Free Notice of Additional Authority - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 1 of 85

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 2 of 85

This page intentionally left blank

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 3 of 85

Office of Solid Waste And Emergency Response (5102G)

EPA 542-R-04-015 September 2004 www.epa.gov/tio clu-in.org/marketstudy

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends
2004 Edition


Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 4 of 85

This page intentionally left blank

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 5 of 85

Notice

Preparation of this report has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under contract number 68-W-03-038. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. This document is intended for information purposes and does not create new nor alter existing Agency policy or guidance. The document does not impose any requirements or obligations on EPA, states, other federal agencies, or the regulated community. A limited number of printed copies of Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends, 2004 Edition is available free of charge by mail or by facsimile from: U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) P.O. Box 42419 Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: 513-489-8190 or 800-490-9198
Fax: 513-489-8695
A portable document format (PDF) version of this report is available for viewing or downloading from the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) web site at http://clu-in.org/marketstudy. Printed copies can also be ordered through that web address, subject to availability. For More Information For more information about remediation markets, including tools to help advance technologies through all stages of product development from bench scale to full commercialization, visit the EPA web site http://www.epa.gov/tio/vendor.

Page iii

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 6 of 85

Acknowledgments
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation and Field Services Division (TIFSD). The report would not have been possible without the assistance of staff throughout EPA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Energy (DOE). Special thanks go to staff in EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation; Office of Solid Waste; Office of Underground Storage Tanks; Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office; and Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement; and Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment. DOD's Office of the Assistant Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security, and DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration were exceptionally generous with their time and expertise. Important contributions were also received from a number of other parties identified in various sections of the report.

Page iv

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 7 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Executive Summary

Over the next several decades, federal, state, and local governments and private industry will commit billions of dollars annually to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous waste and petroleum products from a variety of industrial sources. This commitment will result in a continuing demand for hazardous waste site remediation services and technologies. Hundreds of small, medium, and large companies across the nation will respond to this demand, supplying skilled professionals and advanced technologies to address contaminated sites. Researchers and technology developers will continue working to provide smarter and cheaper solutions to the complex environmental contamination problems still to be addressed. Investors will seek to identify technologies that provide the most promising technical and financial future. Universities continually seek to adjust their environmental sciences and engineering curricula to ensure that their future graduates are prepared for the challenges they will face in this field. To make cost-effective and sound investment decisions, all these groups will need information on the nature and extent of the future cleanup market. With this need in mind, EPA has produced this overview of the site characterization and remediation market. EPA believes that information on the Nation's cleanup needs will help industry and government officials develop better and more targeted research, development, and business strategies. Recovery Act (RCRA) provide the legal authority for most of EPA's work toward this goal. Cleanups are also generally required to comply with a number of other state and federal statutes. To achieve this goal, EPA works with many partners at all levels of government to ensure that appropriate cleanup tools are used; that resources, activities, and outcomes are coordinated with partners and stakeholders and effectively communicated to the public; and that cleanups are protective and contribute to community revitalization. EPA is a leader in influencing how hazardous waste site cleanups are conducted in all cleanup programs. The agency directly conducts many cleanups and removals under the Superfund program. In addition, it conducts oversight of state, tribal, and federal facility cleanup programs; develops regulations, policies, guidances, and technical publications; and promotes technology innovation. In its efforts to coordinate across the various programs, EPA seeks to recognize the need for cleanup tools that will have wide applicability. In developing this report, EPA has identified seven major cleanup programs or market segments that make up the national cleanup market: · National Priorities List (NPL, or Superfund) · Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Corrective Action
· Underground Storage Tanks (UST) · Department of Defense (DOD) · Department of Energy (DOE) · Other (Civilian) Federal Agencies · States and Private Parties (including
brownfields)
While segmentation is necessary to better understand each market, the parties involved in site characterization and remediation require a unified picture of the market in order to make better informed investment, marketing, and other strategic decisions. This study provides both perspectives--it sums up the entire market based on a thorough analysis of each segment. Smarter investments by all involved parties will result in more costPage v

