnitude of the from 102 sites in 19 of which types of sites might 

time in certain groundwater occurrence of lead States and published still be contaminated with lead 

environments scavengers at leaking a report of lead scavengers. They developed 

UST sites and to scavenger research a better understanding of the 

identify key transport transport, fate, and plume 

and fate mechanisms characterization. Improved data 

in order to more quality resulted in better remedial 

effectively mitigate the and risk management decision 

threat to drinking water making 

Gasoline Composition Over the past several Fuel composition ORD’s support provided States 

– Gasoline is a complex years, ORD collected data better enables with information about the 

mixture of hundreds of samples of gasoline States to design contaminants anticipated to be 

petroleum hydrocarbons and (and other automotive characterization, present at leaking UST sites so 

other organic compounds fuels) from several monitoring, and that vulnerable populations can 

plus synthetic additives. cities around the remediation tailored to be better protected from exposure 

Its composition changes country. ORD personnel the toxic constituents to constituents of gasoline in 

seasonally, geographically, have presented results most likely to be in drinking water. It also enabled 

and temporally, which results of this investigation at spilled fuels more accurate determination of 

in a large number of boutique the past few national when a release occurred. 

fuels UST conferences and 

published a technical 

report 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/ 

pubs/600r06153/600r06153.pdf 

21 
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS This page left intentionally blank.

Table 7. Underground Storage Tank Groundwater Remediation 

Problem Addressed Why 

Chosen User Application Outcome, Documentation 

Biofuels have differences ORD produced Incorporation of ORD’s support ensured that 

from conventional fuels technical tools that models into site States are aware that ethanolin transport and fate educate State UST assessment for blended gasoline releases typically 

characteristics, and different program personnel proper placement of generate longer benzene, toluene, 

chemical compositions about biofuels and sampling intervals ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) 

compared to their provided technical leads to better site plumes than conventional 

petroleum counterparts. assistance in the use characterization gasoline, and that higher ethanol 

This necessitates the use of of these models. and more efficient blends can generate significant 

different analytical methods FOOTPRINT – is a remediation amounts of methane that present a 

and (potentially) cleanup screening level model vapor intrusion hazard. 

technologies, and potential 

incompatibilities with certain 

UST system components 

to predict the impact of 

ethanol on the size of 

the benzene plume from 

http://www.epa.gov/ada/csmos/ 

models/footprint.html 

that can lead to the increased an UST 

incidence of release 

HSSM-MT3D – is 

a three-dimensional 

multiphase transport 

and fate model with 

reaction terms for 

assessing impacts of 

ethanol fuel releases 

22 
Materials Management 

EPA is addressing critical issues associated with materials 

management to reduce risks from waste products, 

promote their beneficial reuse, and fi nd cost-effective 

ways to treat problems such as acid mine drainage. Scientists 

are also providing new insights into contaminant speciation 

and bioavailability under actual field conditions at Superfund 

sites. 

Conventional methods to determine levels of metals such 

as lead, arsenic, and organic pesticides do not adequately 

address their bioavailability under site-specifi c conditions. 

Innovative methods to determine contaminant speciation 

and bioavailability provide better data for more accurate 

risk assessments. Reliable bioavailability data improve the 

accuracy of exposure and risk calculations for metals found at 

Superfund sites. Research is also increasing our understanding 

of toxicity issues associated with reuse of materials, such 

as coal combustion residue, gypsum in drywall, and mining 

materials (chat) in road-making materials. 

The use of bioreactors to treat acid mine drainage and remote 

monitoring of mining sites has led to successful partnerships 

among researchers, site managers, and academia. 

APPLICATION 

Through partnerships, 

ORD has developed and 

tested bioreactors for 

treating acid mine draina

and developed monitorin

for remote mining sites. 

The research has led to 

improved water quality 

from old mining sites. 

ge 

g 

Table 8 presents examples of sites 

where ORD has supported States 

in their materials management 

activities. 

23 
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

Table 8. Materials Management 

Problem 

Addressed Why Chosen User Application Outcome, Documentation 

An approach to ORD research developed Addition of low cost soil Proposed Record of Decision 

remediate lead, an alternative approach amendments can alter (ROD) change at Barber Orchards 

arsenic, organic to remediate lead bioavailability, reducing site, NC based on enhanced 

pesticides in the contaminated sites which estimated risk from understanding of contaminant 

soil matrix considers bioavailability contaminants and the species and their relation to 

of contaminants in soil. remediation cost bioavailability. Supports improved 

ORD contributed to Office assessment of exposure and risk 

of Superfund Remediation 

and Technology Innovation 

(OSRTI) guidance to assist 

EPA site coordinators 

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

health/contaminants/ 

bioavailability/. 2009 

nationwide. Remediations 

can be based not on total 

metal concentration, but on 

species and bioavailability 

Flue gas Research modifi ed worker ORD answered key Guidance document prepared for 

desulfurization risk assessments for those science questions on Region 5. October 28, 2008 memo 

