Hazardous Materials in the Hydrologic Environment: The Role of Research by the U.S. Geological Survey docx

Hazardous Materials in
the Hydrologic
Environment: The Role
of Research by the U.S.
Geological Survey
Committee on U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Research
Water Science and Technology Board
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources
National Academy Press
Washington, D.C. 1996
i
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard
for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin-
guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of

science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter
granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the fed-
eral government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National
Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the
National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous
in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sci-
ences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering
also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and
research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president
of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to
secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy mat-
ters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the
National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal govern-
ment and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr.
Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further-
ing knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general poli-
cies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to
the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is adminis-
tered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold
Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey under Grant No. 1434-93-
A-0982.
Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences . All rights reserved.
Copies available from the Water Science and Technology Board, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20418.

Printed in the United States of America
ii
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
COMMITTEE ON U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER
RESOURCES RESEARCH
GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Chairman, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
LISA ALVAREZ-COHEN, University of California, Berkeley
KENNETH R. BRADBURY, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History
Survey, Madison
CONSTANCE HUNT, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
DAWN S. KABACK, Colorado Center for Environmental Management, Denver
DAVID H. MOREAU, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
FREDERICK G. POHLAND, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
FRANK W. SCHWARTZ, The Ohio State University, Columbus
LEONARD SHABMAN, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg
MITCHELL J. SMALL, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
ALAN T. STONE, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
DAVID A. WOOLHISER, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
National Research Council Staff
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Project Director
ANITA A. HALL, Project Assistant

iii
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
DAVID L. FREYBERG, Chair, Stanford University, Stanford, California
BRUCE E. RITTMANN, Vice Chair, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
LINDA M. ABRIOLA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
PATRICK L. BREZONIK, Water Resources Research Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota
JOHN BRISCOE, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
WILLIAM M. EICHBAUM, The World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
WILFORD R. GARDNER, University of California, Berkeley
THOMAS M. HELLMAN, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, New
York
CAROL A. JOHNSTON, University of Minnesota, Duluth
WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., University of Colorado, Boulder
JOHN W. MORRIS, J.W. Morris Ltd., Arlington, Virginia
CAROLYN H. OLSEN, Brown and Caldwell, Pleasant Hill, California
CHARLES R. O'MELIA, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
REBECCA T. PARKIN, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-ITURBE, Texas A&M University, College Station
FRANK W. SCHWARTZ, Ohio State University, Columbus
HENRY J. VAUX, JR., University of California, Riverside

Staff
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Director
SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer
CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer
GARY D. KRAUSS Staff Officer
JACQUELINE MACDONALD Senior Staff Officer
JEANNE AQUILINO Administrative Associate
ETAN GUMERMAN Research Associate
ANGELA F. BRUBAKER Research Assistant
ANITA A. HALL Administrative Assistant
MARY BETH MORRIS Senior Project Assistant
ELLEN DEGUZMAN Senior Project Assistant
iv
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT,
AND RESOURCES
M. GORDON WOLMAN, Chair, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland
PATRICK R. ATKINS, Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
JAMES P. BRUCE, Canadian Climate Program Board, Ottawa, Canada
WILLIAM L. FISHER, University of Texas, Austin

JERRY F. FRANKLIN, University of Washington, Seattle
GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
DEBRA S. KNOPMAN, Progressive Foundation, Washington, D.C.
PERRY L. MCCARTY, Stanford University, Stanford, California
JUDITH E. MCDOWELL, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Massachusetts
S. GEORGE PHILANDER, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario
THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park
ELLEN K. SILBERGELD, University of Maryland Medical School, Baltimore
STEVEN M. STANLEY, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida
Staff
STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director
MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director
GREGORY SYMMES, Reports Officer
JAMES E. MALLORY, Administrative Officer
SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate
SUSAN SHERWIN, Project Assistant
v
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.