Background
EPA's mission includes the important goal of restoring contaminated land to productive use, and the Agency has established ambitious targets.1 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and

1

2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan, Objective 3, Land Preservation and Restoration. http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2003sp.pdf

Executive Summary

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 8 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

effective remediation technologies, thereby reducing the cost burden for the nation as a whole as it works to recover contaminated land and groundwater and protect the public's health.

requirements. Information and analyses of the following are provided for each segment: · Factors Affecting Demand--the economic, political, and technical factors and trends that may influence the size, timing, or characteristics of the market segment (market drivers); · Numbers and Characteristics of Sites-- measures of the market in terms of the number of sites to be remediated, occurrence of contaminants, and extent of remediation work needed; · Estimated Cleanup Costs--remediation cost estimates, or the value of the market; · Market Entry Conditions--considerations that may benefit vendors and researchers, such as contracting practices, competition, and information sources; · Technology Issues and R&D--technologies used in a specific market segment and relevant research and development. The study also includes analyses of remediation needs in three market "niches," each of which presents a specific set of remediation challenges--the cleanup of former manufactured gas plant (MGP) and other coal tar sites, mining sites, and drycleaner sites. It also addresses two specific issues that affect hazardous waste sites in most remediation programs--site characterization technology, and the remediation of dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs). These niches cut across all seven market segments. The data used for this report are from federal databases, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), RCRA Info, and DOD's Restoration Management Information System (RMIS), published studies, guidance documents, and web sites; commercial information; and other sources. Some are current through fiscal years (FY) 2001 and 2002, while others are current through 2003 and the first part of 2004. Because many hazardous waste sites are still undergoing evaluation, data availability differs from one market segment to another. Each chapter of the
Page vi

Study Approach
This report updates and expands a 1996 analysis that brought together valuable information on site characteristics, market size, and other factors that affect the demand for remediation services.2 As with the previous report, the focus of this study is on the potential future applications of remediation technologies. To provide a useful estimate of future needs, the demand estimates focus on remaining cleanup work at sites where the remedies have not yet been chosen, and do not include projects that are underway or completed. While the report considers a broad range of remediation services required in the future, its purpose is to provide insight into the potential for the application of new treatment and site characterization technologies. This report is not a budgeting analysis. Most of the cleanups are typically funded by the public and private owners of the properties and those who are potentially responsible for the contamination. A small percentage of cleanups are likely to be conducted by EPA. The report's time horizon, approximately 30 years, is beyond the budgeting period of most private and public institutions. Moreover, the uncertainties in many of the market estimates, including who will conduct, oversee, and pay for the needed cleanups, make it impossible to convert these estimates to resource needs for specific government or private organizations. In addition to providing a unified perspective of the nature and scope of the Nation's contaminated property cleanup needs, this report includes a more in-depth analysis of the seven major programs or market segments identified earlier, covering areas such as their structure, operation, and regulatory

2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends, EPA 542-R-96005, April 1997.

Executive Summary

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 9 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

report includes an explanation of the analytical methodology, information sources, and assumptions, and a detailed list of references. Supporting information is included in the appendices, as well as in explanations in the narrative, footnotes, and figures.

Study Limitations
The reliability and detail of the estimates in this report are a function of the availability and quality of data, and, obviously, the innate uncertainties in forecasting future events. In addition, each of the seven programs have somewhat different operational practices and use varying definitions of terms such as "sites," "facilities," "installations," and "operable units." Although most of the activities underlying this cost estimate are for remedial action and site evaluation, they also include some administrative work where costs are not reported separately. It cannot be overemphasized that the estimates in this report are just estimates. It is likely that assumptions about the future, which are based on historical experience, will be more reliable for the earlier years than the later years. Likewise, estimates for sites already in a state or federal cleanup program would be more reliable than those for sites that have yet to be discovered. Nevertheless, the resulting estimates provide a plausible range of the likely extent of the nation's site cleanup needs. The estimate of the total cost of each cleanup market segment is based on estimates of historical averages for each market segment and these may change in the future. Future cleanups may turn out to be more or less complex, or applications of advanced site characterization and cleanup technologies may improve the cleanup costeffectiveness. Predictions of potential future site discoveries and additions to the NPL are also based on recent history. The cleanup market includes sites that are not yet enrolled in a cleanup program, or have not yet been discovered. The ultimate number of additions to the NPL or discoveries of non-NPL sites depend upon several factors which are difficult to predict. Nevertheless, these sites are expected to be an important component of the market.
Executive Summary

