vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/8-90/037
December 1989
Research and Development
Superfund Research
Plan
1989-1990
-------
EPA/600/8-90/037
Dec. 1989
Superfund Research Plan
1989 — 1990
Superfund Research Subcommittee
Hazardous Waste/Superfund Research Committee
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
December 1989
-------
This research plan was prepared under the direction of the Superfund Research
Subcommittee from materials provided by the Office of Research and Development
and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Comments or questions
regarding this research plan should be directed to:
Jay Benforado
Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (H-8105)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
This document was revised and updated in December 1989, to incorporate FY90
resources and changes.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's peer and administrative review policies and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-11-
-------
PREFACE
EPA's Superfund research is a complex program, drawing together scientists and engineers from
thirteen EPA laboratories, several dozen university research centers, other federal agencies, and hundreds
of individual research grants. EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) prepared this
Superfund Research Plan as an overview of this complex program, bom from our recognition that the
broad spectrum of Superfund research activities is almost impossible to comprehend from individual
research plans, budget documents, or specialized reports.
Superfund research is changing, reflecting new impetus from the Regions and client offices, as well
as in response to a recent management review of the Superfund program. This review provided a
number of recommendations for a more effective, more efficient Superfund program. Two of the major
recommendations in that review are directly relevant to the Agency's Superfund research program: (1)
the need for extensive technical assistance, expert advice, and information transfer, and (2) additional
emphasis on demonstration and evaluation of new treatment technologies for Superfund sites.
ORD has moved aggressively to augment its technical support programs to the Regions. In addition
to its on-going program of fundamental research, development and evaluation, and field procedures and
guidance, ORD has initiated a variety of new programs. These include:
• Establishment (together with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) of technical
support centers to respond quickly to field requests.
• Increased number of staff devoted to providing technical assistance among laboratories and Regions.
• Restructured health and risk assessment research to better correspond with the specific requirements
of the Superfund program offices.
• Establishment of a special technology assistance team to work at highly complex Superfund sites
along with the Regional program managers.
• Establishment of a joint position in each EPA Region to serve as technical liaison to ORD
laboratories.
• Increased funding and EPA facilities for evaluating remedial treatment technologies to better assist
Regional managers in evaluating options.
This Superfund Research Plan outlines the overall research framework, from fundamental research
to direct technical assistance. It describes the research activities that are underway or planned, how the
program is changing in response to emerging needs, and the basis for research priorities. Superfund
research focuses on an exciting array of technical questions: biological degradation of hazardous waste
and other innovative treatment technologies; advances in subsurface monitoring techniques and portable
field-monitoring equipment; understanding ecological impacts and non-cancer human health risks posed
by Superfund sites; and many others. The goal of our research is to provide a better technical
understanding of the health and ecological risks at Superfund sites and remediation technologies, and
to provide the information and tools needed to assess and clean up specific sites.
Erich W. Bretthauer
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Research and Development
-iii-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Superfund Research Plan describes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) research program
to reduce or eliminate risks posed by uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances into the environment. It
presents the Office of Research and Development's (ORD's) coordinated approach for delivering technical
information to Superfund-relalcd personnel and is intended to help Agency, Office of Management and Budget,
and Congressional reviewers better understand the details of the Superfund research program for fiscal years 1989
and 1990. The plan encompasses all research, development, demonstration, and technical assistance undertaken
by ORD offices and laboratories in support of the Superfund program, and discusses the coordination of similar
research by other agencies.
The original Superfund law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), was envisioned as a cleanup effort that would use existing knowledge to assess and clean up
the nation's abandoned hazardous waste sites. It was soon recognized, however, that better tools and information
would be needed to assess risks at sites, to understand potential effects on human health and the environment, and
to provide reliable, cost-effective cleanup solutions.
The Superfund Amendments and Reaulhorization Act of 1986 (SARA), signed on October 17, 1986, made
major changes to the original Superfund law. The amendments mandated strict cleanup standards strongly favoring
permanent remedies at waste sites; stronger EPA control in settlement with parties potentially responsible for waste
sites; a mandatory schedule for initiation of cleanup work and studies; assessment of the potential threats to human
health posed by each waste site; and increased state and public involvement in the cleanup decision-making process.
SARA also explicitly authorized the Environmental Protection Agency, in concert with several other agencies, to
conduct hazardous waste research, development, and demonstrations and to aggressively pursue a program of
technology transfer and training.
To meet the technical and scientific needs of the EPA, slate, local, and private sector personnel involved in
cleaning up Superfund sites, ORD's research, development, and demonstration program has been designed to
improve the accuracy and timeliness of human health and environmental risk assessments, improve information
on the performance and availability of treatment teclinologics that offer permanent protection of human health and
the environment, and provide direct technical assistance to personnel in the field involved in the remedial process.
The target audiences of Superfund research are EPA Emergency and Remedial Response, Waste Programs
Enforcement, and Regional, state, and local Superfund site assessment and cleanup personnel, including on-scene
coordinators, remedial project managers, supporting independent contractors, emergency response teams, treatment
technology firms, and potentially responsible parties.
ORD's research program is divided into fundamental research, development and evaluation, field procedures
and guidance, and technical support. This organization reflects ORD's objective of improving risk assessment and
risk reduction technologies available for use in the field. Fundamental research expands the knowledge base from
which innovative methods may spring. Development and evaluation utilizes new concepts to increase the number
and effectiveness of risk assessment techniques and treatment technologies available for use at contaminated sites.
The development of field procedures and guidance packages information from development and evaluation to
improve their use in the field. Technical support supplies direct expert assistance to field personnel.
- v -
-------
Executive Summary
Within this overall research structure, ORD's research program is arranged into eight broad technical areas to
assign responsibilities and to provide the framework for planning, budgeting, and justifying the research program.
These issues represent the greatest scientific and engineering needs of the Superfund program.
* Technical Assistance at Specific Sites. Reviews remedial action design and implementation plans, and provides
technical expertise and review to OERR, the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), and the Regions.
* Quality Assurance for Field Sampling and Laboratory Analysis. Ensures comparable, legally defensible
environmental measurements by providing support to the national Contract Laboratory Program, developing
laboratory and field analytical methods for chemical measurements and characterization, and reviewing quality
assurance and quality control plans.
* Field Methods for Superfund Site Assessment and Cleanup. Provides techniques and procedures to allow on-
scene coordinators and remedial program managers to quickly and effectively assess the degree of hazard posed
at specific sites. This includes the evaluation of technologies needed to ensure personnel health and safety
during removal and cleanup operations and the development of information on carcinogenicity and chronic
health effects needed by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) to adjust reportable
quantities for specific chemicals.
» Manuals and Training Seminars. Disseminates information and conducts training seminars for OERR, Regions,
States, and local authorities to assist them in Superfund site cleanup.
» Performance of Treatment Technologies. Develops and evaluates technologies, techniques, and construction
materials that may provide cost-effective control of hazardous waste releases but require additional laboratory
development to be ready for field application.
» Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluations (SITE) Program. Conducts research, development, and
demonstrations that promote commercialization of alternative treatment and monitoring technologies.
» Health Effects, Risk Assessment, and Detection Techniques. Conducts research and development to enhance
the scientific capabilities to quickly detect potentially hazardous environmental contaminants, evaluate human
health effects, and assess risks to human health from hazardous substances.
» University-Based Fundamental Research. Provides long- and short-term research, training, and technology
transfer related to the manufacture, use, transportation, disposal, and management of hazardous substances
through university research centers and competitively awarded grants to universities.
While the Superfund research program is the responsibility of the Assistant Administrator for ORD, all
Superfund resources remain the responsibility of the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), through the Director of OERR. This division of authorities is unique within the
EPA research program, and requires extremely close cooperation and working relationships between ORD and
OSWER senior managers and technical staff. This is accomplished by formal and informal interactions with
OSWER and Regional managers and technical staff.
-vi-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary i
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures vi
List of Acronyms vii
Introduction 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Legislative Mandate 1
Risk Management Framework 3
Superfund Remedial Process Overview 4
Research Program Overview 6
Technical Support 11
Superfund Program Needs 11
Technical Support Needs 12
Technical Support Approach 12
Technical Assistance at Specific Sites 12
EngineeringA'reatment Technical Support 14
Monitoring Methods and Quality Assurance Technical Support 15
Ground-Water Fate and Transport 17
Exposure and Ecological Assessment 18
Health Risk Assessment 19
Quality Assurance for Field Sampling and Laboratory Analysis 20
Laboratory On-Site Evaluations 21
Data Audit Program 21
Performance Evaluation Program 21
Superfund Standards Program: The Quality Assurance Materials Bank 22
Methods Evaluation 22
Computer Systems Development and Support 23
Special Support Projects 23
Major Deliverables 23
Field Procedures and Guidance 25
Superfund Program Needs 25
Research Needs 27
Field Procedures and Guidance Research Approach 28
Site Assessment 29
Safety Procedures and Equipment 30
-vii-
-------
Tad/0 of Contents
Chemical Protective Clothing and Equipment 31
Personnel Protection Procedures 31
Coordination with Other Research and Development Activities 32
Reportable Quantities 32
Manuals and Training Seminars 32
Summary and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies Demonstrated in the SITE Program 32
Immobilization Technology for Remedial Project Managers 33
Physical and Chemical Treatment of Hazardous Waste 33
Design and Operation of In Situ Treatment Systems 33
Remedial Action Costing Procedures 34
Leachate Plume Management 34
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 35
Coordination with Other Agencies 35
Major Deliverables 35
Development and Evaluation: Treatment Technologies 37
Superfund Program Needs 38
Research Needs 39
Performance of Treatment Technology Research Approach 40
Biosystems 42
In Situ Control Technologies 45
On-Site Control Technologies 46
Combustion Techniques 47
Best Demonstrated Available Technology for SARA Wastes 48
Expert Systems 49
Test and Evaluation Facility 50
Major Deliverables 51
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Approach 52
Monitoring Technology Development and Demonstration 53
Immunoassay Monitoring Development and Demonstration 54
Mobile X-Ray Fluorescent Analyzer 54
Fiber Optics 54
Emerging Technologies Testing and Evaluation Program 55
SITE Emerging Biotechnology Program 55
SITE Innovative Development and Evaluation Program 55
SITE Commercial Demonstration and Development Program 56
SITE Information Clearinghouse 59
Major Deliverables 60
Development and Evaluation: Health Effects, Risk Assessment, and Detection 61
Superfund Program Needs 61
Research Needs 63
Health Effects, Risk Assessment, and Detection Research Approach 64
Improve Baseline Risk Assessments 65
Chemical Mixtures 65
Biomarkers 66
- Vlll-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Dosimetry 68
Hazard Identification 69
Evaluate Health Impact of Cleanup Options 69
Develop Test Methods for Post-Closure Biomonitoring 70
Advanced Field Screening Technology 71
Cooperation with Other Agencies 73
Major Deliverables 73
Fundamental Research 75
Fundamental Research Approach 75
University Hazardous Substance Research Centers 75
University Research Grants 77
Major Deliverables 80
Research Planning Process and Resources 81
Research Committee 81
Continuing Oversight 82
Research Project Tracking 83
Summary of Resources 83
Resource Changes forFY90 84
Appendix—Office of Research and Development Organization 92
-IX-
-------
List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Superfund remedial process 4
2 Overview of ORD Superfund research program 7
3 Relationship between ORD research and Superfund remedial process 9
4 ORD program for providing technical assistance at specific sites 13
5 Field procedures and guidance research 28
6 Development and evaluation of treatment technologies research program 41
7 Baseline risk assessment process 62
8 Research to improve risk assessment 65
9 Research to evaluate health impact of cleanup options 70
10 Research to test methods for post-closure monitoring 70
11 Research to evaluate detection technology 71
12 Superfund Hazardous Substance Research Centers 76
13 Hazardous Waste/Superfund Research Committee 81
14 Overview of Superfund research program 84
15 ORD Superfund research budget for FY89 by Issue 86
16 ORD Superfund research FTEs forFY89 by Issue 87
17 ORD Superfund research budget for FY89 by program area 88
18 ORD Superfund research FTEs for FY89 by program area 89
19 Annual Superfund research budget for 1981-1989 90
20 Office of Research and Development organization 92
21 Location of ORD laboratories and field station 93
- x-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACL Alternative Concentration Limit
AIChE American Institute of Chemical Engineering
ARAR Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate (Federal and State Standards)
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BDAT Best Demonstrated Available Technology
CDF Confined Disposal Facilities
CEAM Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
COLIS Computer On-Line Information System
CRF Combustion Research Facility
CSS Countermeasures Selection System
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
E-TEC Environmental Testing and Evaluation Center
FS Feasibility Study
FTIR Fourier-Transformed Infrared
FTTA Federal Technology Transfer Act
GAP Graphic Activity Profile
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
CIS Geographical Information System
HEED Health and Environmental Effects Documents
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSRC Hazardous Substance Research Center
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
IFB Invitation for Bid
KPEG Potassium Polyethylene Glycol
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NCP National Contingency Plan
NEIC EPA National Enforcement and Investigation Center
NIEHS National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL National Priorities List
NTIS National Technical Information Service
OER EPA Office of Exploratory Research
OERR EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORD EPA Office of Research and Development
ORPM EPA Office of Research Program Management
-XI-
-------
List of Acronyms
OSC On Scene Coordinator
OSW EPA Office of Solid Waste
OS WER EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OWPE EPA Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PET Photon Emission Tomography
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PE Performance Evaluation
POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Work
PPA Planned Program Accomplishment
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QARM Quality Assurance Reference Material
RA Remedial Action
RAS Routine Analytical Services
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RD Remedial Design
R&D Research and Development
RFA Request for Application
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RQ Reportable Quantity
RRAR Regional Risk Assessment Review
SAB EPA Science Advisory Board
SAR Structure-Activity Relationship
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SAS Special Analytical Services
S&E Salaries and Equipment
SI Site Inspection
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluations (Program)
SPHEM Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual
SRIC Subsurface Remediation Information Clearinghouse
S/S Stabilization/Solidification
STARA Studies on Toxicity Applicable to Risk Assessment (Database)
TCE Trichloroethylene
TCL Target Compound List
THC Total Hydrocarbons
TIX Technical Information Exchange
TOC Total Organic Carbon
VOC Volatile Organic Carbon
XRF X-Ray Fluorescence
-Xll-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This Superfund Research Plan describes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) research program
for FY89 and FY90 in support of the nationwide Superfund program to reduce or eliminate risks posed by
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances into the environment. The plan presents the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD's) coordinated approach for delivering technical information to Superfund personnel and is
intended to help Agency, Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional reviewers understand the details
of the Superfund research program. The plan encompasses all research, development, demonstration, and technical
assistance undertaken by ORD offices and laboratories in support of the Superfund program, and discusses the
coordination of similar research by other agencies.