vi
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
Preface
This report is a product of the Committee on USGS Water Resources
Research, which provides consensus advice to the Water Resources Division
(WRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on scientific, research, and
programmatic issues. The committee is one of the groups that works under the
auspices of the Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) of the National
Research Council. The committee considers a variety of topics that are
important scientifically and programmatically to the USGS and the nation and
issues reports when appropriate.
This report concerns the WRD science and technology that is relevant to
hazardous materials in the soil and water environment, including the subsurface,
stream and lake sediments, and surface waters. Within the USGS, this work is
dispersed in a number of WRD program areas, including basic research,
regional and site assessments, and data collection activities.
In the United States, a massive effort is in progress to remediate sites at
which hazardous materials threaten the environment. For perspective, it has
been estimated that there may be as many as 300,000 sites where soil and/or
ground water may require remediation to reverse the negative impacts of past
industrial, military, agricultural, and commercial activity. Estimates of the costs
of this effort over the next several decades approach a trillion dollars. The

science and technology carried out in the WRD, though modest in terms of
investment, contributes significantly to the national effort by continually
imparting new understanding about the natural processes relevant to the
transport, fate, and remediation of hazardous substances in the soil and water
environments.
PREFACE vii
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
This report attempts to help shape the overall framework for the agency's
research in hazardous materials science and technology, while pointing up
general areas of scientific opportunity, including communications and
education. As such, the report does not represent an in-depth review of all
germane WRD programs and projects, but instead is a more general document
intended to provide strategic advice to WRD management.
The committee began its review in late 1993, when most members
participated in the regular meeting of the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Subsequently, the committee met five
more times before completing this report. At meetings, members were briefed
by USGS personnel on a variety of programs and toured field sites—such as the
contaminated ground water sites at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, and a site
of mining-related metals transport into the Arkansas River in Leadville,
Colorado—to acquire information for review. The members wrote individual
contributions and deliberated as a group to achieve consensus on the content of

this report. It is hoped that by maintaining a broad, forward-looking perspective,
this assessment will prove useful.
As the committee deliberated and became more cognizant of USGS
activities, productive discussions occurred between the members and USGS
personnel. This interaction was critical to success of this project. The committee
is particularly grateful to Dr. Robert M. Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist, Dr. Gail E.
Mallard, Acting Assistant Chief Hydrologist for Research and External
Coordination, and their colleagues for all the information and cooperation they
provided.
It is hoped that this report will help promote the understanding of natural
processes relevant to hazardous materials science and technology, and that in
turn, this improved understanding will lead to advances in public policy and
environmental management. The work of the USGS in this area is key to
making progress on one of the most crucial natural resources science policy
issues of our time.
George M. Hornberger
Chair, Committee on USGS
Water Resources Research
PREFACE viii
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 3
2 OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT IN HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL REGULATION AND REMEDIATION
8
Legislative Background 8
The Evolution of Research in Hydrology 11
Overview of Relevant USGS Programs 13
Comparison of USGS Hydrologic Research to That of Other
Organizations
17
From Process Discovery to Application: The Role of the USGS 20
3 CHARACTERIZATION: PROCESSES AND METHODS FOR
IMPROVING UNDERSTANDING
23
The Need 23
State-of-the-art of Characterization 24
Critical Areas of Research 34
Opportunities for the USGS 35
4 REMEDIATION 37
Introduction 37
CONTENTS ix
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.

State-of-the-Art in the Field 38
Critical Areas for Research 44
Opportunities for the USGS 45
5 MATHEMATICAL MODELS AND DECISION SUPPORT 48
Predictive Flow and Transport Models 49
Decision Support Systems 61
Optimization and Decision Analysis 64
Decision Support in the USGS Hazardous Materials Science Pro-
gram
67
Opportunities for the USGS in Modeling 68
6 CONCLUSIONS 70
Overall Program Framework 70
USGS Collaboration With Other Agencies 71
Some Critical Issues 72
Educational Opportunities 73
Issues in Planning and Implementation 73
REFERENCES 75
APPENDIXES
A U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division Plan for Haz-
ardous Materials Science
90
B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 106
CONTENTS x
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be

retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
Executive Summary
This report focuses on the programs in science and technology of the U.S.
Geological Survey's Water Resources Division (WRD) that are relevant to
hazardous materials in soil and water. In the United States, a massive effort is in
progress to remediate sites at which hazardous materials threaten the
environment. The science and technology programs of the WRD, with a
heritage of over 100 years, contribute significantly to the national remediation
effort by continually imparting new and credible understanding about soil and
water contamination. This report attempts to help shape the overall framework
of the agency's research in hazardous materials science and technology, and
identifies general areas of scientific opportunity. It is not a detailed critique but
instead contains strategic advice to WRD management.
The report was developed over a two-year period, during which time
information was acquired and assessed and conclusions and recommendations
were formulated with respect to: an overall research framework for the agency's
pertinent programs, critical areas of research, educational opportunities,
methods to evaluate research success, and approaches to improve coordination
with others. This report reinforces the widely-held viewpoint that addressing the
nation's hazardous materials problems is a large and challenging undertaking
involving many entities in a cooperative fashion. Among these entities, the
USGS has important roles to play.
From a strategic perspective, the agency must affect a shift in emphasis
from addressing basic questions in hydrogeological sciences toward solving
generic applied problems as congressional attention becomes more oriented
toward practical results and as additional methods
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of