The limitations and uncertainties of the market estimates vary from one market segment to another. For example, the forecast of future releases from USTs is hampered by a paucity of data with which to estimate leakage rates; the estimate of the number and potential cost of mining site cleanups is presented as a wide range of values and reflects an attempt to develop a consensus of a number of industry and government sources; and the estimate of the number of potential manufactured gas plant sites needing cleanup is based on studies that have estimated the number of original facilities that cause the contamination and assumptions regarding their disposition since their operations ceased many years ago. Although DOD and DOE have clearly identified most of the contamination problems at their installations and facilities, there are technological uncertainties at some DOE sites which may cause the estimates to be overstated or understated. Although this report estimates the potential scope of the market, it does not explicitly estimate the timing of the cleanup work. As in most economic activities, one cannot simply assume that the cleanup work will be conducted at a constant pace from year to year. The schedule of any project can be expedited or retarded by the availability of funds in any given year; technical uncertainties; difficulties in achieving agreements among stakeholders on a number of issues, such as cleanup approach and target end states, who will pay, who is responsible for damages, and how the site will be reused. In addition, long-term stewardship will be needed at many sites.

Page vii

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 10 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Major Findings
Although substantial progress has been made over the past quarter century, a considerable amount of cleanup work remains. At current levels of site cleanup activity in the U.S. (About $6-8 billion annually), it would take 30 to 35 years to complete most of the work needed. Quantifying the amount and nature of future work is subject to the limitations and uncertainties described above and requires making a number of assumptions. Users of the report will reap the greatest benefit if they carefully review the discussions of how the estimates were developed, which are included throughout the report. Given these limitations, the following are some of the major findings:

·

Under current regulations and practices a total of 235,000-355,000 sites (average 294,000) will need to be cleaned up in all seven programs (Exhibit). More than 90 percent of these sites are in programs that tend to have smaller, less-complex cleanup projects, such as UST sites and sites managed under state cleanup programs. The sites in the remaining programs, such as Superfund, DOD, and DOE, tend to be larger and more complex, on average. · These cleanups are estimated to cost $170-250 billion (average $209 billion). Most of this cost will be borne by the owners of the properties (private and public entities) and those potentially responsible for the contamination.

Estimated Number of Hazardous Waste Sites and Cleanup Costs: 2004-2033

· The estimated number of sites (294,000) includes sites that have already been discovered (77,000) plus an estimate of the number of sites to be discovered in the future (217,000). The

estimated number of future sites (mostly NPL, UST and sites managed under state programs) is based on the rate of new sites discovered in the late 1990s and early 2000s:

Executive Summary

Page viii

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 11 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

· ·

·

·

÷ Between 1993 and 2003 an average of 28 sites per year were listed on the NPL. This report assumes that this rate will continue for 10 years. Although listings may continue beyond 10 years, they are not included because of uncertainties in predicting NPL listings. ÷ The estimated number of future UST site discoveries is based on the annual rate of new releases in recent years (6,000-12,000) and the assumption that this rate will continue for 10 years. Although tank releases may continue beyond 10 years and leakage rates may decline, these scenarios are not included because of uncertainties in predicting these trends. ÷ The estimated number of sites to be discovered under state mandatory and voluntary cleanup programs is based on an average of 5,000 cleanups completed annually in recent years. Because studies indicate that there are many sites yet to be discovered, it is assumed that this activity level will continue for at least 30 years. Most cleanup programs have similar contaminants: solvents and other organics, metals, and petroleum products. Over the next 30 years, there will be a need to address many smaller sites, primarily 125,000 UST and 150,000 state and private party sites (including brownfields). There is also a need to screen many more sites to determine whether or not they have contamination problems. The demand for cleanup of many sites will be influenced by real estate development activity as well as regulatory requirements. Some sites do not come to the attention of state or federal cleanup programs until they are investigated in the course of development activity or real estate transactions. For some properties, developers or prospective site users may assume all or part of the cleanup costs. Non-DOD and non-DOE federal agencies that have contaminated sites, including the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation, combined, have been spending less than $200 million annually for site cleanups. They have an estimated $15-21 billion of cleanup work yet to be completed.