In September, 1987, ORD updated its Superfund Research, Development, and Demonstration Strategy and
Program Plan, which presents an overview of the research and development system and sets goals and objectives
for the research program over the five-year period FY87 through FY91. The Strategy was developed to guide the
Superfund office and the Agency in setting research priorities and allocating resources, to aid in coordination
among federal agencies that conduct Superfund-related research, and to assist ORD scientists and engineers in
understanding the programmatic context of their work. This Superfund Research Plan is a companion document
to the Strategy, covering in more detail the research needs, approaches, and outputs of ORD's Superfund research
program for two of the years covered by the five-year Strategy.
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
The original Superfund law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), was envisioned as a cleanup effort that would use existing knowledge to assess and clean up
the nation's abandoned hazardous waste sites. It was soon recognized, however, that better tools and information
would be needed to assess risks at sites, to understand potential effects on human health and the environment, and
to provide reliable, cost-effective cleanup solutions.
Although CERCLA did not explicitly authorize EPA to conduct research and development, ORD did provide
extensive technical support to the Superfund program in several areas, including development of techniques and
procedures needed to assess sites, evaluation of technologies to manage uncontrolled waste sites, and provision of
information on personnel protection technologies, direct technical assistance to Superfund, enforcement, and
Regional offices, and technical oversight for data quality assurance. These technical assistance efforts are
continuing.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), signed by the President on October
17,1986, made major changes to the original Superfund law. The amendments included strict cleanup standards
strongly favoring permanent remedies at waste sites, stronger EPA control in settlements with parties responsible
for waste sites, a mandatory schedule for initiation of cleanup work and studies, improved assessments of the
- 1 -
-------
Legislative Mandate
potential threats to human health posed by each waste site, and increased state and public involvement in the
cleanup decision-making process. To support this markedly changed approach to managing uncontrolled wastes,
SARA explicitly authorized the Environmental Protection Agency, in concert with several other agencies, to
conduct hazardous waste research, development, and demonstrations and to aggressively pursue a program of
technology transfer and training.
The overall objective of the comprehensive federal research program authorized by SARA is to improve the
scientific and technical basis of the Agency's cleanup decisions at sites contaminated by uncontrolled hazardous
substances. Two SARA requirements, in particular, directly affect research priorities: the needs for improved
human health risk assessments and improved treatment technologies that offer permanent protection of human
health and the environment. The new cleanup standards illustrate the statutory intent in these areas. SARA requires
that remedial actions protect human health and the environment, be cost-effective, and be in accordance with the
requirements of the National Contingency Plan. They must use, to the maximum extent practical, permanent
solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery technologies. Each technology must be evaluated to
determine its long-term effectiveness. Remedial actions must comply with applicable federal and state standards,
requirements, criteria, or limitations. Finally, if a remedial action results in any hazardous substance remaining on
site, the remedy must be reviewed at least every five years and, if needed, additional action must be taken to ensure
the protection of human health and the environment.
Superfund research, development, demonstration, and technology transfer programs at EPA and other federal
agencies were expanded in FY87 to respond to several specific SARA provisions:
* §31 l(b) of CERCLA (§209 of SARA) authorizes an EPA program of research, evaluation, testing, development,
and demonstration of alternative or innovative treatment technologies that may be utilized in response actions
to achieve more permanent protection of human health and environmental quality.
» § 311 (b) of CERCLA (§209 of SARA) also authorizes EPA to conduct a technology transfer program, including
the development, collection, evaluation, coordination, and dissemination of information relating to the
utilization of alternative or innovative treatment technologies for response actions.
» §311(c) of CERCLA (§209 of SARA) authorizes EPA to conduct and support, through grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts, research on the detection, assessment, and evaluation of the effects and risks to
human health from hazardous substances and detection of hazardous substances in the environment.
* §31 l(d) of CERCLA (§209 of SARA) authorizes EPA to establish up to ten Hazardous Substance Research
Centers to conduct research, publish research results, and provide training on the manufacture, disposal, and
management of hazardous substances.
» § 104(i) of CERCLA (§ 110 of §SARA) authorizes a research program at the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) to develop appropriate methods to determine the health effects of hazardous
substances frequently found at Superfund sites. The research shall also seek to develop methods to determine
the health effects of such substances in combination with other substances (complex mixtures).
* §311 (a) of CERCLA (§209 of SARA) authorizes a program at the National Institute for Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) to develop advanced techniques for detection and evaluation of the effects on human health
of hazardous substances; methods to assess the risks to human health presented by hazardous substances;
- 2 -
-------
Supertund Research Plan
methods and technologies to detect hazardous substances in the environment; and basic biological, chemical,
and physical methods to reduce the amount and toxicity of hazardous substances.
Title 10, Chapter 160, of the Internal Revenue Code (§211 of SARA) authorizes the Department of Defense
(DOD) to carry out a program of research, development, and demonstration on methods for cleaning up
hazardous wastes at DOD facilities. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program is directed to reduce
the quantities of hazardous wastes; develop methods for treatment, disposal, and management (including
recycling and detoxification); identify lexicological data collection needs and methodologies for evaluating
exposure risks; and test, evaluate, and demonstrate innovative technologies in the field.
RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
In carrying out the provisions of Superfund legislation, EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) follows a risk management process to make decisions on cleaning up Superfund sites. A detailed
description of the risk management process is contained in the Superfund Research, Development and
Demonstration Strategy and Program Plan1 and is briefly summarized here. Risk management encompasses the
assessment of human health and environmental risks posed by hazardous substances, consideration of options to
reduce those risks, and selection of remedial actions based on technical, economic, and policy considerations.
This process requires that government and industry have the capability to assess, reduce, and manage the human
health and environmental risks from uncontrolled hazardous wastes.
Risk assessment, the process of defining risks, has emerged as an important means for determining which
contamination problems pose significant environmental and human health risk. It is concerned with examining
the source of waste at a site, how the hazardous constituents move through the environment, how people are exposed
to these constituents, and the effects of that exposure. The risk assessment process leads to the definition of existing
or expected risks.
Risk reduction is the identification of technical and management options to protect public health and the
environment from predicted risks. While human health and ecological risk assessments define existing or expected
risks, implementation of risk reduction technologies actually mitigate or eliminate the risks associated with
Superfund sites. Risk reduction can be accomplished by reducing the source of waste, employing treatment
techniques to destroy wastes or render them less hazardous, and disposal technologies to contain or immobilize
wastes, thereby preventing human and environmental exposures. The principal goal of Superfund risk reduction
research is to provide practical cleanup methods.
Integration of risk assessments and risk reduction options form the basis for risk management decisions. Risk
management is the process of making judgments on whether to take action and which action to take. It is the
weighing of policy alternatives and selecting the most appropriate action by integrating the results of risk assessment
and risk reduction analyses and considering legal, social, economic, equity, and other factors.
'EPA Office of Research and Development, September 1987, EPA/600/8-87/050.
- 3 -
-------
Superfund Remedial Process Overview
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROCESS OVERVIEW
EPA policies and procedures for implementing the risk management process are contained in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP, which is being revised, delineates federal and state response authority for
abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and methods and criteria for when—and to what extent—a
removal or remedial response should be undertaken. In addition, the NCP limits long-term, permanent cleanup
actions to sites included on the National Priorities List (NPL), which designates the nation's worst hazardous waste
sites. The list has grown to 951 sites; it will ultimately be much larger. The remedial process is summarized in
Figure 1.
Site Dlscovsiy or Notification
Preliminary Assessment
Removal
Site Inspection
_t
Appfy^Hazarei Ranking System
No Problem
J_
National Priorities List
J_
Choose Lead Institution
~/_
'- ,^v l^nieclaljnyestigationj
II t
c
o
N
C
u
R
R
E
N
T
Z_
Remedy Selection
J_
':'• Record of Decision
; Ftemedtei Oesfgfl ,
Rerneolal Action
Operation and Maintenance
Figure 1. Superfund remedial process. Shaded areas represent
those areas of the remedial process that ORD supports.
The first step in EPA's site cleanup process involves receiving a report of a contaminated site. These reports
may be generated by local, state, or federal officials or by concerned individuals who have observed possible
sources of contamination or illegal dumping. These reports are entered into EPA's database on potentially
hazardous sites—the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS). There are now over 27,000 reported sites in CERCLIS.
-4-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
The next step in the process is the preliminary assessment. Information is obtained from local, state, and
federal files to identify the site and perform a preliminary assessment of the site's potential hazards. The
preliminary assessment also attempts to develop ideas about the types and quantities of wastes most likely to have
been disposed, local hydrological and weather conditions, and the impact on the environment. These assessments
may or may not include an actual site inspection.
If a preliminary assessment shows that there is an immediate need to reduce or stop hazardous substance
releases or potential releases to the environment, a removal action may be initiated. Removals may occur at any
point in the remedial process to abate, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of release if the lead
agency determines that there is a threat to human health or the environment. EPA on-scene coordinators (OSCs)
direct Superfund-financed, federal-lead removal activities, which generally do not exceed $2 million or last more
than one year.
If a preliminary assessment shows that the site may threaten human health or the environment, a site inspec-
tion (SI) will be conducted where inspectors collect sufficient information to rank its hazard potential. EPA
currently uses a two-stage approach to site inspections. The first stage involves a quick look for obvious signs of
danger, such as leaking storage drums or dead or discolored vegetation. If the initial visit shows potential for
hazardous contamination, the second stage of the site inspection is initiated, which involves sampling the soil and
water. Site investigators will also analyze the ways in which hazardous materials from the site could pollute
environmental resources and determine whether children have access to the site.
After the second site investigation, EPA applies a rank to the site, based on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
An HRS numerical value over a certain level dictates whether the site is proposed for listing on the NPL. HRS
rankings are currently based on numerous factors, including the type, quantity, and toxicity of the wastes involved,
the number of people potentially exposed, the likely pathways of exposure, and the importance and vulnerability
of the underlying water supply. EPA is in the process of modifying the Hazard Ranking System to incorporate
changes mandated by SARA.
Once a site is proposed for, or placed on, the NPL, the lead organization for planning and conducting the long-
term, permanent remedial response action is designated. The lead organization may be OERR, the state, or the
responsible party; the latter under supervision of EPA's Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE). If EPA
cannot compel potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to undertake the required cleanup activities, OERR or the state
may become the lead organization. Legal steps may then be taken to recover costs incurred from responsible
parties. When OERR is the lead, the site is eligible for a Superfund-financed remedial response. The remainder
of the remedial response activities described here are for Fund-financed, federal-lead cleanups managed by EPA
Regional remedial project managers (RPMs). The process is substantially the same for state-lead and PRP-financed
remedial responses.
Sites listed on the NPL are subjected to a remedial investigation (RI) to gather data necessary to determine
the type and extent of contamination at each site and a feasibility study (FS) to analyze cleanup needs and evaluate
alternative cleanup approaches based on their relative effectiveness and cost. The RI and FS are conducted
concurrently so that data collected in the RI influences the development of remedial alternatives in the FS, which
in turn affects data needs and the scope of treatability studies and additional field investigations. The RI/FS begins
with a scoping process to develop initial plans for collecting data and managing the site.
- 5 -
-------
Supertund Remedial Process Overview
The RI is conducted in two phases—site characterization and treatability investigations. The site
characterization includes a field investigation of the physical and chemical characteristics of the site, definition of
the sources, nature, and extent of contamination, and comparison with applicable and relevant and appropriate
federal and state standards (ARARs). A baseline risk assessment (public health evaluation) is developed to identify
the existing or potential risks that may be posed to human health and the environment. If all indicator chemicals
at the site have ARARs, the comparison of predicted concentrations of indicator chemicals to ARARs suffice as a
baseline risk assessment. In cases where ARARs are not available for all indicator chemicals, the baseline risk
assessment will include both a comparison of the degree to which releases violate ARARs and a risk assessment.
Information in the baseline analysis is used to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives.
Once the site characterization is complete, the FS process begins. The FS is conducted in three
phases—development of alternatives, screening of alternatives, and detailed analysis of alternatives. In the
development of alternatives potential treatment technologies are identified, screened, and assembled into treatment
alternatives for each contaminated medium at the site. The next step is a limited screening of alternatives with
respect to their effectiveness, implementability, and cost in order to reduce the number of alternatives to be analyzed
in detail. If necessary, treatability investigations are performed to permit evaluation of a particular technology on
specific wastes from a site where existing site or treatment data are insufficient to adequately evaluate the
performance of an alternative.
The final step in the RI/FS is the detailed analysis of the alternatives with respect to their ability to meet risk
reduction objectives, statutory requirements, and preferences in the legislation. Alternatives are analyzed
individually with respect to certain criteria and the effectiveness of each alternative in meeting the criteria are
compared. The criteria used include short-term effectiveness; long-term effectiveness; reduction of toxicity,
mobility, and volume; implementation costs; protection of human health and the environment; compliance with
ARARs; state acceptance; and community acceptance. Once analyzed against these criteria, the information from
the RI/FS is summarized and presented to decision makers and the public for review and remedy selection.
After completing the RI/FS, EPA issues a Record of Decision (ROD), which formally sets forth the selected
remedy. Once the ROD is signed, the remedial design (RD) is developed, including detailed engineering plans,
drawings, and specifications. These are used to solicit competitive bids to implement the remedial action (RA).
Site cleanup is conducted during the RA and may involve treatment, disposal, and containment of the hazardous
waste and cleanup, restoration, or replacement of the affected resources. The final step in the remedial process is
operation and maintenance, which is designed to ensure continued functioning and effectiveness of the remedial
response action. The total remedial response process may take four to six years, or more, to complete and may cost
millions of dollars.