the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
for solving problems become available. This will require application of a risk-
based approach for setting research priorities to assure that resources are
directed to activities with the greatest potential benefits to public health and the
environment. As part of this risk-based approach, priorities for research and the
evaluation of research results must involve input from cooperating agencies and
peer review of planning strategies and research results.
Although relevant activities in the hazardous materials science and
technology program are dispersed throughout the WRD, this study revealed no
cause for significant reorganization. Nevertheless, the importance of both
internal and external coordination and cooperation will likely increase in the
future in response to strong pressure from Congress to increase productivity
through interagency cooperation. In many cases this cooperation and proactive
outreach will mean maintaining a keen sensitivity to the needs of those entities
who are effectively consumers of research and information generated by USGS
scientists.
The characterization of processes relevant to the transport and fate of
hazardous materials in soils and waters is a significant strength of the USGS.
Long-term, field-based studies, for example, have been one of the agency's
greatest strengths. This type of research should continue and be expanded to
integrate methods to evaluate the effectiveness of remediation efforts. Such an
approach will require continued dedication to research, together with the
development and implementation of new modeling capabilities and decision-

support tools. The USGS should lead the effort to perform the long-term
assessments that are essential to both technology refinement and informed
policy decisions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
1
Introduction
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has addressed problems related to the
contamination of surface waters and ground waters since shortly after its
establishment by Congress in 1879. As former USGS hydrologist Walter
Langbein recounts (1981), the first USGS paper on the quality of water
concerned the use of sewage for irrigation (Rafter, 1897). Studies on the effects
of waterborne contaminants have continued to be a focus of the USGS,
especially its Water Resources Division (WRD), which was formed in 1949.
(The 1949 date is deceptively late. Forerunners of the WRD, the “Irrigation
Survey”, the “Hydrologic Branch”, and the “Water Resources Branch” date
from before 1900.)
During the early part of this century, the majority of the contaminant-
related work by the USGS was done under the auspices of the Federal-State
Cooperative Program (Langbein, 1981). This program, in which the federal
investment is matched by a cooperator (typically a state), but in which the work
is performed by USGS personnel, addresses a variety of problems of local

urgency (e.g., sewage discharges, waste storage, urban runoff, etc.). From the
mid-1950's to the early 1970's, the research program of the USGS WRD
burgeoned (Langbein, 1981). In that era, federal programs within the USGS
grew as did the work done for other federal agencies. Subsequent to the 1970s,
WRD programs in hazardous materials science and technology have diversified
and come into their own as the “bread and butter” of the USGS. The Toxic
Substances Hydrology Program was established in 1983, the Nuclear Waste
Hydrology Program was established as a separate program in 1985 (although
the WRD has had a significant effort in this area since the early
INTRODUCTION 3
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
1960s), and the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program was
established as a pilot program in 1986 and as a full-scale program in 1991.
Langbein (1981) pointed out the increasingly important niche that was
being occupied by studies related to water quality within research programs of
the WRD:
Over the years there has been a considerable change in the subject matter of
research due mainly to corresponding changes in the nation's water problems,
especially water quality. Fortunately, the division began to broaden its research
in the 1960's with research into water chemistry as such, and soon expanded
the scope to include geochemical relations. During the 1950's nuclear bomb
testing and the resulting radioactive fallout, and the environmental movement

set in motion in the late 1960's both created a vast explosion of interest in
water quality, so that it is now the dominant feature of the division's research
and includes not only the physical and chemical properties of water, but the
biological and ecological as well.
The USGS focus on developing the geoscience knowledge base that is
required to address the difficult problems facing the nation regarding the need
to maintain good quality waters can be seen as part of a broad effort by many
federal, state, and local agencies to come to grips with issues related to the
disposal and inadvertent releases of hazardous materials in the natural
environment. (In this report, the term “hazardous material” refers to any
substance that poses a substantial risk to human health or the environment as a
result of contamination of water, air, or soil.) In this sense, several programs of
the USGS are related to the science and technology of dealing with hazardous
materials in our society.
The role of the USGS in the hazardous materials arena lies squarely in the
geosciences, the traditional strength of the USGS. The remediation of sites that
have already been contaminated is a daunting task. In addition, the development
of new sites for disposal of wastes, the determination of allowable discharges
into waterways, and the assessment of the efficacy of remediation efforts must
proceed with the very best
INTRODUCTION 4
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.