(FGD) is used in working to produce drywall material reuse to enable from Region 5 Mario Mangino to 

the production comprised of FGD. FGD was guidance on FGD in R5 Julie Gevrenov entitled, Update 

of some drywall characterized and species drywall to: “Draft screening level evaluation 

products. Evaluate were determined. Evaluated of mercury health risk from worker 

mercury in FGD issues associated with the exposure to gypsum dust during 

for worker safety landfill disposal of FGD construction-demolition activities” 

issues drywall (December 16, 2005) 

Need to Research needed to Region 6 staff, working EPA fact sheet and technical paper 

understand determine the risks with ORD researchers, published. Science issues were 

the level of associated with using designed experiments addressed and chat is being used as 

risk associated mineral processing to model real-world road base. 

with reuse of 

specifi c mineral 

processing waste 

waste (chat) in roadway 

construction 

application of this 

material in asphaltic 

road pavement materials 

to examine leaching 

http://epa.gov/region06/6sf/pdffiles/ 

tar_creek_chat_rule_fact_sheet_ 

june_2007.pdf 

characteristics. Leaching 

from chat in roadways 

was determined to exhibit 

minimal risk 

Evaluate To support the Research In collaboration between OSWER RD&D Rule issued and 

bioreactor landfill Development and a leading member of supported by this research. Rule 

operational Demonstration (RD&D) waste management will change how municipal waste 

techniques to Rule, guidance was needed industry and ORD, wet landfills are operated to mitigate 

reduce long-term for the increasing numbers cell landfi ll bioreactor long-term risk. 

risk at waste 

disposal sites 

of bioreactors operated and 

in development. A better 

understanding of emissions/ 

carbon assessment was 

techniques were 

examined at full scale for 

application limits, waste 

degradation, leachate 

http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/ 

municipal/landfi ll/bioreactors.htm, 

www.bioreactor.org 

needed pretreatment, emissions 

control, and improvement 

of gas collection and 

utilization 

24 
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

Table 8. Materials Management 

Mining Site 

Remediation Why Chosen User Application Outcome, Documentation 

Standard Mine Treatment for heavy metals ORD working with Pilot demonstrates the success of 

Superfund (e.g., cadmium, zinc, lead, Region 8 staff installed BCRs at cold, remote locations. The 

Site: Crested and copper) contamination a pilot biochemical combination of metals removal and 

Butte, CO, from acid mine drainage reactor (BCR) containing sulfide generation provided a strong 

EPA Region 8 of surface water into town three distinct zones (i.e., indication that bacteria-mediated 

drinking water supply limestone drainage, metal sulfide precipitation occurred 

organic substrate, and in the BCR. Removal values for 

standing water). It cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc 

reduced heavy metal were ~98% in the BCR. 2007. 

concentrations. Data 

were collected remotely 

using a solar-powered 

sampling system with 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/ 

superfund/co/standard/ 

RutkowskiSME2009.pdf 

transmission of results http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/ 

via satellite nplsnl/n0801669.pdf 

Lilly/Orphan A treatment method was A bioreactor of organic Dissolved metals concentrations 

Boy mine: near needed to reduce metal matter (consisting decreased considerably and pH of 

Helena, MT, contamination from acid primarily of cow the mine water increased. When 

EPA Region 8 mine drainage manure, combined with 

decomposed wood chips, 

and alfalfa straw) was 

installed to effectively 

remove metals 

compared with a more traditional 

lime treatment system, using the 

assumption of a 30-year treatment 

period, the bioreactor was estimated 

to be less expensive with cost 

savings ranging from $200,000­

$300,000. 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/ 

pubs/600r08096/600r08096.pdf 

Nevada A treatment method was ORD worked with http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/ 

Stewart Mine, needed to reduce metal Region 9 staff to install pubs/600r06153/600r06153.pdf 

EPA Region 9 contamination from acid a permeable reactive 

mine drainage barrier (PRB) to 

effectively remove zinc 

and iron from discharge 

water flowing from the 

abandoned mine 

25 
This page left intentionally blank. 

26 
Appendix A

27

Acknowledgement of ORD, Regional, and State Partnerships

Sites Partners

Groundwater

Parkview Well Superfund Site OU2: Grand Island, NE 

(Region 7)

Bradley Vann (current RPM); Robert Weber 

(Former RPM); Scott Huling (ORD)

Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal: Ft. Lauderdale, FL 

(Region 4)

Galo Jackson (RPM); Scott Huling (ORD)

Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site: Charleston, SC 

(Region 4)

Craig Zeller (RPM); Ralph D. Ludwig, Chunming 

Su, Steve Acree, Randall Ross, Frank Beck, Pat 

Clark, and Kyle Jones.