RESEARCH PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Implementation of the remedial process at Superfund sites is closely scrutinized from all sides—from the local
community and national environmental groups to state and other federal agencies to treatment technology
developers and PRPs. Remedial decisions are often challenged through the courts, where EPA must present and
support the technical and scientific bases of its decisions.
ORD's research, development, and demonstration program is designed to improve the accuracy and timeliness
of human health and environmental risk assessments, improve information on the performance and availability of
- 6 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
treatment technologies that offer permanent protection of human health and the environment, and provide direct
technical assistance to field personnel involved in the remedial process. The target audiences of Superfund research
are EPA Emergency and Remedial Response, Waste Programs Enforcement, and Regional Offices and state and
local Superfund site assessment and cleanup personnel, including on-scene coordinators, remedial project managers,
independent contractors, emergency response teams, treatment technology firms, and potentially responsible parties.
To organize the research program and assign responsibilities to research offices with the unique capabilities
to address specialized needs, the Superfund research program is arranged into eight broad technical issues that
together represent the greatest needs of the Superfund program. These issues (Figure 2) provide the framework
for planning, budgeting, and justifying the research program.
TechiiJcalC
Support; \
Reftf [:
Procedures
Guidance v
\ ' :.
Development
; and 1
Evaluation
.v -.-.i -^;.-:7|,:-r- ;;-:;
Fundamental
Research :
Quality Assurance for Field Sampling and Laboratory Analysis
Technical Assistance at Specific Sites
Manuals and Training Seminars
Field Methods for Superfund Site Assessment and Cleanup
Health Effects.
Risk Assessment,
and Detection
Techniques
Superfund
Innovative
Technology
Evaluation
Program
(SITE)
Performance of
Treatment
Technologies
University Centers and Grants
Figure 2. Overview of ORD Superfund research program.
ORD's research program is divided into fundamental research, development and evaluation, field procedures
and guidance, and technical support. This organization reflects ORD's objective of improving risk assessment and
risk reduction technologies available for use in the field. Fundamental research expands the knowledge base from
which innovative methods may spring. Development and evaluation utilizes new concepts developed by EPA and
the private sector to increase the number and effectiveness of risk assessment techniques and treatment technologies
available for use at contaminated sites. The development of field procedures and guidance packages information
- 7 -
-------
Research Program Overview
from development and evaluation to improve their use in the field. Technical support supplies direct expert
assistance to field personnel in applying the technologies at Superfund sites. Subsequent chapters describe the
following broad technical research issues, organized within the overall research framework, in detail:
* Technical Assistance at Specific Sites. Reviews RI/FS reports and remedial action, design, and implementation
plans, and provides technical expertise and review to OERR, OWPE, and the Regions.
» Quality Assurance for Field Sampling and Laboratory Analysis. Ensures comparable environmental measure-
ments of known quality by providing support to the national Contract Laboratory Program and evaluating
analytical methods for chemical measurements and characterization.
* Field Methods for Superfund Site Assessment and Cleanup. Provides techniques and procedures to allow on-
scene coordinators and remedial project managers to quickly and effectively assess the degree of hazard posed
by specific sites, including the evaluation of technologies needed to ensure personnel health and safety during
removal and cleanup operations; development of information on carcinogenicity and chronic health effects
needed to generate reportable quantities for specific chemicals; and development of Health and Environmental
Effects Documents for site assessments. An emergency planning and community right-to-know support
program will provide data and tools to prepare for, and respond to, emergency and chronic releases of hazardous
chemicals.
» Manuals and Training Seminars. Disseminates information and conducts training seminars for OERR, OWPE,
Regions, states, and local authorities to assist them in Superfund site cleanup.
* Performance of Treatment Technologies. Develops and evaluates technologies, techniques, and construction
materials that potentially may provide cost-effective control of hazardous waste releases but which still require
additional laboratory development to be ready for field application. An integrated biosystems research program
will identify and adapt naturally occurring and genetically enhanced organisms for application at Superfund
cleanup operations.
» Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. Conducts research, development, and demon-
strations that promote commercialization of alternative treatment and monitoring technologies. As the
availability of technologies ready for full-scale demonstrations decreases, more emphasis will be given to
technologies at an earlier stage of development.
* Health Effects, Risk Assessment, and Detection Techniques. Conducts research and development to enhance
the scientific capabilities to quickly detect potentially hazardous environmental contaminants, evaluate human
health effects, and assess risks to human health from hazardous substances. Advanced field monitoring systems
research will develop practical, rugged, easy-to-use screening techniques for monitoring Superfund sites.
* University-Based Fundamental Research. Provides long- and short-term hazardous substance research, training,
and technology transfer related to the manufacture, use, transportation, disposal, and management of hazardous
substances through university-based Superfund Hazardous Substance Research Centers and competitively
awarded grants to universities.
- 8 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
ORD's research, development, demonstration, and technical support programs help to improve available
information and technologies throughout the remedial process. Figure 3 indicates where the work in each research
issue assists the Superfund remedial process.
tf>
c
•£ ca
ff
at
to
rr
ca
ac
.£? cr
o __7
£ I J
a>
ORD Research
Quality Assurance for Field
Sampling and Lab Analysis
Technical Assistance at
Specific Sites
Manuals and Training
Seminars
Methods for Superfund Site
Assessment
Health Effects, Risk Assess-
ment, and Detection
Techniques
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
Program
Performance of Treatment
Technologies
University Centers & Grants
_
35
S?
a.
^f ^^ "^y fff j^* X—' co o g> 4
»* & *5 *s -^ j?- -M -& W ^
; a* w .^ -f? O £? ay C& -—
or f~* *** C? •£? m -^* >* °
o ^ -s^ £? a? & c a? ^
£&£:<&£:<=>&**£&
a> .±r* a — ^_ CO c^ (& a? a>
oc co T~ ^
a>
a
CO
T2
a>
-------
Superfund Research Plan
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
The Superfund program is action-oriented. SARA established
ambitious schedules for investigating and cleaning up Superfund
sites. To help meet these schedules, ORD provides comprehen-
sive technical support to OERR, OWPE, Regional offices, states,
and private industry. Technical support involves direct assistance
by ORD scientists and engineers. Major technical support activi-
ties use ORD's technical expertise and facilities to provide timely
technical services, data analyses, guidance and protocols, training,
and technology transfer. These activities are primarily site-
specific and assist in determining cleanup requirements and the
resultant selection of cleanup technologies. This is high-priority
work that offers scientists and engineers an opportunity to transfer
the latest research knowledge directly to cleanup actions.
Maintenance of a strong research capability is critical to the
Agency to ensure that technical expertise is available to promote
the latest methodologies and control technologies. ORD's scien-
tists and engineers are at the cutting edge of science and engineer-
ing, as it applies to improving EPA's capacity to implement
cost-effective and permanent cleanup remedies for Superfund
sites.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM NEEDS
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes EPA to respond
directly to releases (or threatened releases) of hazardous sub-
stances and pollutants or contaminants that may endanger public
health or welfare. Because Superfund is an operational rather than
a regulatory program, EPA must strive to use the best technical
information and technologies available throughout the remedial
process to ensure the scientific defensibility of its decisions.
Technical support to OERR, OWPE,
EPA Regional, state, local, and private
sector personnel involved in cleaning up
Superfund sites is provided through two
major programs: Qualify Assurance
for Field Sampling and Laboratory
Analysis and Technical Assistance at
Specific Sites, Technical assistance
involves direct contact with ORD
scientists and engineers to provide
timely technical services, data analy-
ses, guidance and protocols, training,
and technology transfer. These activ-
ities are primarily site-specific and
assist in determining cleanup require-
ments and "the selection of cleanup
technologies. ORD and OSWER
together have established Superfund
Technology Support Centers in high-
priority technical areas: engineering
and treatment, monitoring and site
characterization, ground-water fate and
transport, and exposure and ecological
assessment. The Centers are closely
linked to OSWER's Superfund For-
ums to keep informed of Regional
needs and promote the use of techni-
cal support programs. In addition,
health risk assessment technical sup-
port includes Regional Risk Assess-
ment Reviews and support in the
preparation of site-specific endanger-
ment assessments for OWPE, .The
quality assurance for field sampling
and laboratory analysis supports the
Contract Laboratory Program through
Routine Analytical Services, Special
Analytical Services, laboratory on-site
evaluations, data audits, performance
evaluations, the Quality Assurance
Materials Bank, methods evaluation,
and computer systems development.
As the provisions of SARA are implemented, it is estimated
that EPA's need for the analysis of environmental samples will
grow at an annual rate of 25% to 40% over the next three years.
OERR has established the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
to provide data of known quality that will assist in assessments of
risk in remedial actions or in enforcement actions to identify and mitigate threats to public health and the
environment. The primary objective of the CLP is to provide a wide range of responsive and carefully monitored
analytical services of known and documented quality. A single national program for this effort helps ensure that
samples are analyzed according to uniform and consistent protocols, and achieves lower analysis costs through the
- 11 -
-------
Superfund Program Needs
economics of scale. All CLP analyses are performed by laboratories of proven ability that have won competitive
contract awards, including analysis of performance evaluation samples.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT NEEDS
Cutting across the entire range of ORD's research program is the need to transfer technologies quickly and
efficiently to end users. While the transfer of technologies, technical information, and guidance is integrated into
the planning of research projects, the effective use of technical research products in the field often requires the
assistance of experts. The Agency's enforcement and response programs need rapid access to ORD's technical
expertise to review EPA contractor and PRP reports and recommendations and to provide the best available
scientific evidence and testimony in support of cleanup decisions. Technical support from experts in ORD is needed
in the following areas:
* Engineering and treatment technical support is needed to help in the analysis and selection of effective,
permanent Superfund site remedies and in the design and construction of remedial plans.
» Support for the development of monitoring and site characterization procedures is needed to create a sound
basis for assessing risks to human health and the environment and analyzing remedy options.
» Because SARA calls for increased consideration of environmental damage at Superfund sites, support is needed
for the evaluation of procedures to assess ecological effects of hazardous waste sites.
* The human health risk assessment process is highly decentralized and many risk assessments are performed
by the Potentially Responsible Parties or their contractors. There is a need for ORD to make expert review
available on request for consistency, specific information, and guidance on conducting assessments.
* Support for the CLP is needed to ensure data integrity, including the provision of standard analytical materials
and procedures and evaluations of the performance of contract laboratories.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT APPROACH
Technical support to OERR, OWPE, and Regional personnel involved in cleaning up Superfund sites is
provided through two major programs: Technical Assistance at Specific Sites and Quality Assurance for Field
Sampling and Laboratory Analysis. Besides providing much needed support to operational programs, the technical
support program keeps ORD managers and technical staff in touch with Regional needs in all major program areas,
which leads to a better understanding of field problems and allows fine tuning of the research and development
program.
Technical Assistance at Specific Sites
ORD technical expertise and facilities are available on a when-and-where-requested basis to provide site- and
case-specific technical support throughout the remedial process. Site-specific support projects have involved such
highly publicized sites as the Love Canal, Upper Clark Fork River, Henderson Road, Drake Chemical, French
Limited, Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex, Tyson's Dump, Pacific Engineering, Stauffer Chemical, New
- 12 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Bedford Harbor, Frontier Hard Chrome, Chemical Control Corporation, and Tacoma Tar Pits CERCLA sites. In
addition to site-specific technical assistance, the Regions make many non-site-specific requests for technical
information, including hundreds of questions that are answered over the telephone by laboratory experts. Many
information requests required considerable time and effort to develop state-of-the-science advice.
To provide a central point of contact to the laboratories within high-priority technical areas, ORD and the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) have jointly established Superfund Technology Support Centers
in engineering and treatment, monitoring and site characterization, ground-water fate and transport, and exposure
and ecological assessment (Figure 4). The four Technology Support Centers were initiated in FY88, and in response
to Regional requests, conducted over 80 technical assistance projects in support of remedial investigations and
feasibility studies at CERCLA National Priority List sites. The Centers are closely linked to OSWER's Superfund
Forums, composed of Regional on-scene coordinators and remedial project managers, to keep informed of Regional
needs and to further promote the availability of their technical support programs throughout the Regions. In addition
to the Technical Support Centers, ORD provides technical assistance for health risk assessments through a Regional
risk assessment review group.
Application of Technical Information
to bite-Specific Problems in the Field
On-Scene Coordinators
Remedial Project Managers
Health
Risk
Assessment
Data
Quality
Assurance
Superfund Forums
Exposure/
Ecological
Assessment
Engmeerm
Treatment
Technologies
Monitoring
Methods/Site
Characterization
Ground-Water
Fate and
Transport
ORD Laboratory Expertise/Technology Support Centers
I
EPA Research, Development, and Demonstration Program
Figure 4. ORD program for providing technical
assistance at specific sites.
- 13 -
-------
Engineering/Treatment Technical Support
Engineering/Treatment Technical Support
In order to provide timely technical and scientific information and analysis in support of hazardous waste site
litigation and corrective actions, short-term, quick turn-around technical advice and consultation is provided on
request to assist in the use of engineering and treatment technologies.
The Engineering Technology Support Center provides site-specific technical support (1) during the RI/FS
process by determining treatment alternatives, determining the feasibility of treatment alternatives, and establishing
protocols for determining site-specific feasibility of treatment alternatives; (2) during remedial design by
determining scale-up requirements, fine tuning designs, and performing treatability studies; and (3) during remedial
actions by monitoring scheme development and troubleshooting problems. Other general areas of technical support
include reviewing data submitted by liable parties for specific site problems, furnishing expert witnesses when
required for litigation procedures, and providing routine technical support in other areas of expertise.
In FY88, the Engineering Technology Support Center provided assistance in evaluating remedial options at
21 sites, including the Stringfellow, Monterey Park, Smuggler Mountain, New Lyme, Marathon Battery, C&R
Battery, Baltimore Harbor Chromium, McCall, and Tacoma Tar Pits NPL sites. The technical support projects
included treatability investigations of soil washing and natural zeolites, developing sampling and analysis plans
for stabilization/solidification (S/S) studies, determining field screening of particles and debris before S/S treatment,
identifying remedial alternatives, conducting trial bums, and reviewing field demonstration data from proposed PRP
treatments. The same level and types of support are anticipated in FY89, but the exact projects will depend on
Regional requests for assistance.