· Improved approaches to site characterization have been demonstrated to lead to faster, cheaper, and better cleanups. For example, newer site characterization approaches have made the removal and treatment of DNAPLs at some sites more cost effective than containing the material in the subsurface. · The trend toward risk-based cleanups, which is found throughout the remediation market, may influence the remedy selection process, foster more flexibility in site reuse, and provide incentives for property owners to bring more sites into remediation programs. It is difficult to predict the impact of these developments on the use of specific remedy types. · The need for monitoring and long-term
operation and maintenance of remedy
components is expected to increase in most
market segments.
At current public and private spending levels for site cleanups, it will take several decades to complete all the cleanup work estimated in this report. As with most cleanups requiring technically complex solutions and coordination of multiple stakeholders, the work load will probably fluctuate from year to year. Most of these costs will be borne by private companies, and owners of state and federal facilities, such as DOD and DOE. This market represents a significant opportunity for continued development and implementation of cleanup approaches and technologies that will result in better, cheaper, and faster site cleanups, as well as technologies that enable us to better address challenging contamination problems such characterizing NAPLs in the subsurface. Technical solutions to a particular contaminated site problem are generally similar, regardless of the regulatory program under which they are implemented. While individual markets may not support certain investment decisions, the aggregate demand across all markets might justify the up front investment in a technology that ultimately drives down the cost of moving contaminated sites into productive use. By recognizing this potential for economies of scale in cleanup technology markets, the information in this report contributes to better investment decisions across all markets.

Executive Summary

Page ix

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 12 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

This page intentionally left blank

Executive Summary

Page x


Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 13 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Table of Contents
Page

Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Chapter 1. Introduction and Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 Using This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 1.3 Study Approach and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 1.4 Market Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 1.5 Hazardous Waste Site Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13 1.5.1 Contaminated Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14 1.5.2 Contaminants of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14 1.6 Cleanup Program Status and Factors Affecting Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16 1.6.1 Superfund Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17 1.6.2 RCRA Corrective Action Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-18 1.6.3 Underground Storage Tank Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19 1.6.4 Department of Defense Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20 1.6.5 Department of Energy Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20 1.6.6 Civilian Federal Agency Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21 1.6.7 State and Private Party Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-22 1.6.8 Manufactured Gas Plant Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-23 1.6.9 Mining Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24 1.6.10 Drycleaner Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24 1.6.11 Site Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25 1.6.12 DNAPLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25 1.7 Implications for Site Characterization and Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26

Chapter 2. Remediation Technologies Used At National Priorities List Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Definitions of Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Historical Use of Remediation Technologies at Superfund Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Containment and Disposal Technologies for Source Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Treatment Technologies for Source Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Groundwater Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Advancing Remediation and Characterization Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2-2 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-10

Table of Contents

Page xi

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 14 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends Page

Chapter 3. Demand For Remediation of National Priorities List Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 The Superfund Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 The National Contingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 The Superfund Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Program Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Number of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Site Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Types of Contaminated Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Types of Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Estimated Quantities of Contaminated Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Market Entry Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Market Considerations During Remedy Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Market Considerations During Design and Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Research, Development, and Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-5
3-7
3-8
3-8
3-11
3-13
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19


Chapter 4. Demand for Remediation of RCRA Corrective Action Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Regulatory History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Corrective Action Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Corrective Action Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Number and Characteristics of RCRA Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Number of RCRA Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Types of RCRA Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Market Entry Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4-2
4-7
4-8
4-10
4-11
4-11
4-13
4-16
4-17
4-17
4-19


Chapter 5. Demand for Remediation of Underground Storage Tank Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 Federal Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 General Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 State Regulations and Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 2002 Brownfields Legislation and EPA's USTfields Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 MTBE Contamination and the Remediation Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5 State Performance-Based Environmental Cleanup Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5-4
5-4
5-6
5-7
5-7
5-8