scientific and technical base if the mistakes of the past are to be avoided in the
future. The potential roles for the USGS in addressing these serious national
problems draw on the experience that the USGS has developed over many
decades (Figure 1-1).
Recognizing that problems related to hazardous materials research and
technology are both national and international in scope, and that the USGS is an
agency charged with providing information to resolve important water-related
problems of the nation, the Committee on USGS Water Resources Research
undertook a review of the research efforts and an assessment of the directions
the WRD should take in this area. In support of the USGS's general objective to
expand the body of scientific knowledge relevant to hazardous materials and
their behavior in the environment, this project sought to:
(1) help establish an overall framework for the USGS's research plan;
(2) identify critical research areas for the coming decade;
(3) advise on educational opportunities in the context of research;
(4) provide guidance on processes and measures for evaluating the
success of research in this area; and
(5) advise on improved approaches for involving “consumers” of the
science and technology in program planning and the
implementation of results.
The committee focused much of its attention on the first two items listed
above. With regard to educational opportunities, the general advice to the WRD
in Preparing for the Twenty-First Century: A Report to the USGS Water
Resource Division (National Research Council, 1991) holds in particular for the
hazardous materials programs. With regard to measures for evaluating research,
the use of peer review is highly recommended. By involving “consumers” of
research in the peer review, the process would also serve to address item 5.
Some of these items will be discussed more fully in the final chapter of this
report, although the bulk of the technical material in this report will concentrate
on a discussion of a framework for research and the identification of some

critical areas of research.
INTRODUCTION 5
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
FIGURE 1.1 Potential roles for the USGS in Hazardous Materials Science and
Technology.
INTRODUCTION 6
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
The research conducted by the WRD on topics related to hazardous
materials is spread over many complex WRD programs (as described in
Appendix A). This report is not a detailed review of work within these diverse
programs. Rather, the report is a general review that seeks to provide overall
strategic perspective. It concentrates on four main themes: the understanding of
natural processes that affect the fate and transport of hazardous substances, the
understanding of processes that are useful for remediation of contaminated

sites, the use of research results in the decision-making process, and methods to
assess the success of the various programs in reaching some of the goals within
the critical research areas.
INTRODUCTION 7
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
2
Overview of the Federal Effort in
Hazardous Material Regulation and
Remediation
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
Efforts of the federal government to regulate toxic and hazardous materials
during the past 40 years have revealed the lack of available knowledge
regarding the extent and severity of hazardous material impacts on human
health and the environment. It is difficult, for example, to state precisely how
many potentially toxic materials are in use, how many enterprises are involved
in hazardous waste management, the total volume of chemical wastes generated
in the United States each year, and the total number of sites used for hazardous
waste management. In addition, very little is known about the toxic effects or
environmental fate of many chemicals. Thus, there are abundant research
challenges in the area of hazardous materials.
The primary role of the USGS in reducing public risks associated with
hazardous materials is to provide scientific support, primarily to other agencies.

As the nation's leading geoscience agency, the USGS provides analyses of the
fate and transport of hazardous substances through natural environments that
are crucial to assessing risks and devising remediation strategies. Because the
USGS is a public agency, its main responsibility is to perform research that will
assist in addressing issues that are most relevant to the public interest: in the
case of hazardous materials, those issues that pose the greatest risk to human
health and the environment.
The federal government first became involved in the regulation of toxic
and hazardous substances with the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This amendment contained the
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT IN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REGULATION
AND REMEDIATION
8
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
“Delaney Clause”, which prohibited the addition of a known carcinogen into
human food.
In 1972, the federal government began to regulate hazardous materials that
are released into the environment with the passage of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This law authorizes the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register and regulate the sale and
distribution of pesticides in the United States. And although FIFRA has limited
somewhat the use of pesticides, and thus has produced environmental benefits,