In response to non-site-specific technical requests from the Regions, the Engineering Technology Support
Center has developed generic Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for soil washing, chemical treatment
systems, and low-temperature thermal desorption processes; gathered together experts to develop state-of-the-
science remedial action approaches for lead battery, mine tailings, wood preserving, and explosive waste sites; and
compared methods for treating rock and masonry debris contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Because technical publications often go unused due to time constraints on Regional audiences, half-day sessions
in the Regions are being scheduled on major guidebooks and manuals. These courses are not designed to impart
expertise but to introduce the product and show how it can be used.
In a major new technical support initiative, ORD has recently signed a Memorandum of Agreement with
Region 3, through which the Treatment Technology Support Center would provide comprehensive site-specific
technical support for selected Superfund sites from the beginning of the scoping process through the entire site
remedial process.
ORD is developing an automated Technical Information Exchange (TIX) to disseminate specialized technical
information. The TIX collection currently emphasizes information involving the evaluation of new and novel
techniques for the cleanup of ecosystems damaged by spills, underground storage tank leaks, uncontrolled waste
sites, urban and non-point sources of stormwater run-off, and identification of environmentally sound methods for
the disposal of contaminated wastes associated with cleanup operations. Other information includes products from
tests, and evaluations of personal protective clothing, breathing apparatus and other safety equipment and procedures
to protect personnel involved in the handling of pesticides and other toxic substances, as well as individuals engaged
in emergency response activities at chemical spills and hazardous waste sites.
- 14 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
The Computer On-Line Information System (COLIS) has been developed within TIX to make new technical
information more readily available to cleanup personnel. In FY88, databases available on COLIS included:
• The Case History File that contains information on site characteristics, response methods, costs, cleanup
problems, and alternative approaches involving spills, waste sites, and underground storage tank management.
The information is derived from After-Action Reports submitted by field personnel.
* A Library Search System that allows users to search among several listings of publications related to hazardous
chemicals and wastes. The listings include the card catalog of the TIX collection and a listing prepared by the
EPA headquarters library on its Hazardous Waste Collection. The system allows users to search the database
by key words, author, publisher, call number, and report number.
ORD plans to expand COLIS in FY89 and FY90 to include:
• The Countermeasures Selection System (CSS), a computerized version of the EPA's Manual of Counter-
measures for Hazardous Substance Release. CSS contains extensive charts and tables on chemical behavior
and hazards and the appropriate technologies for dealing with each type of chemical. It will allow users to
quickly determine response techniques applicable to particular problem.
* A Performance/Cost Database that will contain information being generated from field evaluations of mobile
treatment equipment under the Superfund SITE program, related Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) programs, and other sources world-wide.
* A Personnel Protection Technology Field Performance File to support acquisition and use decisions by EPA
and contractors relative to safety during Superfund cleanup. The database will also be used as a planning tool
in developing or indicating research priorities and needs in the areas of personnel protection procedures,
equipment, and detectors.
» A Testing and Evaluation Facility Database that will provide a computerized database of all technical findings
from evaluations of treatment technologies.
Monitoring Methods and Quality Assurance Technical Support
The monitoring methods and quality assurance technical support area provides site-specific assistance for
monitoring and characterizing air, surface water, ground water, wastes, leachate, and soils in support of Superfund
investigations. Technical support is provided in five major areas: remote sensing support, geophysical technical
support, geographical information system technical support, quality assurance support to Regional laboratories, and
sampling and monitoring technical support. In addition, the Superfund Monitoring and Site Characterization
Technology Support Center provides specialized technical and scientific information and expertise to Regions in
ground-water monitoring activities.
Remote sensing, including topographic mapping and aerial imagery, is crucial to the Regions for locating old
or buried contamination sources and creating topographic maps of Superfund sites. ORD is currently providing
about 30 maps and 400 images per year to Regional offices and OERR for CERCLA investigations, with a modest
growth expected for FY89. Remote sensing is a highly efficient way to localize and characterize sites, analyze
historical development and practices at waste sites, and monitor removal and remedial operations for Superfund.
- 15 -
-------
Monitoring Methods and Quality Assurance Technical Support
Four types of remote sensing projects are being conducted: Emergency Response Projects requiring rapid
acquisition and assessment, Single Date Projects to acquire current data, Intensive Site Analyses to acquire imagery
over a period of time, and Waste Site Inventories to establish baseline references over large areas. Remote sensing,
complemented by computerized geographic information systems, is being used to perform ecosystem impact
analyses and human exposure assessments at several NPL sites. Demonstrations and written guidance on the
applicability of these technologies will continue to be provided to OERR, OWPE, and Regional personnel.
Geophysical support includes expert assistance on the use of resistivity, magnetometry, ground-penetrating
radar, borehole electromagnetic induction, and other remote devices to characterize the subsurface and locate con-
tamination sources at hazardous waste sites in a non-disruptive manner. Technical support to the Regions includes
advice on what tools to use in specific situations and reviews of reports and work plans. In FY88, eight projects in
six Regions were conducted. To promote the use of geophysical characterization techniques, a letter was sent in
April, 1988, to all ten Regions requesting identification of Superfund sites where geophysical technical support is
needed. Within a month, ORD received requests for assistance at 52 Superfund sites. The amount of work to satisfy
these requests far exceeds ORD' s current capability. To meet this need, ORD and the Regions are working together
to identify priorities and exact needs of each project and determine whether ORD or Superfund contractors could
provide assistance. Interagency agreements to provide the geophysical field investigations are being established
with other federal and state agencies.
Geographic information systems (GIS) allow the integration, display, and analysis of spatially related data for
use in vegetation, habitat, land use, water quality, and exposure risk monitoring. EPA has established a GIS in each
Region that demonstrated a commitment to develop and maintain the necessary staff expertise. ORD's role is to
demonstrate the GIS applicability to hazardous waste sites for the Regions. In FY88, ORD provided GIS
demonstrations in four Regions.
ORD evaluates and provides technical support to Regional laboratories in much the same fashion as it does
for the Superfund contract laboratories. The support includes providing quality control samples, reference materials,
performance evaluation samples, and laboratory audits. The performance of litigant labs at Superfund sites is
evaluated at the request of EPA Regions and States. In addition, support is provided to the Contract Laboratory
Program, which periodically performs special analytical services that involve the collection and analysis of air
samples for specific volatile organic compounds at Superfund sites. The accuracy of the measurement systems used
for Special Analytical Services (SAS) are being assessed and the results included with the SAS reports.
Sampling and monitoring technical support includes site-specific, short-term assistance on the development
of sampling methods, sampling designs, sampling quality assurance plans, and analytical methods; modification
of analytical methods; reviews of data quality objectives, network designs, and spatial statistics; analysis and
interpretation of site monitoring data; and provision of monitoring equipment. This project provides the technical
assistance required by the Regions to adequately plan and implement Superfund site investigations and to ensure
that the monitoring activities provide data of known quality.
The Superfund Monitoring and Site Characterization Technology Support Center assists the Regions in ground-
water monitoring by providing "hotline" consultation, on-site technical support, review of monitoring and quality
assurance plans, transfer of research and development results, training, and facilities. The Center provides expertise
in the areas of vadose zone monitoring, saturated zone monitoring, surface and borehole geophysics, advanced field
methods, and underground storage tank monitoring. The Center's technology support program utilizes monitoring
research to develop field applications for traditional and innovative sampling analysis and monitoring methods. The
- 16 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Center's technical assistance program provides site-specific guidance on the use of conventional methods when
requested.
In FY88, the Center provided site-specific technical support for 14 NPL sites, including X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) screening studies, a ground-penetrating radar survey, soil-gas studies, a wetlands demonstration project, and
reviews of sampling plans, remedial plans, and RI/FS reports. Activities in response to Regional requests for non-
site-specific assistance included the development and field use of XRF monitoring and soil gas sampling methods,
development and conference presentation of geophysical applications, the Second National Outdoor Action
Conference, identification of expert witnesses, guidance on soil classification, initiation of a short training program
on basic geophysics, and responses to requests for information and site assistance by nine Regions. Goals for FY89
include establishing permanent and mobile facilities, continuing technology demonstrations and site assistance,
implementing a geophysics training program, developing workshops on soil gas, XRF, and geophysical techniques,
and expanding site-specific technical assistance.
Ground-Water Fate and Transport
The Ground-Water Fate and Transport Technology Support Center consists of a technical support team and
a Subsurface Remediation Information Clearinghouse (SRIC). The SRIC was established to provide information
pertaining to fate, transport, and in situ biotreatability of pollutants in the ground water and soil. A Technical
Support Team provides a readily available source of technical assistance and technical review to Superfund remedial
action decision makers regarding remediation activities at specific Superfund sites. The Center works closely with
two other EPA-sponsored centers: the National Center for Ground-Water Research—a consortium of Rice
University, University of Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State University—and the International Ground-Water
Modeling Center at Butler University in Indianapolis.
The Center provided site-specific technical support at 34 NPL sites, covering all ten Regions in FY88, including
assistance in determining partitioning coefficients, reviewing biodegradation potential, evaluating bioremediation
technology, reviewing contractor reports on fate and transport of organic contaminants, reviewing draft RI/FS
reports, studying aquifer characteristics, evaluating ground-water contamination in a complex fractured flow system,
evaluating soil leaching studies, and reviewing proposed site remediation alternatives. For non-site-specific
technical support requests the Center conducted ground-water modeling workshops and training modules for all ten
Regions; initiated the Subsurface Remediation Clearinghouse; and reviewed remedial performance evaluations. In
addition, the Center developed Superfund issue papers on water level measurements, leaching tests, metals analyses
and filtering, fractured media models, facilitated transport, dense non-aqueous phase liquids, soil classification
system, and bio restoration in saturated and unsaturated zones. The most commonly requested technical support
came in the areas of bioremediation, pump and treat, general geology/hydrology, fractured flow hydrology,
development of partition coefficients, and general geochemistry.
The Center's plans for FY89 include: continued site-specific support; continuation of the Subsurface
Remediation Clearinghouse; more remediation performance evaluations; development of Superfund issue papers;
development of a Site Characterization Seminar in cooperation with EPA's Center for Environmental Information;
conducting technology transfer seminars on transport, fate, and modeling; and conducting workshops on selected
issues.
- 17 -
-------
Exposure and Ecological Assessment
Exposure and Ecological Assessment
Environmental processes technical support is provided to assist in conducting exposure assessments and ecologi-
cal risk assessments. Two Centers have been established to serve as focal points for this technical support: The
Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM) and the Superfund Ecological Risk Technology Support
Center.
ORD's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling, established in the summer of 1987, maintains and distributes
multimedia exposure assessment models and provides technical support and training to personnel who quantitatively
evaluate multimedia exposure, bioaccumulation, toxicity, monitoring, and sampling. Requested assistance is
provided through expert witness testimony, exposure calculations and assessments for especially difficult or unusual
scenarios, review of exposure and ecological risk assessments, and in-depth support for high priority Agency
projects.
The Center also maintains a distribution center containing up-to-date models and databases for the user
community and their consultants. To improve the communication of exposure assessment information, CEAM
maintains an electronic bulletin board through which callers can access current versions of 11 microcomputer
models and receive technical assistance. CEAM also distributes and supports more complex models for use on
large computers.
Accomplishments in FY88 included the distribution of over 2000 models by diskette and another 250 over
the bulletin board; establishing software quality control procedures; debugging 25 CERCLA data sets uploaded
to the bulletin board; conducting three training courses; reviewing guidance documents; providing technical assis-
tance for site remediation at 11 CERCLA sites; initiating the development of exposure and ecorisk assessments
for the Upper Clark Fork River CERCLA sites; and developing assessment protocols for confined disposal facilities
(CDFs).
CEAM's plans for FY89 include expanding the bulletin board communications network; developing new
models and databases; increasing site-specific technical assistance; completing the Clark Fork River ecological
risk analysis; and applying wood preserving, metals remediation, and CDF models at specific sites. In addition,
CEAM will offer a training curriculum at an introductory level for exposure assessment modeling, in-depth training
for several models, and advanced seminars on the uncertainties in ecological risk assessment.
The Ecological Risk Technology Support Center provides technical assistance, training, and expert witnesses
on the use of bioassays and bioassessment screening protocols being applied during enforcement and remedial
investigations of the environmental effects of contaminants at Superfund sites. The Center has developed generic
assessment methods for ceramic, battery cracking, and lead smelting sites and provided technical assistance for
ecological risk assessments at 11 CERCLA sites, including metals contamination at the Upper Clark Fork River
CERCLA sites, confined disposal facilities adjacent to the Great Lakes, sites contaminated by wood preserving
facilities, and the evaluation of ecological risks associated with marine Superfund sites.
ORD is evaluating the use of rapid, inexpensive bioassay testing methods, developing quantitative risk
assessment protocols for ecological risk assessments, and evaluating ecological factors for inclusion in the Hazard
Ranking System. Emphasis is on applications to sensitive environments for site identification and selection, site
evaluation before and after remedial operations, and establishing criteria for the removal of sites from Superfund
status.
- 18 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Because organisms integrate only those contaminants that are biologically available, knowing what
contaminants are present in surface-water systems does not necessarily indicate which are ecologically relevant
ORD has been working to develop a series of bioassays to enable the assessment of toxicity at Superfund sites.
Bioassays provide a means of quickly screening samples to determine their toxicity. They allow the identification
of the most severe toxicity cases, thereby helping to prioritize areas for more thorough evaluation, including the
direction of chemical analysis. The use of bioassays does not depend upon the identification of potential causative
agents or on the availability of numerical criteria for these chemicals.
Quantitative risk assessment protocols are being developed to assist in the evaluation of ecological damage at
the ecological, population, and organism levels of response in aquatic environments associated with Superfund sites.
The protocols will evaluate current conditions based on proposed remedial activities and the no-action alternative.
Quantitative bioassessment protocols are not dependant upon knowledge of the compounds in the waste stream.