Table of Contents

Page xii

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 15 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends Page

5.3 Number and Location of USTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Population of UST Sites in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Location of Regulated Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Potential Number of Sites to be Cleaned Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Market Entry Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-9
5-9
5-10
5-10
5-12
5-12
5-13
5-15


Chapter 6. Demand For Remediation of Department of Defense Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Installation Restoration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 The Military Munitions Response Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Factors Affecting the Demand for Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Number and Types of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Contaminated Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Types of Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Market Entry Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 Technologies Used at DOD Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 Research, Development, and Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6-2
6-4
6-5
6-5
6-6
6-6
6-9
6-11
6-13
6-14
6-16
6-16
6-16
6-18


Chapter 7. Demand For Remediation of Department of Energy Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1 Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Deactivation and Decommissioning of Surplus Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Remedial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.4 Stabilization of High-Risk Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.5 Regulatory Requirements and Other Program Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.6 Policy Initiatives: The Top-to-Bottom Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Life Cycle Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Timing of Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Market Entry Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Private Sector Involvement: Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 Private Sector Involvement: Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-6
7-7
7-7
7-9
7-12
7-12
7-14
7-14
7-17
7-20
7-21
7-24


Table of Contents

Page xiii

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 16 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends Page

Chapter 8. Demand for Remediation of Sites Managed By Civilian Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.1 Civilian Federal Agency Cleanup Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Number of Facilities and Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Site Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
8-3
8-4
8-7
8-8
8-11
8-11


Chapter 9. Demand for Remediation of States and Private Party Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.1 Programs Addressing State Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 State Hazardous Waste Cleanup Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfield Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.3 Federal Initiatives Affecting State Cleanups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Cleanups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.1 State Mandatory Hazardous Waste Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2 Voluntary Cleanup and Brownfield Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.3 Contaminants and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.1 Status and Capacity of State Cleanup Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.2 Annual and Projected Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Market Entry Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
9-2
9-4
9-6
9-7
9-9
9-9
9-12
9-13
9-15
9-15
9-18
9-19
9-21
9-22


Chapter 10. Demand for Remediation of Manufactured Gas Plants and
Related Coal Tar Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
10.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Gas Manufacturing Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Waste Types and Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
10-2
10-2
10-7
10-9
10-13
10-15


Table of Contents

Page xiv

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 17 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends Page

Chapter 11. Demand for Remediation of Mining Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1
11.1 Industry Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.1 Types of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.2 Mining Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.3 Types of Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.4 Regulatory Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.5 Mines on Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Factors Affecting Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Number of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Market Entry Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1
11-2
11-2
11-4
11-5
11-7
11-8
11-9
11-12
11-12
11-13
11-14
11-15


Chapter 12. Demand for Remediation of Drycleaner Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
12.1 Industry Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.1 Drycleaning Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.2 Types of Wastes and Waste Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1.3 State and Industry Drycleaner Site Cleanup Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 Number and Characteristics of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.1 Active Drycleaning Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.2 Inactive Drycleaning Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 Market Entry Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6.1 Site Assessment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6.2 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
12-2
12-5
12-6
12-7
12-8
12-8
12-10
12-11
12-11
12-11
12-13
12-14
12-15


Chapter 13. Demand for Site Characterization Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1
13.1 Market Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Site Characterization Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.1 Sample Access and Collection Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.2 Sample Analysis Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.3 Field Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2.4 Adaptive Site Management Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Factors Affecting Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Number of Sites That Will Need Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 Estimated Value of Site Characterization Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 Market Entry Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1
13-5
13-6
13-6
13-7
13-7
13-11
13-13
13-16
13-18
13-19


Table of Contents

Page xv

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 18 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends Page

Chapter 14. DNAPLs at Hazardous Waste Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1
14.1 Market Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1.1 DNAPLs in the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1.2 Chemical Compounds that are DNAPLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1.3 Industrial Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1.4 Hydrogeological Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 Factors Affecting Demand for Remediation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 Number and Types of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 Estimated Cleanup Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4.1 Pump-and-Treat System Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5.1 Site Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5.2 Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5.3 Balancing Source Removal/Treatment vs. Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1
14-2
14-2
14-3
14-4
14-4
14-6
14-9
14-9
14-13
14-13
14-14
14-15
14-16