Industri-Plex Superfund Site OU2 (including Wells 

G&H Superfund Site OU3): Woburn, MA (Region 1)

Joseph LeMay (RPM); Robert Ford and previously 

Robert Puls (ORD)

Billings PCE Groundwater Site: Billings, MT 

(Region 8)

Kerry Guy (OSC); Scott Huling (ORD)

Pemaco Superfund Site: Maywood, CA 

(Region 9)

RoseMarie Caraway (RPM); Eva Davis (ORD)

Solvents Recovery Service of New England: 

Southington, CT (Region 1)

Karen Lumino (RPM); Scott Huling, Eva Davis, 

Randal Ross, and Ann Keely (ORD)

Ogden Railyard OU4: Odgen, UT (Region 8) Erna Waterman (RPM); Steve Acree (ORD) 

Savage Municipal Water Supply Well Superfund Site 

OU1: Milford, NH (Region 1)

Robin Mongeon (State Lead, NHDES); Richard 

Goehlert (RPM); Scott Huling (ORD)

Delatte Metals Superfund Site: Ponchatoula, LA 

(Region 6) 

Katrina Higgins-Coltrain (RPM); Ralph Ludwig 

(ORD)

Altus AFB, OK (Region 6) John Wilson (ORD)

Fulton Avenue Superfund Site: North Hempsted, NY 

(Region 2)

RPM: Kevin Willis (R2); PI: Scott Huling (ORD)

Savannah River Site, L-Area Southern Groundwater 

(LASG): Aiken, SE (Region 4)

RPM: Turpin Ballard (R4); Robert Ford and Steve 

Acree (ORD)

10th Street OU2 Superfund Site: Columbus, NE

(Region 7)

RPM: Nancy Swyers (R7); PI: Scott Huling (ORD) 

and Michelle Simon (ORD)

ASARCO East Helena plant: Helena, MT (Region 8) RPM: Linda Jacobson (R8); PI: Rick Wilkin and 

Steven Acree (ORD) Pat Clark (ORD)

Contaminated Sediments

Fort Devens Superfund Site, Plow Shop Pond (Red 

Cove) AOC72: Worcester, MA (Region 1)

RPM: Ginny Lombardo and Bill Brandon (R1); 

Kirk Scheckel, Thabet Tolaymat, Aaron Williams, 

Pat Clark, Robert Ford, Steven Acree, and Brad 

Scroggins (ORD)

Fort Devens Superfund Site, Plow Shop Pond (Red 

Cove) AOC72: Worcester, MA (Region 1)

PI: Bob Lien (ORD) 

Tennessee Products (Chattanooga Creek): Chattanooga, 

TN (Region 4)

RPM: Craig Zeller (R4); PI: Ed Barth (ORD)

Grand Calumet River, IN Area of Concern (Region 5) Area coordinators: Mike Mikulka, David 

Petrovskey (R5); PI: Ed Barth (ORD)
28

APPENDIX A

Sites Partners

Pine St. Canal: Burlington, VT (Region 1)

Olin Chemical (Macintosh Plant): Macintosh, AL 

(Region 4)

Passaic River, NJ (Region 2)

Lake Hartwell, SC (Region 4)

Ashtabula River, OH (GLNPO) (Region 5)

Sediment Remediation Research

Underground Storage Tanks

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Models

Specifi c Model

OWL (Optimal Well Location)

Plume Diving Calculator

Plume Diving Calculator

Plume Diving Calculator

Materials Management

Standard Mine Superfund Site: Crested Butte, CO 

(Region 8)

Lilly/Orphan Boy mine: near Helena, MT (Region 8)

Alternative Landfi ll Covers 

Site Characterization

ProUCL John Nocerino, ORD

General

Randall Wentsel, Patricia Erickson, Jane Denne, Doug 

Wolf, Ann Brown, ORD; Jennifer Fairbrother, student 

contractor

RPM: Karen Lumino (R1); PI: Ed Barth (ORD)

RPM: Beth Walden (R4); PI: Ed Barth (ORD)

RPM: Alice Yeh (R2); PI: Ed Barth (ORD)