However, the bioassay is not a replacement for chemical analysis, and it does not factor in bioaccumulation;
carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects; or population or system level effects. The key sediment issue faced
by the Agency in the evaluation of Superfund sites is how to remedy the ecological damage caused by benthic
pollution. The technical contribution to these regulatory decisions lies in the predictive methods for describing
contaminant deposition, distribution, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and ecosystem recovery.
Improved ecological factors for the Hazard Ranking System will be developed. Case studies will include
application of existing ranking methods, multimedia analysis models, and ecorisk procedures. Results will be used
in evaluating existing CERCLA protocols, in transferring technology, and in evaluating the need for more research
on pollutant fate and exposure and risk assessment. The occurrence of new hazardous source chemicals will be
reported to OERR. The HRS should be able to discriminate better between sites and be on a firmer scientific and
ecological basis.
The ecological assessment support program is also evaluating the use of direct (soil) versus indirect (elutriate)
tests, laboratory versus field assessments, acute versus chronic testing, and sensitivity of bioassay organisms.
Health Risk Assessment
The health risk assessment technical support program has two main components: Regional risk assessment
reviews (RRARs) and technical support in the preparation of site-specific endangerment assessments for OWPE.
A Regional risk assessment review group was established at OSWER's request to coordinate reviews of
Regionally prepared site-specific assessments and to provide a focal point for obtaining risk assessment information
for the Regions. The review group, composed of ORD scientists, is available for very careful, multidisciplinary
reviews of risk assessments at a limited number of Superfund sites. The RRAR is intended to support Regional risk
assessors in a consultative role by providing technical assistance in applying EPA's risk assessment guidelines to
complex situations. ORD has provided about 15-20 RRARs per year. For FY89 and beyond, 25-30 per year are
planned.
ORD's technical support program for OWPE provides rapid response to questions on exposure and toxicity
parameters and the state-of-the-art in risk assessments. It is geared towards ensuring that decisions are not
overturned in court as "arbitrary and capricious" by being inconsistent with guidelines and methodologies. Site-
or chemical-specific assessments are prepared to predict the relative health risks associated with remedial
enforcement options. These assessments range from brief hazard assessment summaries for cancer and non-cancer
- 19 -
-------
Health Risk Assessment
toxicity, to detailed, peer-reviewed documents for use in negotiations or litigation by OWPE. The review of
chemical-specific cancer risks proposed in contractor-prepared endangerment assessments is essential to establishing
the credibility of these assessments for use in negotiations or litigation. Additional support includes testimony and
participation in negotiations, public meetings, and risk assessments at high-visibility sites. ORD conducts about
10-15 endangerment assessments in any one year.
Quality Assurance for Field Sampling and Laboratory Analysis
The CLP provides a centralized system of laboratory support in response to specific analytical requirements
of the Superfund program. The majority of analytical needs are met through standardized laboratory services
provided by CLP Routine Analytical Services (RAS). The RAS program provides laboratory services for uniform
and high volume analyses of samples collected during hazardous waste site investigations. Other, specialized types
of analysis not provided by standardized laboratory contracts may be scheduled under the Special Analytical
Services (SAS) program. The S AS program complements the RAS program by providing the capability for meeting
specialized or custom analytical requirements, including quick turn-around analyses, verification analyses, analyses
requiring lower detection limits than RAS methods provide, identification and quantification of non-priority
pollutant and non-Target Compound List (TCL) constituents, general waste characterizations, and analysis of non-
standard matrices.
In addition to providing their analytical results to the Regions, the contract laboratories are required to send
CLP environmental analytical data to ORD, which is responsible for the independent quality assurance and quality
control oversight of the CLP. Each contract laboratory's performance is continuously monitored by ORD through
ongoing quality assurance evaluations. These evaluations consist of periodic on-site laboratory inspections and
audits on a representative portion of analytical data and supporting documentation to ensure continuing laboratory
adherence to analytical, quality assurance, and quality control procedures and that overall performance meets the
requirements of the CLP contract. ORD further supports the CLP by providing performance evaluation materials
and studies, maintaining the Quality Assurance Materials Bank, participating in the development of methods,
standards, and protocols used by the contract laboratories, improving computer systems support, and providing
broad support for special, high-priority OERR projects.
ORD also provides an independent, rapid-response referee laboratory for the use of the Regions and Emergency
Response Branch. The Quality Assurance Support Laboratory, with the University of Nevada in Las Vegas,
provides technical support for the review of methods, referee analyses of preaward and performance evaluation
samples, and special inorganic and dioxin performance evaluation materials preparation and distribution. The
laboratory distributed approximately 2,000 special performance evaluation materials in FY88.
Laboratory requirements for maintaining document control and chain of custody are incorporated into all CLP
contracts. The National Enforcement and Investigation Center (NEIC) supports the CLP through periodic
evaluations of laboratory adherence to these requirements to ensure that analytical data are suitable for use in
enforcement case preparation and litigation. These evaluations emphasize sample control, laboratory documenta-
tion, security of evidence, and document control and inventory, and are coordinated with ORD's routine on-site
laboratory evaluations.
- 20 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Laboratory On-Slte Evaluations
On-site evaluations of the contract laboratories are performed at least yearly to assess each laboratory' s capacity
to produce data suitable for enforcement case preparation and litigation, monitor performance, ensure compliance
with contractual requirements, and identify weaknesses in CLP analytical methods. The on-site laboratory
evaluation is the quality assurance activity that ties together all the elements of laboratory performance monitoring.
Preaward on-site evaluations, together with performance evaluation sample results, are critical factors in the
determination of contract awards. Routine on-site evaluations incorporate the findings of performance evaluation
studies and data audits to detect and identify problems, bring the problems to the attention of the laboratory
personnel, help to resolve them and otherwise monitor the compliance with all contractual specifications. If serious
problems are encountered, recommendations are made to OERR for appropriate corrective action. In FY88, ORD
conducted over 100 on-site laboratory evaluations.
Data Audit Program
Data audits are managed by ORD and include technical audits of contract laboratory data; monitoring and
consulting to improve contract procedures; updating the quality assurance database; developing documentation,
checklists, control charts, and scoring systems; providing material for technical presentation or publication,
providing statistical support to all aspects of the CLP; and performing methods evaluation.
Technical audits are crucial for providing a detailed working knowledge of what is accomplished by the CLP
laboratories. This knowledge base becomes the reference from which all other activities are measured and
establishes the credibility of all laboratory performance evaluations. The technical audits are extremely thorough
and consequently are conducted on only a small, but statistically valid, fraction of all analytical cases, usually around
4%. A "case" refers to collections of environmental samples from one site over a finite period of time.
Auditing methods establish, on a laboratory-by-laboratory basis, valid statistical levels of data inspection,
based on the quantity of data reported and relative frequency of observed defects. They also provides a means for
random selection of data to be audited, thus resulting in an unbiased characterization of a laboratory's output. By
utilizing a weighted scoring system, with weighs based on the severity of observed defects, appropriate levels of
data inspection can be projected.
Performance Evaluation Program
Another major area of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) support provided by ORD includes organic,
inorganic, and dioxin performance evaluation (PE) materials and studies, through which the accuracy of contract
laboratory analytical results is continuously monitored. Performance evaluation materials containing compounds
of known concentration are sent to contract laboratories, the laboratories analyze the material to determine chemical
concentrations, and the results of their analysis are sent to ORD where they are compared to the known
concentrations.
There are two types of PE studies, Preaward and Postaward. A Preaward study is conducted to determine if
a bidding laboratory can successfully meet both the analytical and reporting requirements described in a particular
Invitation for Bid (DFB) for organic, inorganic, or dioxin contracts. Meeting these technical requirements in a PE
study is one factor used in CLP contract award determination. Postaward studies are divided into two categories,
recognizable (single blind) and unannounced (double blind) studies. These Postaward PE studies are conducted to
- 21 -
-------
Performance Evaluation Program
monitor the technical performance of laboratories holding active CLP contracts and they serve to alert OERR of
analytical problems by providing a quantitative evaluation of each participating laboratory. "Single blind" materials
are provided directly by ORD to the participating laboratories as PE materials. "Double blind" materials are
provided to the participating laboratories with the assistance of an EPA Region. The Region camouflages these PE
materials as one of its regular environmental samples. Current trends indicate an increasing reliance on single blind
studies, which are less expensive.
PE materials and studies are also provided to the Regions and to state and local governments where Superfund
issues are involved so that these agencies can evaluate their own analytical laboratories. Additional PE support to
OERR may also occur in support of Special Analytical Services study requirements. Sample types for SAS studies
are developed upon need and are specific to the SAS requirement.
Superfund Standards Program: The Quality Assurance Materials Bank
Since 1980, ORD has maintained and has continued to expand an inventory of standard compounds used in
analytical efforts that support RCRA and CERCLA. This inventory ensures the ready availability of standard
materials for evaluating CLP laboratory performance. Quality assurance reference materials, such as calibration
standards, quality control samples, and performance evaluation samples, are designed, prepared, and distributed
according to uniform and consistent protocols for analysis by contract laboratories.
The inventory is managed by the Quality Assurance Materials Bank and the Repository of Toxic and Hazardous
Materials, which are operated under a single contract known as the Quality Assurance Reference Materials (QARM)
project. Last year, the Repository of Toxic and Hazardous Materials distributed almost 100,000 ampules to CLP
laboratories and to non-CLP Regional, state, and local laboratories. The Quality Assurance Materials Bank supplied
almost 40,000 ampules of standards for CLP performance evaluation materials and studies. Through this project,
compounds are acquired, reference materials are prepared and characterized, standard solutions are prepared, their
concentrations verified, and the reference standards and materials are distributed. Reference standards are provided
to both CLP and non-CLP laboratories.
Methods Evaluation
An active area of research is the development of rapid, low-cost analytical procedures and systems to provide
data that meets program requirements. This effort involves the development and validation of quality assurance and
quality control protocols for use in sample analysis in the field. Prior to FY87, three general methods for CLP
analyses were in place: organic, inorganic, and dioxin. Due to changes in Superfund program needs and
improvements in laboratory equipment and practices, new analytical protocols are under development. In addition
to the development of new protocols, modifications of previous methods have been designed to improve data
quality, data quality monitoring, and the information content of data generated.
A related activity is the evaluation of field instrumentation appropriate for use at mobile laboratories, and field
activities using portable instrumentation. The Advanced Field Monitoring Methods Program is actively investi-
gating and encouraging the development and validation of field instrumentation. Quality assurance support is
provided in the areas of field gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, and X-ray fluorescence. Various commercial
systems will be evaluated for incorporation into on-site field investigations to meet Superfund program needs for
rapid, low-cost field determinations.
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Computer Systems Development and Support
The CLP is such a data-intensive program that the use of automated data processing is an absolute necessity.
Computer systems work is emphasizing the areas of program oversight, data entry, and programming. ORD is also
developing computer systems to help in data analysis and report generation. The significance of the application of
these system techniques to environmental monitoring is profound. They have the potential to create a breakthrough
in the long timelines currently associated with environmental remediation. Rapid, automated on-site report
generation, quarterly blind scoring, evaluation of data usability, and other rapid automated audits of environmental
data may become possible.
A QA/QC Database has been developed and maintained to assess method performance, assess individual and
collective laboratory performance, and provide special support to OERR and the Regions. A number of computer
programs provide access to the cumulative data files, and permit the identification of trends, evaluation of QC
criteria and the updating and development of performance-based QC criteria. The data are obtained from laboratory
QA/QC reports, PE evaluation reports, and on-site evaluation summaries. Using the database, internal laboratory
control and performance can be evaluated. Performance trends and defects can then be monitored within a given
laboratory or between laboratories. Performance-based QC criteria (acceptance windows or surrogate spike
recoveries) can be evaluated and updated as needed. The database provides a continuously monitored set of quality
control and performance criteria specifying what is routinely achievable and expected of state-of-the-art analytical
chemistry laboratories in mass production analysis of acutely sensitive environmental samples.
Special Support Projects
ORD provides intensive quality assurance support to the Regions in selected, high-priority areas. The Love
Canal Habitability Study was a major recipient of excruciatingly detailed special support. Support for this project
has included on-site laboratory evaluations, review of analytical methods and procedures, review of reporting and
procedural practices, development and distribution of PE samples for evaluation of the performance of contract
laboratories in this project, and review of data produced by the laboratories.
MAJOR DELIVERABLES
Annual Summary of Air Monitoring Support. Due in November of each year.
Annual Report on the Design, Preparation, and Distribution of Quality Control Samples for Contract Laboratory
Program and EPA Regional, State, and Local Laboratories. Due in December of each year.
Annual Report on the Design, Preparation, and Distribution of Performance Evaluation Samples for Organic and
Inorganic Analytes in Support of the Contract Laboratory Program. Due in December of each year.
Annual Report on the Design, Preparation, and Distribution of Calibration Standards for the Contract Laboratory
Program and EPA Regional, State, and Local Laboratories. Due in December of each year.
Annual Report - Analytical and Sampling Quality Assurance Technical Support. Due in December of each year.
Annual Report on the Quality Assurance Materials Bank. Due in January of each year.
- 23 -
-------
Major Deliverables
Annual Summary Report on Quality Assurance to Support the Contract Laboratory Program. Due in March of
each year.
Annual Report on Exposure and Ecorisk Assessments Performed by the Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling.
Due in July of each year.
Technical Assistance to Regions and OSWER on Engineering Studies at Superfund Sites. Continuing.
Review of Designs, Plans, and Specifications for Superfund Sites. Continuing.
Provide Enforcement Case Support, Expert Witnesses and Testimony. Continuing.
Emergency Response Assistance at Releases and Waste Sites Including Technical and Analytical Support.
Continuing.
Aerial Remote Sensing Program for Hazardous Waste Sites: FY88 Program Summary and FY89 Management
Plan. Due 1/89.
Report on Procedure for Relative Risk Assessment and Ranking for Action among Listed Sites and RCRA Closure
Activities. Due 2/89.
Ion Trap Method for Fugitive Polar Organics. Due 5/89.
User's Manual on Use of Geostatistical Models for Managing Soil and Water Contamination. Due 12/89.