it has also resulted in disposal problems, for example, on farms where disposal
options are limited.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted in 1976, was also
designed to manage releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
TSCA gives EPA the authority to restrict the use of substances that are likely to
present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or to the environment. In
the same year, Congress also authorized the first law regulating hazardous
wastes—the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Although this
act was passed largely in response to the growing public awareness of serious
problems related to disposal, the RCRA actually regulates the generation and
transport of hazardous wastes.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 as a general pollution statute contains
multiple provisions, the most relevant of which pertains to defining EPA's
mission in the restoration of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
the nation's waters. The act prescribes a list of toxic water pollutants and
provides that they are subject to effluent limitations based on a “best available
technology” standard, with EPA having discretion to impose more stringent
limitations based on an “ample margin of safety” standard. This act, of course,
has its roots in the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the initial federal
legislation regarding water quality control, which defined the federal role
concerning water quality monitoring and research.
Public concern over hazardous substances increased throughout the late
1970s and early 1980s as the Love Canal incident became national news and
policymakers began to confront the technical complexities of regulating these
substances (Barke, 1988). EPA has estimated that U.S. industries produced
approximately 290 million tons of hazardous wastes
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT IN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REGULATION
AND REMEDIATION
9
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of

the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
in 1981, and that prior to RCRA, up to 90 percent of hazardous wastes was
disposed of improperly (Finley and Farber, 1992).
The substantial public concern over hazardous waste disposal sites
climaxed with the 1980 enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as
Superfund, and the 1986 Superfund Reauthorization and Amendment Act
(SARA). CERCLA established an information gathering and analysis system to
help government agencies characterize and prioritize remediation of hazardous
waste sites; it also provided the federal authority to respond to emergencies and
remediate sites. The law also created a trust fund to pay for site remediation,
and made parties responsible for releases of hazardous substances on lands for
which they are liable. SARA requires that priority be given to remediation
methods that reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of waste rather than
trying to contain waste by transferring it to another land disposal facility. As a
result of amendments to RCRA and CERCLA, there has been a move away
from land disposal of hazardous wastes.
In the mid to late 1980s, following the end of the cold war, the nation
began to recognize the extent of radioactive and other hazardous wastes
stockpiled at Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE)
facilities. Potential threats to human health and the environment near these sites
come not only from the millions of gallons of wastes that are currently awaiting
proper disposal, but also from seriously contaminated soil, ground water and

surface water, and from releases to the air. Estimated costs for remediation of
these sites exceed $100 billion (World Resources Institute, 1993).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began to question the high
priority placed on remediation of hazardous waste sites in the late 1980s, as the
agency broadened its use of scientific risk assessment. In February 1987, the
EPA released a report on the relative risk of environmental problems in an
attempt to set priorities for its own activities (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1987). The report concluded that areas related to ground water
consistently ranked medium or low in terms of the relative risk they pose to
human health and the environment. The report found that active hazardous
waste sites ranked relatively high in cancer risks but relatively low in non-
cancer human health risks and ecological effects. These sites can also depress
property
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT IN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REGULATION
AND REMEDIATION
10
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
values. Overall, they were ranked medium in terms of risks to welfare. The
report further concluded that RCRA sites, Superfund sites, underground storage
tanks, and municipal non-hazardous waste sites were among areas of high EPA
effort but relatively medium or low risk (Environmental Protection Agency,
1990).

Methods for evaluating risks posed by environmental contamination also
began to change significantly in the late 1980s. Conclusions about the relative
risks to human health and the environment historically have been derived from
in vitro tests of toxic pollutants for acute problems such as skin rashes, eye
sensitivity, and immediate mortality to test species such as fish or algae. Cancer
risk also has been evaluated for many chemicals based on laboratory tests.
Within the last decade, however, scientists have been accumulating more
information regarding chronic effects of toxic pollutants largely from field
studies of wildlife and accidental exposures of humans to organohalogens such
as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs (see for example, Colburn et al., 1990).
These studies indicate a correlation between toxic pollutants, particularly
persistent, bioaccumulative, organohalogen compounds, and teratogenic effects
in humans and wildlife. More recent research has discovered that a number of
synthetic chemicals, including pesticides, components in plastics and
detergents, and other industrial products and by-products, are capable of
disrupting the endocrine system. Humans and other organisms are exposed to
these substances primarily through air, water, and ingestion.
These findings, like much of scientific research, tend to raise more
questions than they answer. A substantial amount of public funds is expended
on hazardous material research, regulation, and remediation. In an area of
environmental management where so much uncertainty continues to exist, it is
difficult, but vitally important, to set priorities for research that will be of most
benefit to the public interest over the long term by assuring that remedial
actions are based on sound science and that regulations are formulated and
enforced in an informed manner.
THE EVOLUTION OF RESEARCH IN HYDROLOGY
The National Research Council recently described a conceptual model of
the evolutionary stages of research in hydrogeology (National Research
Council, 1992). Taking a process-oriented viewpoint, the report illus
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT IN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REGULATION