Appendix A. Supporting Data for Analysis of National Priorities List Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B. Supporting Data for Analysis of Underground Storage Tank Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Appendix C. Supporting Data for Analysis of Department of Defense Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Appendix D. Supporting Data for Analysis of Manufactured Gas Plant Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Appendix E. Federal and State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1


Table of Contents

Page xvi

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 19 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

List of Exhibits
Exhibit Page

1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7

Estimated Number of Sites to be Remediated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Remaining Remediation Cost ($Billions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media to be Remediated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contaminant Groups to be Remediated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remedy Types Selected or Used for Source Control at NPL Sites, FY 1982-2002 . . . . . . . . . Superfund Remedial Actions at Source Control Treatment Projects FY 1982-2002 . . . . . . . . Groundwater and Other Remedy Types Selected or Used at NPL Sites, FY 1982-2002 . . . . . Superfund Sites With P&T, In-situ Treatment, or MNA
as Part of a Groundwater Remedy FY 1982-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of NPL Sites With Planned Remedial Actions by State and EPA Region . . . . . . . . Phase of Remediation of Operable Units at Non-Federal NPL Sites
with Planned Remedial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies of Contaminated Matrices at NPL Sites With RODs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies of Major Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites With RODs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies of Major Contaminant Subgroups at NPL Sites With RODs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequencies of the Most Common Contaminants at NPL Sites With RODs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Quantities of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge
at NPL Sites With RODs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Quantity of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Sludge for Major
Contaminant Groups at NPL Sites With Planned Remedial Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Cleanup Costs for NPL Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of RCRA Sites Subject to Corrective Action by State and EPA Region . . . . . . . . . Priority Ranking of RCRA Sites Subject to Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of RCRA Sites Likely to Require Corrective Action by State and EPA Region . . . Major Waste Management Processes at RCRA Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated RCRA Corrective Action Costs ($Millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remedies Selected for Soil at 86 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Backlog of UST Site Cleanups to be Completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Confirmed Releases at UST Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compliance Status of USTs by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UST Site Cleanup Progress 1991-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Number of UST Sites Needing Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types and Frequencies of Soil Remediation Technologies at LUST Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Type and Frequency of Groundwater Remediation Technologies at LUST Sites . . . . . . . . .

1-5
1-6
1-14
1-15
2-3
2-4
2-6
2-7
2-8
3-5
3-6
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-14
4-17
4-18
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-10
5-11
5-13
5-14


Table of Contents

Page xvii

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 20 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends Exhibit Page

6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 9-1 9-2 9-3 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 9-8 9-9 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 11-1 11-2 11-3

Number of DOD Sites by Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of DOD Sites and Installations Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Most Common Types of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Contaminated Matrices at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Contaminated Matrices by Site Type at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . Major Contaminant Groups by Matrix at DOD Sites Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Contaminant Groups by DOD Component at Sites Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups
for the Most Common DOD Site Types Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DOD Cleanup Expenditures: FY 2001-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Treatment Technologies Used at DOD Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remaining Release Sites and D&D Facilities by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Remaining Life Cycle Cost for DOE Site Restoration by Installation . . . . . . . . . . Actual and Planned EM and Site Restoration Budget: FY 2000-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DOE Environmental Management Expenditures 2002-2004 ($000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Innovative Technologies Useful to DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Civilian Federal Facilities Potentially Requiring Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DOI Allocation of the Central Hazardous Materials Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Types of Contaminated Facilities at Civilian Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimate Cleanup Cost for Civilian Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Cleanup Program Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sites in State Hazardous Waste Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Non-NPL State Hazardous Waste Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Voluntary and Mandatory Cleanup Program Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contaminants Found at a Sample of Brownfield Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Fund Activity 1995, 1997, and 2000 ($ millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Hazardous Waste Funds Expenditures and Balances 2000 and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Total Cost of State Site Cleanups ($Millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remediation Techniques Used at a Sample of Brownfield Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types and Numbers of Former Manufactured Gas Plants & Related Coal Tar Facilities in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Magnitude & Disposition of Former Manufactured Gas Plants
& Other Coal Tar Sites in the U.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Quantities of Residuals and Wastes Released
at Former MGP & Other Coal Tar Sites in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remediation Alternatives by Category of Waste
at Former Manufactured Gas Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Average Remediation Cost by Site Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-7
6-8
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-13
6-17
7-11
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-18
8-5
8-6
8-8
8-9
9-3
9-10
9-11
9-13
9-14
9-16
9-17
9-19
9-22
10-4
10-6
10-8