Report on Applicable Methods for Estimating the Magnitude and Areal Extent of Ecological Risks at Marine
Superfund Sites. Due 9/90.
Report on Plants that Can be Used as Sentinel Species for Phytotoxicity at Hazardous Waste and Superfund Sites.
Due 3/91.
Report on Use ofDNA Adducts as a Measure of Exposure of Wildlife at Hazardous Waste and Superfund Sites.
Due 8/91.
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Marine Ecosystems Associated with Superfund Sites. Due 12/92.
- 24 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
FIELD PROCEDURES AND GUIDANCE
As part of ORD's ongoing effort to provide research and
technical support to OERR in the investigation and mitigation of
health and environmental problems at Superfund sites, ORD
prepares and disseminates standardized guidance, methods, and
software for users. New or existing technologies and method-
ologies must be presented to targeted users in a manner that will
enable their most effective use. This entails evaluation of the
applications, effectiveness, and utility of methods developed by
EPA and the private sector, modification and standardization of
protocols, documentation in the form of manuals or computer soft-
ware, and dissemination through manuals and training. The FY89
field procedures and guidance program will emphasize on-site
assessment technologies, particularly for monitoring; protective
clothing and equipment; reportable quantities needed for site
reporting; and alternative treatment technologies. In addition,
research planning for emergencies and community right-to-know
information under SARA Title III will continue in anticipation of
future funding. The user audience includes Superfund personnel
and contractors, state and local governments, local emergency
planning committees, industry, as well as private citizens for Title
III requirements. Although resources for emergency planning and
community right-to-know research needs may not be allocated
until FY90, future products are expected to impact the Superfund
program. Therefore, Title III research needs and plans are
included in this document.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM NEEDS
Field procedures and guidance needs of the Superfund pro-
gram fall into four categories—site assessment technologies,
safety procedures and equipment, reportable quantities, and
manuals and training seminars. Additional needs include those of
the emergency planning and community right-to-know program.
Field-portable, cost-effective instruments, protocols, and
guidance to detect and measure chemical concentrations have
been urgently requested by personnel engaged in nearly every
phase of Superfund cleanup and by local planners who wish to
monitor priority compounds for rapid responses to chemical re-
leases. Requested technologies include monitoring methods and equipment for field applications of gas and liquid
chromatography, X-ray fluorescence, fiber optic sensors, and immunoassays. Additional needs include
Superfund field procedures and gui-
dance needs fall into four major cate-
gories: site assessment, safety pro-
cedures and equipment, reportable
quantities, and manuals and training.
Title ID research is an additional need,
which will probably be funded in FY9&
ORD conducts tests and documents the
latest Site monitoring and characteriza-
tion methods to ensure quick, consis-
tent, and effective site assessment
Emphasis is on in situ gas chromato-
graphy and air sampling, but other
areas such as Health and Environ-
mental Effects Documents and expert
systems to evaluate technologies are
included. The purpose of the safety
procedures and equipment research
is to identify and improve commer-
cially available and prototypical
chemical protective materials, cloth-
ing, equipment, and procedures that
have tiie potential for significantly
increasing the safety and cost-effec-
tiveness of EPA and contractor opera-
tions at Superfund sites. CERCLA
§103 requires EPA to promulgate and
revise, as appropriate, regulations
establishing reportable quantities for
hazardous substances, and research
provides data necessary for their pre-
paration. ORD manuals and training
seminars, authorized under CERCLA
§311(b), focus on the use of alterna-
tive treatment technologies for reme-
dial action, and target a wide variety
of users. Under Title III, EPA is
being asked to provide reliable meth-
ods for monitoring chemicals released
accidentally into communities. When
Title III is funded, EPA would like to
catalyze industrial modeling and miti-
gation research while emphasizing
validation of new monitoring models
and technologies.
-25-
-------
Superfund Program Needs
characterization procedures, analytical protocols, and interpretation approaches for air, soil, and subsurface water.
Because water contamination is one of OERR's most pressing concerns, the capability of measuring contaminants
in water, water-related media, and soil is a priority. Modifications to advanced monitoring technologies such as
Fourier-transform infrared techniques and field-portable mass spectrometry are needed to increase their durability
and decrease the technical skills required to apply them.
During preliminary investigations, remedial response coordinators need the capacity to rapidly assess hazards
to public health and the environment from chemical exposure. To provide such information, chemical-specific,
Health and Environmental Effects Documents are needed for chemicals of concern. These documents are not
definitive risk assessments. However, they offer important source information that may be used in preparing risk
or health assessments. Additional source information that may be needed include the requirements set forth in
ARARs, lexicological profiles, and other health and chemical information.
As an employer, EPA is obliged to provide its response personnel with chemical-protective clothing, equipment,
and procedures that prevent harmful exposure. Field activities at hazardous waste and spill sites have shown that
the safety and operational effectiveness of commercially available protective clothing, equipment, and procedures
do not meet some EPA requirements. Personnel protection research is needed to improve the safety, consistency,
and efficiency of cleanup operations and reduce personnel protection costs. Since all chemical protective clothing,
equipment, and procedures have limitations, it is important that these limitations are defined through evaluation and
testing to prevent misuse and injury.
CERCLA §103 requires EPA to promulgate and revise, as appropriate, regulations establishing protective
quantities for substances on the Extremely Hazardous Substances List and other substances at the discretion of
OERR. Hazardous substances detected in the environment in quantities equal to or greater than those established
by EPA must be reported to the National Response Center. The statutory reportable quantity (RQ) provides an
initial indicator of a problem level of pollution. It is not, however, intended as a measure of potential health hazard.
CERCLA §311 (b) authorizes a technology transfer program to disseminate information related to the utilization
of alternative or innovative treatment technologies, including effectiveness, cost, and application procedures. Thus,
many of ORD's manuals and training seminars for the Superfund program stress the use of alternative treatment
technologies for site remedial action.
Under SARA Title III, EPA is directed to establish a new regulatory program that will require disclosure of
more information to workers and the public about the risks associated with exposure to hazardous substances and
the location of such substances in the community. The intent of Title III is to prevent a tragedy in the United States
similar to those experienced at Bhopal or Chernobyl by improving local emergency response capabilities. This will
be accomplished primarily by creating emergency response plans for accidental releases and by providing citizens
and local governments with access to information about chemicals in their communities. Implementation of Title
III will build upon the original EPA Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program, existing state and local emergency
response programs, and growing industrial research and awareness programs like those established by the Chemical
Manufacturers Association. The primary target audience includes the state emergency response commissions and
local emergency planning committees that were established under Title III to provide a structure for planning and
coordination.
As the lead regulatory and enforcement agency for Title III, EPA can expect requests for information about
reliable methods to monitor accidental releases, mitigate a release, and assess health risk. EPA, in collaboration with
- 26 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
the American Institute of Chemical Engineering has begun to adapt monitoring techniques, mitigation technolo-
gies, and toxicological information to accidental releases. EPA anticipates playing a vital role in catalyzing industry
modeling and mitigation research.
EPA routinely uses dispersion modeling tools for estimating the range and concentrations of contaminants
resulting from continuous releases, but like most monitoring techniques, these tools are either not applicable to
accidental releases or are not available at an appropriate level of detail for use by emergency planning committees.
Similarly, mitigation technology for accidental releases is generally lacking, although several existing methods show
promise for reducing the consequences of a chemical release. There is a need to link dispersion modeling with
evaluations of the effectiveness of mitigation technologies for accidental release scenarios.
To design emergency procedures, emergency planning committees need easy access to relevant toxicological
and emissions information in a format they can use. While some information is available through various emer-
gency response hotlines, additional information is required, including reliable estimates of annual emissions from
industry and field procedures and guidance oriented specifically to authorities responsible for emergency planning,
release response, and release prevention.
RESEARCH NEEDS
Field procedures and guidance are needed to ensure that promising technologies and methods are quickly made
available to users in the field. Methods and technologies need to be evaluated to define their applicability and to
improve and standardize procedures for their use. The research needs include technologies and methodologies
related to air, soil, and water in nearly all ORD activities, including monitoring, processes and effects, health effects
and safety, environmental engineering, and technology transfer. Current priorities are greatly influenced by program
office needs for in situ site assessment, safety procedures and equipment, reportable quantities, and treatment
technologies, as well as Title III models and information. Based on the field procedures and guidance research
needs, the following research objectives have been identified:
4 Modify and prepare guidance on site assessment protocols, techniques, and methods with emphasis on gas
chromatography and air sampling.
* Prepare sampling, analysis, and applied statistical techniques for rapid on-site waste assessment, including air
and soil sampling.
* Prepare support tools including geostatistical simulation methods and an expert system to evaluate the waste
characteristics, hydrology, geology, soil characteristics, engineering costs, and effectiveness of technologies
used at Superfund sites.
* Provide Health and Environmental Effects Documents.
» Evaluate the cost and performance of protective clothing, equipment, and devices that warn of imminent hazard
to life and health under typical use conditions and prepare guidance regarding appropriate applications that will
improve performance.
- 27 -
-------
Research Needs
* Provide carcinogenicity and chronic toxicity documentation for preparing reportable quantities of substances
proposed for listing as hazardous substances; substances on the Extremely Hazardous Substances List; Title III
§313 chemicals not currently on the CERCLA Hazardous Substance List; and for other substances designated
by OERR.
* Provide OERR with manuals and training seminars on the use of alternative treatment technologies in Superfund
cleanups.
* Catalyze industry and state government research efforts to develop dispersion models and mitigation technolo-
gies for accidental release situations.
» Design approaches to maximize the reliability of industry's annual emission estimates of hazardous chemicals
under §313 of SARA without costly monitoring.
* Fill technology gaps and provide guidance to industry and state and local governments on methods to prevent
accidental releases.
* Generate new lexicological, persistence, and bioaccumulation data relevant to accidental releases and provide
technical information to communities in a format they can use.
FIELD PROCEDURES AND GUIDANCE RESEARCH APPROACH
The field procedures and guidance research approach is summarized in Figure 5.
Site Assessment
Sampling and Analytical
Technologies, Geostatistical
Methods, and HEEDs
Safety Procedures
and Equipment
Commercial Protective Clothing,
Equipment, and Robotics
Reportable
Quantities
Based on Toxicological,
Chemical, and Physical Data
on Hazardous Substances
Manuals & Training
Alternative and Innovative
Treatment Technologies from
SITE and Other Research
Targeted
Users
Community Planning
and Emergency
Right-to-Know
Accidental Releases
Figure 5. Research to Evaluate, Improve, and Standardize
Field Procedures and Guidance.
-28 -
-------
Supertund Research Plan
Site Assessment
As an extension of ORD's Superftmd health effects, risk assessment, and detection development and evaluation
program, ORD tests and documents the latest monitoring methods, characterization procedures, analytical protocols,
and interpretive approaches for use in the field. This ensures that Superfund sites are assessed quickly, consistently,
and effectively. The emphasis of current research is on portable gas chromatography, air monitoring techniques for
ambient and source sampling, sample preparation methods including soil core procedures, geophysical methods such
as high resolution seismic reflection, automated data transfer techniques, and analytical techniques for determining
hydraulic properties.
A project is underway to document a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) procedure for separating
and identifying low-concentration organics (0.1 to 10 u,g/L) in water-related media. This methodology will also
be used to evaluate the effectiveness of remote sensing technologies, such as fiber optic laser fluorescence for
detecting water contaminants. For non-volatile compounds, supercritical fluid chromatography and liquid chromato-
graphy/mass spectrometry are under investigation through an agreement with Cornell University.
Guidance for newly developed sampling and analysis techniques will be prepared, including air sampling for
brominated and chlorinated dioxins, canister-based air samplers for semivolatiles, a prototype continuous formalde-
hyde monitor, and a procedure to automate identification of source emission patterns. New high-resolution mass
spectrometry and Fourier-transformed infrared analytical systems will soon be available to support sample analysis.
The newly developed canister-based sampling systems being tested for field use include a two-stage
preconcentrator, sequential sampler, solid sorbent/canister, and portable sampler. Use of a multi-sorbent bed, rather
than a reduced temperature strap, has improved sample preconcentration by eliminating the need for mass spectral
search routines and liquid nitrogen to reduce the temperature of samples.
With increasing use of methanol fuel, which produces formaldehyde when burned, EPA needs the capability
to monitor formaldehyde in the environment. A prototype formaldehyde monitor, based on a Battelle Columbus
Laboratories design, will be built after two possible configurations are evaluated. One configuration requires a
preconcentrator, the other uses fluorescence detection that eliminates the need for preconcentration.
Techniques and guidance for collecting and handling soils contaminated by volatile organics are being prepared.
In support of these methods, new algorithms will be developed for geostatistical simulation software that can deter-
mine the uncertainty in spatial contaminant estimates in soil. Geostatistical software for use on a personal computer
and a user's guide will be prepared. An experimental soil plot, contaminated with volatile organics, will be prepared
for testing the software system.
Preliminary investigations have demonstrated the value of integrating geologic information systems with
remote sensing data from aerial photography, airborne multispectral scanning, and satellite digital imagery. Remote
sensing and GIS systems for vegetation, habitat, land use, water quality, and exposure risk monitoring will be tested
for use in ecosystem impact analysis and human exposure assessments at Superfund sites. Written guidance and
demonstrations of the applicability of these systems will be provided to Superfund personnel.
Geophysical, geochemical, and hydrologic surveys have proven effective in locating and mapping contamina-
tion at hazardous waste sites, and in determining hydrogeological structures. ORD is developing techniques that
will improve their resolution using a computer-based, geophysical expert system to evaluate the applicability of
- 29 -
-------
Site Assessment
geophysical methods at Superfund sites. The expert system will include a database of the physical and chemical
properties of the top 100 CERCLA contaminants. Surface-to-borehole, cross-borehole, and near-surface seismic
reflection geophysical techniques will be evaluated using computer models and field demonstrations.
In regard to other field techniques and procedures, ORD compiles available literature from EPA Regional
offices and other federal agencies to identify, review, and summarize current practices. Techniques most suitable
for implementation are evaluated and field tested for potential use by the Superfund office. A control contaminated
site that provides a homogeneous sampling area for field demonstrations, sampling investigations, and personnel
evaluations will be located to support this effort.
Carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental, and reproductive toxicity data are needed for preparation of risk
assessments and approximately 60 Health and Environmental Effects Documents (HEEDs) each year covering single
chemicals and complex mixtures will be funded by Superfund. This represents approximately 40% of the of the
total ORD, HEED program. Approximately 75% of HEEDs prepared by ORD are selected by the Office of Solid
Waste, which provides about 60% of HEEDs funding. The information, however, is used by both the Office of
Solid Waste (OSW) and Superfund. HEEDs provide Superfund personnel with immediate source information on
potential human health effects associated with exposures to specific chemicals. They also provide useful
information for development of ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles, required by SARA, and supplement health and
risk assessment conducted for specific Superfund sites. In the future, HEED exposure analyses will include complex
mixtures. The STARA (Studies on Toxicity Applicable to Risk Assessment) database will be maintained as a source
of health assessment and chemical-specific information for EPA emergency and remedial response coordinators on
a 48-hour turnaround basis.
ORD is preparing tools like the computer-assisted engineering expert system for Superfund personnel to
evaluate the effectiveness and cost of remedial action technologies. This expert system is based on survey data and
evaluations of the engineering costs, waste characteristics, hydrology, geology, soil characteristics, and effectiveness
of remedial technologies used at Superfund sites. In support of its lead exposure and cleanup responsibilities, ORD
will continue to conduct workshops to develop consistent protocols for sampling and analysis during abatement
demonstration projects. ORD also provides manuals to guide the use of all of its support tools and disseminates
technical information for general RI/FS guidance.
Safety Procedures and Equipment
Personnel protection research affects a variety of EPA roles pursuant to CERCLA, including the procurement
and use of chemical protective clothing and equipment for laboratory and field operations, development of
guidelines for the selection of chemical protective clothing, development of site safety plans, and preparation of
safety training courses for EPA employees and client organizations.
Personnel protection research, development, testing, and evaluations support EPA groups such as the
Environmental Response Team, Regions, and Occupational Health and Safety Staff that perform CERCLA
assessment and cleanup activities. The purpose of the research is to identify and improve commercially available
and prototypical chemical protective materials, clothing, equipment, and procedures that have the potential for
significantly increasing the safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of EPA and contractor operations at
uncontrolled hazardous waste and accidental release sites.
- 30-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
The Superfund personnel protection research program will:
* Conduct desktop, laboratory, and field evaluations of protective clothing and equipment performance.
* Prepare guidance documents regarding the selection and appropriate use of protective clothing and equipment.
» Verify methods for predicting the performance of protective clothing based on characteristics of the clothing,
chemicals, and work scenarios.
* Develop methods for testing the effectiveness of chemical protective clothing and equipment.
» Conduct literature searches and state-of-the-art studies on topics of critical concern to personnel protection.
» Analyze the costs and benefits of alternative personnel protection technologies.
* Prepare personnel protection technology research outputs that will enhance safety and flexibility and reduce
costs of cleanup operations.
Chemical Protective Clothing and Equipment
Protective clothing and equipment for hazardous operations will be subjected to desktop, laboratory, and field
evaluations to address technical issues of interest. The leading candidates for evaluation are disposable protective
clothing, vital sign monitors, personal cooling devices, respiratory protection devices, new garment materials, totally
encapsulating ensembles, and personal communications devices. To help analyze EPA's personnel protection
technology research needs, a "personnel protection technology profile" is being developed that will incorporate EPA
personnel protection research needs and ongoing research, development, testing, and evaluations. It will also include
an inventory of protective clothing and equipment and a categorized mailing list for Agency staff with operational
or regulatory roles that require up-to-date information on the capabilities and limitations of personnel protection
technology.
Work in this area will (1) develop a protocol for segregating protective clothing into non-hazardous and
hazardous waste categories; (2) examine available research information on the effects of temperature and humidity
on respirator performance and providing improved guidance on selection of respirators under abnormal humidity
and temperature conditions; (3) improve the performance of disposable protective clothing; and (4) exchange
research information with EPA and its contractor user community.
Personnel Protection Procedures
The safety, efficiency, and cost of CERCLA operations are influenced by the availability, appropriateness, and
reliability of a wide range of personnel health and safety procedures. One of the most promising new developments
is the application of automation and robotics to field monitoring procedures to eliminate the need for exposing
personnel to hazardous conditions.
A preliminary study of the use of robotics for improving safety and productivity in hazardous response
operations has shown that application of a robotic system to air monitoring and sampling is technically feasible and
economically beneficial. ORD will, therefore, conduct a performance demonstration of the use of a commercially
- 31 -
-------
Personnel Protection Procedures
available robotic navigation platform for conducting continuous and automatic air monitoring and data handling
around a site perimeter, which is often tedious and hazardous, but necessary.
Coordination with Other Research and Development Activities
Several civilian federal agencies, recognizing their common interest in personnel protection research, formed
a work group to better coordinate efforts in this area. The work group consists of representatives from EPA, U.S.
Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The work group meets semiannually and is preparing a combined
research summary and a mailing list of persons with an interest in research products generated by work group
members. EPA and its contractors also participate in industry and manufacturing groups concerned with developing
test methods for protective clothing.
In FY89, no new activities will be initiated, and this research element will be phased out by FY91. Much of
the basic research has been concluded, and EPA believes that future evaluations and innovation of commercial
equipment is more cost-effectively better left to the private sector and to other agencies such as OSHA and State
worker protection offices.
Reportable Quantities
The RQ is used to specifically identify that quantity of a hazardous substance that, if exceeded in a release into
the environment, requires notification to the National Response Center at EPA. RQs are prepared from chemical-
specific data regarding the potential carcinogenicity, chronic toxicity, mammalian toxicity, aquatic toxicity,
reactivity, and ignitability in any media and route of exposure. Quantities (in pounds) developed from each category
of data are subjected to previously established criteria and the lowest RQ among them is selected for a given
chemical. To be able to rank RQs, only "generic" data are used. Thus, RQs are designed for initial Superfund site
reporting purposes, and are not intended to reflect the potential for a human health hazard.
FY89 research plans call for completion of RQs for substances on the Extremely Hazardous Substances List;
preparation of RQs for inclusion in approximately 60 HEEDs each year (as part of OERR's HEED funding);
revision of RQs for approximately 125 chemicals from the Extremely Hazardous Substances List; and evaluation
of approximately 100 chemicals for possible designation as CERCLA hazardous substances and possible RQ
development.
Manuals and Training Seminars
The following manuals and seminars related to treatment technologies are planned for FY89 and FY90:
Summary and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies Demonstrated in the SITE Program
Several approaches are planned for disseminating information on alternative remedial technologies generated
by the SITE program to a large and diverse audience. Detailed project research reports, the Superfund
Clearinghouse, and annual SITE reports to Congress will be used to address some of these user groups. This project
will develop a series of capsule reports on SITE program technologies for wide distribution throughout the Agency,
states, educational institutions, consulting firms, public interest groups, and others. The high-visibility reports will
provide concise technical information on alternative technologies (based on SITE demonstrations and other research)
- 32-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
including: technology description, variations, applicability, limitations, technology status, construction and
pretreatment requirements, performance, reliability, safety considerations, potential for adverse environmental
impacts, residual handling, cross-media considerations, costs, and references. The reports will be published
periodically throughout FY89 and FY90.
Immobilization Technology for Remedial Project Managers
Remedial project managers, who have responsibility for the selection of remedies and oversight of Superfund
cleanups, require additional technical and policy information for implementation of S/S technology including the
types of wastes that are amenable to treatment. They also require appropriate testing procedures for evaluating
processes under consideration. ORD will conduct five to six workshops and develop a handbook to provide
engineering guidance on S/S technologies. Final results and proven practices will be emphasized. Case histories
will be used to introduce research findings and technologies not yet applied in practice. General topic areas will
include chemical and physical testing protocols, evaluation of treatability testing performance, interpretation of test
data to provide the best engineering design, selection criteria, costs, and state-of-the-art construction equipment.
The seminars and handbook will be completed by the end of FY89.
Physical and Chemical Treatment of Hazardous Waste
Physical treatment processes are those that utilize physical characteristics to effect a separation or concentration
of constituents in waste products. Physical treatment processes include gravity separation, phase change (evapora-
tion or distillation), and dissolution (soils washing or filtration). Chemical treatment serves to separate, change, or
otherwise reduce or eliminate toxicity, and includes such processes as pH adjustment, oxidation, and reduction.
Physical and chemical technologies provide an ultimate treatment and can be effective in the preparation of materials
for other alternative treatment technologies. However, many of these technologies have been used with insufficient
concern for the excessive quantities of sludge and additional hazardous products that result from their use that are
often difficult to manage.
ORD will develop a series of four or five workshops to address the judicious utilization of physical and chemical
treatment technologies. The workshops will be conducted for federal, state, and private sector personnel. Recent
developments in the SITE program and information obtained from field operating experience in utilizing various
physical and chemical processes will be presented. Materials recycling will be incorporated where appropriate. The
seminars will be completed by May, 1990.
Design and Operation of In Situ Treatment Systems
In situ treatment systems are those that provide treatment in place and offer the greatest potential for cost-
effective cleanup of contaminated soils and ground water. There is, however, minimal operating experience in the
use of in situ treatment of contaminated soils and ground water. Similarly, information on the design of in situ
treatment systems is generally based on theory, bench studies, and in a few instances, pilot studies rather than on
full-scale evaluations or actual case studies. There is a significant amount of on-going research on in situ treatment
processes within EPA that needs to be transferred to actual practice.
A series often seminars and a publication will be developed to serve as a forum to transfer research into practice
and to share case history information on in situ treatment systems. Presentations will be targeted to federal and state
remedial project managers as well as remedial contractors. These presentations will be tailored to highlight research
- 33 -
-------
Design and Operation of In Situ Treatment Systems
results that are sufficiently developed to have full-scale applicability to the design and operation of in situ treatment
systems. Case history information will be compiled and presented on actual full-scale applications. The seminars
and publication will be completed by the end of 1989.
Remedial Action Costing Procedures
To evaluate and select a specific treatment technology, it is necessary to estimate costs for several likely
remedial action alternatives. ORD has developed two publications on costing remedial actions: Compendium of
Costs of Remedial Technologies and Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual. These documents contain
analyses of actual expenses incurred during the remedial responses for several major types of engineering
technologies and specific procedures for cost estimating and economic analysis. In order to provide this information
in a more useful format, ORD is developing a microcomputer-based software package for estimating remedial action
costs. Detailed procedures will be included for generating estimated capital and annual operating costs, calculating
annual costs for each remedial action alternative, and performing sensitivity analyses of the cost estimates to
determine the impact of changes to various cost input parameters. The software is expected to be available by the
end of FY90.
Leachate Plume Management
Contamination of subsurface drinking water supplies is one of the more serious problems encountered at
Superfund sites, and one of the most intractable. Nearly 70 percent of the sites now undergoing remedial action
have contaminated ground water. Movement of liquid waste to the ground water regime is possible where the
geologic material between the waste site and water table is permeable. By far the most predominant means of
contaminant movement to the ground-water system is via dissolution by infiltrating precipitation. Wastes dissolved
into infiltrating solutions are carried through the site and underlying soil along solution channels or seepage paths
to the ground water. Solutions containing dissolved waste constituents are called leachates. Once in the ground
water, contaminants are not diluted and flushed from the system to the extent they would be in surface water because
flow rates are slower and flow paths more tortuous. As a result, contaminants tend not to disperse, but form slugs
or plumes. The management of leachate plumes has been constrained to some extent by a lack of understanding
of plume dynamics and the various remedial options available.
ORD is implementing a program to assess and disseminate information on technologies and procedures related
to plume management. Technical guidance on leachate plume management has recently been revised to include
lessons learned and new technologies. The revised document will be the basis for a series of five or six seminars
that will provide the latest information on leachate plume dynamics and plume management alternatives.
Presentations will stress factors that affect leachate plume movement, key considerations in delineating the current
and future extent of leachate plumes, technologies for controlling the migration of plumes, and criteria for evaluating
and selecting plume management alternatives.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
State and local governments, the public, and the private sector will need information from EPA on reliable test
methods for monitoring chemicals released accidentally into their communities. However, reliable methods or
criteria do not yet exist for many chemicals. EPA's approach is to catalyze industrial modeling and mitigation
research and emphasize validation of new models and technologies. Resources, however, have not yet been
committed.
- 34 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Through the International Vapor Cloud Research Committee, EPA is playing an active part in a coordinated
international effort to meet research needs in dispersion modeling for monitoring hazardous gas cloud movements
and in mitigation of accidental hazardous chemical release. The International Vapor Cloud Research Committee
includes representatives from the American Institute of Chemical Engineering Center for Chemical Process Safety
(AIChE/CCPS), several federal agencies, and representatives from a number of petroleum and chemical companies
world wide. AIChE/CCPS is acting as the coordinating secretariat of the Committee. The intent of the Committee
is to avoid costly duplication of research effort, explore opportunities for co-funding of expensive research projects,
and share information world wide. At the request of EPA, the AIChE/CCPS ranked modeling research priorities,
based on the availability of data and adequacy of existing models, for presentation to the Committee this year.
In addition to modeling and mitigation research, there is an immediate need for approaches that maximize the
reliability of annual emissions estimates by industry under SARA §313. However, before such guidance can be
developed, data and methodological deficiencies must be overcome in emission estimation techniques and quality
assurance methods. ORD will also encourage the release of proprietary information vital to the public safety.
Chemicals included on the § 313 list for emissions reporting must have been demonstrated to cause acute human
health effects, cancer, birth defects, serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders,
heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects. However, because methods and evaluation tools are
lacking, significant health effects data are missing for §313 chemicals. Ecological effects data are also lacking.