Jim Lazorchak, Dennis Timberlake, ORD, 

Craig Zeller, RPM, R4

Marc Mills, Jim Lazorchak, ORD; Marc Tuchman, 

GLNPO

Souhail Al-Abed (ORD)

Fran Kremer, Jim Weaver, John Wilson, ORD

Users

American Petroleum Institute (API): Regulatory and 

Scientifi c Affairs Department

API Regulatory Analysis and Scientifi c Affairs, Soil 

and Groundwater Technical Task Force

InterState Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC)

New England InterState Water Pollution Control 

Commission

RPM: Christina Progess (R8); David Reisman, ORD

Program Manager: Diana Bless ORD

Steve Rock, ORD for all sites, 

 Users identifi ed in table
Performance Measures for 

Research Organizations 

Performance measures for research organizations 

need to focus on increasing the research excellence 

of the organization. Effective measures are useful for 

two reasons: they enable appropriate evaluation of 

the research organization and they are utilized by the 

research managers within the organization to improve 

the program. Developing effective performance 

measures, however, is not a straightforward process. The 

Government Accounting Office noted in its 1997 report 

on Measuring Performance of Federal R&D: 

• The very nature of the innovative process makes 

measuring the performance of science-related 

projects difficult. 

• There is no single indicator or evaluation 

method that adequately captures the results of 

R&D. 

Edward Brown1

 agreed that developing meaningful 

performance metrics for research organizations is 

difficult. He discussed two main reasons why: the likely 

outcomes of research cannot be quantified in advance, 

and outputs leading to outcomes can take years to occur. 

A report by the National Research Council (NRC) in 

20082

 also noted the difficultly in developing performance 

measures for research organizations and stressed the 

importance of expert review. Within this context, Brown 

proposed three performance questions that stakeholders 

want answered: 

1. Is the research relevant? 

2. Is the program productive? 

3. Is the research of highest quality? 

Relevance is defined as “a relation to the matter at 

hand.”3

 For research activities, relevance is the use of the 

researchers’ expertise and research products by partners 

to support environmental decisions. The ultimate goal 

in the utilization of research is enabling environmental 

outcomes. For productivity, Brown Stated there were no 

valid metrics for technical performance. However, he 

stated that input from partners and peer reviews could 

provide evaluations of program productivity. The quality 

of a research program includes innovative scientists 

producing high-caliber products and publications in 

1

Brown, E. (1997). Measuring Performance at the Army 

Research Laboratory: The Performance Evaluation Construct. 

Army Research Laboratory Journal of Technology Transfer. 

22(2): 21-26. 

2

Evaluating Research Efficiency in the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, National Research Council, 2008 

3

Relevance - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.” Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster 

Online. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/ 

dictionary/relevance>. 

Appendix B
 state-of-the-art facilities. The NRC (2008) Stated that 

expert review could address investment effi ciency, 

strategic directions, and research quality. 

Performance Measures 

Research program performance measures can be 

evaluated by activities that primarily address the quality 

and relevance of the researchers and their research 

products. 

Measures of high-quality research 

• Independent peer review can evaluate the 

strategic directions of the program, the quality 

of the research being conducted, and evidence 

of program performance and relevance. ORD 

activities include: 

o External peer review (e.g., Science 

Advisory Board, Board of Scientific 

Counselors [BOSC]). 

o Peer review of the Multi-Year Research 

Plans. 

o Laboratory or document peer review. 

• Tracking citation of open literature publications 

that identify high-impact papers. 

• Acknowledging the number of awards and 

external recognition of the research scientists. 

• Utilizing state-of-the-art facilities. 

Measures of relevant research 

Relevance of a research program can be evaluated 

through documenting uses and short-term and long-term 

outcomes of research products. Lines of evidence include: 

• Documenting site-specific applications of 

research. 

• Documenting use of research products in 

guidance. 

• Receiving feedback from partners on application 

of research products. 

• Documenting how research informs regulatory 

and other EPA decisions. 

• Measuring partners citations of research 

products.
 

• Communicating with stakeholders on the 

impacts of research activities and the new 

research challenges facing EPA Regions and 

Program Offices. Communication can be 

facilitated through Research Coordination 

Teams, program reviews, Deputy Assistant 

Administrator meetings, seminars, and site 

specific technical support. 

29 
This page left intentionally blank. 

30 
 

Landfi ll Research: 

Alternative Covers Assessment Program Cost Analysis 

The Alternative Covers Assessment Program (ACAP) 

has led to the increased use of evapotranspiration (ET) 

landfill covers over the past decade with many sites 

achieving regulatory approval for alternative covers 

using ACAP data and designs. The utilization of 

alternative covers when feasible can result in significant 

cost savings in comparison to conventional Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) clay liners. 