10-11
10-14


Number of Active Mining Sites - 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-10
Comparison of Estimates of Number of Abandoned Hard Rock Mining Sites . . . . . . . . . . 11-11
Estimated Remediation Costs for U.S. Hardrock Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13


Table of Contents

Page xviii

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 21 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends Page

12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 13-1 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5 13-6 13-7 14-1 14-2 14-3 14-4 14-5 A-2 A-2 B-1 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 D-1 D-2

Number and Types of Active Drycleaners in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Drycleaner Site Remediation Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Assessment Technologies Used at Drycleaner Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Remediation Technologies Used at Drycleaner Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Characterization Technology Subcategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Common Field Analytical Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Projects with Savings and Efficiency Improvements Associated With Advanced Site Characterization Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Number of Sites to Require Sampling and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Major Components of Superfund Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remediation Cost and Site Size ($millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Site Characterization Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common DNAPL-Related Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occurrence of VOCs and SVOCs at Contaminated Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated Number of Sites With DNAPLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleanup Costs for Selected Pump-and-Treat Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Pump-and-Treat Costs for Selected Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12-9 12-12 12-13 12-14 13-6 13-8 13-12 13-15 13-16 13-17 13-17 14-3 14-6 14-8 14-10 14-11

Contaminant Groups and Subgroups for the Analysis of Contaminants at NPL and DOD Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 Superfund Remedial Action Contractors (RACs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13 UST Corrective Action Measures Mid-Year FY 2004 (As of March 31, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . B-2 Location of DOD Sites Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2 Definitions of DOD Site Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 DOD Site Types Needing Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10 Frequency of Matrices by DOD Site Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12 Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by Matrix and DOD Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-14 Frequency of Major Contaminant Groups by DOD Site Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-16 Frequency of Contaminant Subgroup by Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18 Estimated Disposition of Former Manufactured Gas Plants & Other Coal Tar Sites in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2 Estimated Typical Remediation Cost by Site Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

Table of Contents

Page xix

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 22 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents

Page xx


Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 47-2

Filed 01/03/2007

Page 23 of 85

Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends

Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary
1.1 Introduction
Over the next several decades, federal, state, and local governments and private industry will commit billions of dollars annually to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous waste and petroleum products. This commitment will result in a continuing demand for site remediation services and technologies. This report provides an overview of the site characterization and remediation market to help industry and government officials develop research, development, and business strategies. It was prepared to aid those who are developing, commercializing, and marketing new technologies to meet the future cleanup demand. This report updates and expands a 1996 analysis that brought together valuable information on site characteristics, market size, and other factors that affect the demand for remediation services.1 As with the previous report, the focus of this study is on the potential future applications of remediation technologies. To provide a realistic estimate of future needs, the estimates of demand focus on remaining cleanup work at sites where cleanup technologies have not yet been chosen, and exclude projects that are underway or completed. While the report considers a broad range of remediation services required in the future, its purpose is to provide insight into the potential application of new treatment and site characterization technologies. In addition to providing a unified perspective of the characteristics and scope of the nation's contaminated property cleanup needs, this report provides a more in-depth analysis of the seven major cleanup programs or market segments: · · · · · · · National Priorities List (NPL, or Superfund) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Department of Defense (DOD) Department of Energy (DOE) Other (Civilian) Federal Agencies States and Private Parties (including brownfields)

In addition to providing updates and new information relating to these seven market segments, this report also includes analyses of remediation needs in three market "niches," each of which presents a specific set of remediation challenges--the cleanup of former