AND REMEDIATION
11
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
trates how research follows a well-defined pathway that leads from process
discovery to process description and finally to process application. Process
discovery is concerned with the original characterization of a process and often
its mathematical formulation. Such a discovery may derive from experiments,
field studies, or theoretical analyses. In most instances, contributions are
required from all areas.
A case in point is the study of dispersion in porous media. The original
studies on the process of dispersion occurred in the early 1950's with simple
column experiments and the development of the theoretical-mathematical
description of the component processes. The role of dispersion at field scales
remained poorly understood until the late 1970's when appropriate theoretical
studies combined with subsequent large-scale field experiments were advanced.
Thus, process discovery depends upon a complementary collection of research
techniques involving laboratory, field, and theoretical approaches.
After a process is discovered, the thrust of research shifts to process
description. This research expands the knowledge base about processes,
detailing how the process works, determining its relative importance to other
processes, and establishing values for characteristic parameters of the process.
The main investigative approaches involve carefully controlled field and

laboratory experiments, and sensitivity analyses with mathematical models.
Returning again to the study of dispersion, examples of research on process
discovery include the many laboratory experi-experiments designed to establish
“characteristic” values of dispersion lengths for different types of media, and
field studies to quantify correlation structures that give rise to macro-scale
dispersion.
After a process and its controlling parameters are well understood, it is
possible to utilize this knowledge to solve practical problems through process
application. For example, after discovering the ability of indigenous populations
of microbes to biodegrade some organic contaminants, and describing the
conditions under which these processes occur, it is possible to focus on the
development of related remedial methodologies.
The conceptual model described above portrays how research in process-
oriented hydrology should proceed, and serves as a basis for this report. The
remainder of this report examines the state-of-the-art of research in areas related
to hazardous materials science and technology, explains how the USGS is
presently positioned for this research, and
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT IN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REGULATION
AND REMEDIATION
12
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
explains how the USGS is presently positioned for this research, and describes

opportunities for the USGS in addressing critical needs in these areas.
The character of scientific research has changed with time. For instance,
from relatively humble beginnings in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's, hydrology
has developed into a complex science embodying elements of physics,
chemistry, mathematics, and biology. The research categorization methodology
developed in the previous section can be used as a measure of research progress
in the study of flow and mass transport processes. In general, as fundamental
problems are solved and experience is gained, the research emphasis logically
shifts to applications. For example, such is the case with ground water flow
through saturated media. After over 100 years of research, the continuing focus
in the area of saturated flow is mainly to develop flow codes (e.g., MODFLOW;
McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988), or computational enhancements to codes (e.g.,
Hill, 1990). The study of coupled flow processes (complex problems where, for
example, mass transport depends upon fluid flow and fluid flow depends upon
mass transport), however, remains at the process discovery stage and will
require extensive research to sort out a large array of complex effects.
The emphasis on research related to problems of hazardous waste will
almost certainly shift toward applications. What remains to be discussed is what
ultimately brings about this shift to applications, and when it is likely to occur
in the various process areas. Analysis of these questions should be useful in
planning future USGS research efforts on hazardous materials science and
technology.
OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT USGS PROGRAMS
The WRD of the USGS has a number of programs in which studies are
conducted to aid in resolving problems related to the contamination of surface
and ground waters by hazardous materials (see Appendix A). Funding for
projects related to hazardous materials in various programs within the USGS
has reflected priorities established both by the USGS and by Congress
(Figure 2.1).
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT IN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REGULATION

AND REMEDIATION
13
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.
FIGURE 2.1 Expenditures on USGS programs related to hazardous materials:
Federal-State Cooperative Program, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program,
Low-Level Nuclear Waste Hydrology Program, Department of Defense
Environmental Contamination Program.
Note: The values for the Federal-State Cooperative Program are estimated by assuming
that approximately 14 percent of the total Federal-State budget, the future reported by
Gilbert et al. (1987) for FY 1986, is devoted to contaminant-related work.
OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT IN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REGULATION
AND REMEDIATION
14
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of
the original work has been recomposed from XML files creat
ed from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original;
line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other t
ypesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accident
ally inserted. Please use the print version of this publicat
ion as the authoritative version for attribution.