However, cost savings per acre are site specifi c and 

depend on many variables making it problematic to 

assume that cost savings will be the same per acre 

from one location to another. Further, cost savings 

are estimated utilizing the assumption of how much 

a conventional Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act subtitle ‘C’ (compacted clay) cover would cost 

if installed rather than an alternative cover, but it is 

possible to consider comparisons between similar sites 

in estimating such costs. 

A range of cost savings are available from various 

sources. Sandia National Laboratories completed a 

performance and cost comparison of several landfill 

cover designs and found that an ET alternative cover 

provided cost savings of $83.65/m2

 (~$340,000/ 

acre) (1998$) in comparison to the RCRA subtitle ‘C’ 

cover and $16.10/m2

 (~$65,000/acre) in comparison 

to a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). A capillary barrier 

alternative cover provided cost savings of $64.90/m2 

(~$260,000/acre) compared to the RCRA subtitle ‘C’ 

cover.1 A cost comparison between RCRA/GCL and 

alternative covers at several Air Force landfi lls indicated 

a cost savings of $200,000-$250,000/acre (1999$).2,3 

Further, it has been conservatively estimated that the use 

of ET covers on appropriate Air Force landfills 

1

 Dwyer, Stephen F. (1998). Construction Costs of Six Landfill 

Cover Designs. Sandia National Laboratories Report SAND98­

1988. Available at: http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1998/981988.pdf (last accessed 8/24/2009). 

2

 Hauser, V., Gimon, D., Hadden, D., and Weand, B. (1999). 

Survey of Air Force Landfills, Their Characteristics, and 

Remediation Strategies. Prepared for: Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence. Available at: http://www.afcee.af.mil/ 

shared/media/document/AFD-071203-171.pdf (last accessed 

8/24/2009). 

Appendix C
 

could result in a total cost savings of $0.5-$0.75 billion 

(1999$).4 Analysis at the U.S. Army facility at Fort 

Carson, Colorado showed a potential cost savings of 

approximately $100,000/acre (2001$).5 The Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) suggests 

that “the design, engineering, surveying, construction, 

and quality assurance of an ET cover system typically 

totals $40,000 to $75,000 per acre, compared with twice 

that amount for a standard composite cover.”6 

Cost savings of alternative covers (both total and 

per acre) for this document were solicited by ACAP 

principle investigator, Dr. Steve Rock, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, from site and project 

managers. These estimates, as previously stated, require 

estimating what a conventional cover would cost if 

utilized at the site in comparison to known costs for the 

alternative cover. Site managers may have to consider 

the costs of nearby conventional landfill caps, but the 

cost savings are estimates from individual manager’s 

professional judgments. 

3

 Hauser, V., Weand, B., and Gill, M. (2001). Alternative 

Landfill Covers. Prepared for the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence. For use by the InterState Technology 

& Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) at the Alternative Landfill 

covers Summit, September 2001. Available at: http://www. 

afcee.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-071203-177.PDF 

(last accessed 8/24/2009). 

4

 Ibid. 

5

 McGuire, P., England, J., and Andraski, B. (2001). An Evapotranspiration Cover for Containment at a Semiarid Landfill 

Site. Abstract for the 2001 International Containment & 

Remediation Technology Conference and Exhibition: Orlando, 

Florida. Available at: http://www.containment.fsu.edu/cd/content/srch_f_m.htm (last accessed 8/24/2009). 

6 Semrad, S. (2009). “A New Cover for Closed Landfills,” 

Natural Outlook, Winter 2009. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Available at: http://www.tceq.State.tx.us/assets/ 

public/comm_exec/pubs/pd/020/09-01/Outlook-Winter09.pdf 

(last accessed 8/24/2009) 

31 
APPENDIX C 

Exact cost savings were not available 

for some sites when the information 

was considered proprietary. Figure 2 

demonstrates that of those alternative 

cover sites with available cost data, 

89.5% had cost savings of less than 

$50,000/acre. Approximately 58% 

of the sites have cost savings/acre of 

$21,000-$40,000. 

The cost savings per acre of the 

alternative sites in Table 6 are 

conservative in comparison to most of 

the literature values referenced above 

and similar to the more recent estimated 

cost savings by the TCEQ. 

Figure 2. Alternative Cover Sites Cost Savings Per Acre 

32 
Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that 

contains a minimum of 50% post-consumer fiber 

content and processed chlorine free. 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

EPA
 

PERMIT NO. G-35
 

Land Research Program 

Of¿ce of Research and Development 

Washington, DC 20460 

Of¿cial Business 

Penalty for Private Use 

$300