EPA plans to generate methods and data and make them available to Title III users in an appropriate format.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
SARA authorizes Superfund research, development, and demonstration on hazardous wastes by the Depart-
ment of Defense with funds from a special account set up by Superfund. DOD is required under SARA to consult
with EPA to conduct an environmental restoration program to perform response actions for hazardous substance
releases at DOD facilities and vessels. A DOD and EPA work group was established in 1985 to explore cooperative
research efforts that could be undertaken on hazardous waste technology. In 1986, the Department of Energy (DOE)
joined the work group. While not directly authorized to conduct Superfund research, DOE is interested in
participating in the development and demonstration of cost-effective and long-term solutions to hazardous waste
problems that may be applicable to DOE facilities. Over 30 cooperative research, development, and demonstration
projects are currently underway as a result of this collaboration.
MAJOR DELIVERABLES
Sixty Health and Environmental Effects Documents with Reportable Quantity Chapters. Each Year.
Approximately 100 Reportable Quantities. Each Year.
Application of Near-Surface Seismic Reflection to Hazardous Waste. Due 4/89.
Interim Report on Improvement of Worker Safety via Robotics, Automation, and Task Modification. Due 7/89.
- 35 -
-------
Major Dellverables
Report on Optimization of Treatment for Superfund Remedial Actions. Due 9/89.
VOC Sampling System for Site Characterization. A sampling system for measuring volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) will be described. Due 10/89.
Emerging Technologies for the Treatment of Metal-Bearing Wastes. Due 10/89.
Report on an Analytical Technique for Determining Hydraulic Properties. Due 12/89.
Soil Sample Preparation Manual. Due 12/89.
Review of Feasibility Project Plans and Reports from a Remedial Action Options Perspective. Due 12/89.
Immobilization Technologies for Remedial Project Managers. The product includes a seminar series and manual.
Due in FY89.
Physical/Chemical Treatment of Hazardous Waste. The product includes 4-5 workshops. Due in FY89.
Report on Evaluation and Improvement of Protective Clothing, Equipment, and Procedures for Hazardous
Substance Response Operations. Due 9/90.
Summary Evaluation of Alternative Treatment Technologies Demonstrated in the SITE Program. The product
includes a series of capsule reports. Due in FY90.
Design and Operation of In Situ Treatment Systems. The product includes a seminar series. Due in FY90.
Remedial Action Costing. This is a microcomputer program. Due in FY90.
Leachate Plume Management. The product includes a seminar series. Due in FY90.
- 36 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION:
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
SARA contains requirements that directly affect research
priorities: the need for better assessment of health risks posed by
Superfund sites and for treatment technologies that offer perm-
anent protection of human health and the environment. The legi-
slation specifically addresses the need for a comprehensive federal
program promoting research, development, and demonstration
activities to improve databases, risk assessment methods, and
control technologies. While the human health and ecological risk
assessments define existing or expected risks, it is implementation
of control technologies that actually mitigates or eliminates public
health and ecological hazards.
The Superfund Program is somewhat different than most
other Agency programs in that it is a response rather than a
regulatory program. EPA must manage actual cleanup operations
rather than just develop and enforce regulations. Because public
funds are used to clean up Superfund sites, it is incumbent upon
EPA to ensure that sufficient remedial technologies are available
and that removal and remedial managers have performance and
cost-effectiveness information on available technologies to enable
defensible remedial decisions. ORD must provide support for
feasibility studies, remedy selection, remedial design, and
remedial action in Superfund cleanups by developing control tech-
nologies based on strong scientific principles and conveying this
information to the public and private sectors.
EPA's research promoting treatment or control technologies
is of critical importance in enabling the Superfund program to
meet the cleanup standards mandated by SARA. For this reason,
a significant portion of ORD's Superfund budget for FY89 and
FY90 is directed toward the development and evaluation of alter-
native and innovative treatment technologies. ORD research in
this area incorporates the development and evaluation of technolo-
gies, techniques, and construction materials that require additional
laboratory development to be ready for field application, as well
as research, development, and demonstrations that promote com-
mercialization of alternative treatment and monitoring tech-
nologies.
ORD and OSWER have established a formal program to
accelerate the development, demonstration and use of new or
Treatment technology research devel-
ops and evaluates technologies that
require additional laboratory devel-
opment before field application, and
conducts demonstrations to promote
commercialization of alternative treat-
ment and monitoring technologies. The
program is divided into two subpro-
grams: Performance of Treatment
Technology and Superfund Innova-
tive Technology Evaluation (SITE).
The former evaluates the performance
of unproven treatment technologies
and develops the most promising to a
point where the private sector can
commercialize them with the help of
SITE and cooperative research agree-
ments authorized by the Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986.
This research is conducted in six
areas: biosystems, physical and
chemical in situ control technologies,
on-site control technologies, combus-
tion techniques, best demonstrated
available technologies for RCRA, and
expert systems. A multi-purpose fa-
cility is being constructed to expand
these studies. The goal of the SITE
program is to increase the use of
alternative treatment technologies in
cleaning up Superfund sites and en-
courage the development of innova-
tive monitoring techniques. The SITE
Commercial Development and Dem-
onstration Program evaluates commer-
cially developed technologies through
demonstrations in the1 field—29 ther-
mal, chemical, biological, and physi-
cal technologies have been accepted
into the demonstration program,
SITE also includes the Monitoring
Technology Development and Demon-
stration project and the Emerging
Technologies Testing and Evaluation
Program to assist in the development
of emerging technologies.
- 37 -
-------
Development and Evaluation: Treatment Technologies
innovative technologies. In CERCLA §311(b), EPA is directed "to carry out a program of research, evaluation,
testing, development, and demonstration of alternative or innovative technologies ... which may be utilized in
response actions to achieve more permanent protection of human health and welfare and the environment." In
addition, our ability to characterize or assess the extent of contamination, the chemical and physical character of the
contaminants, or the stresses imposed by the contaminants on complex ecosystems is limited, and new, innovative
technologies are needed in this area as well. These program areas comprise the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation program. The primary purpose of SITE is to enhance the development and demonstration and thereby
establish the commercial availability of innovative technologies at Superfund sites as alternatives to the containment
systems presently in use.
Another recently enacted statute, the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) of 19862, will have a major
impact on EPA's ability to increase the availability of proven treatment technologies at Superfund sites. The FTTA
authorizes EPA and other federal agencies to enter into Cooperative Research and Development Agreements on a
non-competitive basis with individual private firms or consortia. Under such agreements, EPA may agree to allow
the private firm to patent any new inventions that may be developed under the agreement or make a commitment
to give the firm an exclusive license to make use of such inventions. In consideration for the above concessions,
EPA is authorized to receive direct funding from the firm for the joint research and development and use of the
firm's facilities, equipment, services, or staff. EPA is also authorized to provide the same services to the private
firm, with the exception of direct funding. The FTTA thus offers EPA opportunities to lower the cost to EPA of
developing new and innovative treatment technologies to the proof-of-concept stage and to increase the number of
commercially available waste treatment technologies.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM NEEDS
Superfund sites contain an enormous number of hazardous substances, often in complex chemical mixtures.
This difficult cleanup problem is exacerbated by inadequate or costly technologies for the cleanup of hazardous
releases from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spill incidents. With the exception of certain forms of
incineration and chemical fixation, cost-effective pennanent technologies are generally not available for the broad
range of Superfund wastes and the matrices (liquids, sludges, soils, and debris) in which they are found. The goal
of control technology is to provide permanent treatment technologies for the cleanup of Superfund sites and
associated contaminated ground-water aquifers.
Response to an uncontrolled site typically involves efforts to stabilize the situation, to identify and quantify
areas of contamination, followed by efforts to remove contaminants by current technologies. Treatment of contami-
nated soils is a particularly under-developed technology area, formerly solved by simply transferring the
contaminants from the uncontrolled site to landfills—risking the creation of future waste site problems elsewhere.
To prevent the creation of new Superfund sites during the cleanup of existing sites, the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 requires that, prior to disposal of Superfund wastes in a RCRA facility, the
hazardous waste must be treated to a point where its concentration is no longer considered hazardous or meets the
standard of the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This means that Superfund site wastes will have
to be treated to BDAT levels before being removed and transported to a permitted RCRA facility. The Office of
TTie FTTA is an amendment to the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, and is further strengthened bv
Executive Order 12591. '
- 38 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Solid Waste in OSWER is planning, within the next two to three years, to set pretreatment standards for all soils
and debris contaminated by listed wastes. To solve the problems caused by these land disposal restrictions on the
remediation of Superfund sites, additional treatment and disposal techniques must be made available and
information on their performance and costs determined.
There are many technical problems associated with implementation of the remedial process and the land
disposal restrictions:
* Although the number of treatment technologies is rapidly expanding, many are still under development or have
not been demonstrated in the field. Personnel responsible for the selection of site remedies are reluctant to use
untried or unproven remedial techniques.
» The land disposal restrictions for Superfund wastes has caused a great demand for treatment technologies
capable of effective treatment of excavated soils on site or treatment of contaminants in place, but there are a
limited number of proven on-site and in situ treatment technologies, and information on their performance and
cost is limited.
* Material handling and pretreatment methods for the disposal of Superfund wastes at RCRA facilities, especially
for large volumes of contaminated soils and debris, have not been developed. In general, the treatment of
contaminated soils and debris is an area for which sufficient data to make treatment decisions are lacking.
» After removal or remedial actions at Superfund sites, there are often large volumes of soils and ground water
containing low levels of contamination that remain on site and must be treated to attain safe levels. Moving or
treating such materials with current technology becomes less cost-effective as the volumes of material to be
treated increases.
* Many chemicals found at hazardous waste areas are slow to biodegrade because initial microbial attack involves
reactions that are slow, highly specific, and energy demanding. In addition to chemical and physical treatment
and removal techniques, biodegradation using enhanced indigenous microorganisms has great potential to be
more cost-effective for cleaning up many Superfund sites than more conventional methods. However, relatively
little is known about which contaminants are amenable to in situ biorestoration, the controlling process,
engineering design criteria, comparative costs, by-products, and effectiveness of the technologies under different
conditions.
* Due to the physical and chemical characteristics of subsurface deposits, it is difficult to deliver in situ treatment
materials uniformly or to totally recover contaminants. In addition, the lack of understanding of basic chemical
and physical processes that control the effectiveness of in-place treatments makes it difficult to determine which
treatment technologies are most effective and how to enhance their effectiveness.
RESEARCH NEEDS
Each technology currently under evaluation or development has its own information gaps and associated
developmental problems. In order to increase the number of effective, permanent treatment technologies available
for Superfund site cleanups, the following research needs are being addressed:
- 39 -
-------
Research Needs
* Biosystems research to evaluate and develop naturally occurring and enhanced microorganisms for the
degradation of low levels of hazardous substances in soils and ground water.
4 Cost and performance evaluations and development of on-site treatment technologies involving extraction and
on-site physical and chemical treatment.
* Cost and performance evaluations and development of physical and chemical in situ treatment technologies
including delivery and recovery systems.
* Best demonstrated available technology evaluations for particular waste and technology combinations to be
used in setting pretreatment standards for Superfund site wastes disposed of at RCRA facilities.
* Technical information transfer to Regional Offices and O WPE, especially in the applicability of expert systems
to remedial action method selection, design, and costing techniques.
* Test and evaluation facility establishment at which cleanup technologies can be tested, with all necessary safety
features, emission controls, and logistical support in place.
* Demonstrations of promising innovative technologies under actual use conditions to provide reliable
performance and cost information for future site characterization and cleanup decision making.
* Identification and removal of informational impediments to the use of alternative technologies.
* Procedure and policy development to encourage the use of alternative treatment remedies at Superfund sites.
* Encouragement for the development of emerging technologies.
The Superfund technology testing and evaluation program is divided into two complementary subprograms:
Treatment Technology Performance Evaluations and the SITE program (Figure 6). The first evaluates the perfor-
mance of unproven treatment technologies and develops treatment technologies to the proof-of-concept stage so that
information on the appropriate use of treatment technologies is available for Regional cleanup managers and so that
the private sector, through SITE and the provisions of the FTTA, can make the technology commercially available.
The overall goal of the SITE program is to maximize the use of alternative technologies in cleaning up Superfund
sites and to encourage the development and demonstration of innovative measurement and monitoring techniques.
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH APPROACH
This portion of the treatment technology research program emphasizes: 1) development of new and innova-
tive treatment technologies to the pilot-scale or proof-of-concept stage in preparation for full-scale field demon-
strations; and 2) evaluations of the cost and performance of available treatment technologies developed by EPA
and the private sector. Treatment technologies are developed by the Agency when there is low commercial interest,
low potential for profit, or high economic risk associated with development of the technology.
Technology-specific evaluation and development will be in the major technical areas of in situ and on-site
treatment. In situ treatment provides physical and chemical treatment technologies for the immobilization or detox-
- 40 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
ification of contaminated soils and sediments left in place, systems to deliver treatment technologies to contam-
inants left in place, and systems for the recovery of contaminants without excavation. On-site technologies include
other contaminant treatment systems that require excavation of soils and debris prior to treatment. Such systems
are typically flow-through processes utilizing physical and chemical means to extract or concentrate contaminants
for subsequent treatment, to immobilize contaminants within a particular soil ("matrix"), to contain contaminants
and reduce their rate of release to the environment, or to degrade or detoxify contaminants.
Application of Innovative and Alternative
Technologies at Superfund Sites
i
Private Sector
FTTA Cooperative Agreements
Commercialization
I
I
OSCs/RPMs
Site Assessments and
Remedial Actions
Manuals and Guidance on Performance and Application of Technologies
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
(SITE)
Commercial Demonstration
and Development Program
Monitoring Technology
Development and
Demonstration
Emerging Technologies
Testing and Evaluation
Treatment Technology
Performance Evaluations
Biosystems
In Situ Control Technologies
On-Site Control Technologies
Combustion Techniques
Best Available Technologies
Expert Systems
University - Private Sector - Government - International
Results of Research and Development
Figure 6. Development and Evaluation of Treatment
Technologies Research Program
Research into the biological degradation of Superfund contaminants is a major ORD research initiative and is
discussed separately from other treatment technology testing and evaluation because of the special coordination
required between EPA biologists and engineers. Two other projects conduct research to determine the best
-41 -
-------
Performance of Treatment Technologies Research Approach
demonstrated available technology required for RCRA land disposal restriction standard setting and to evaluate
and develop expert systems for comparing the performance of treatment technologies under various site conditions.
In addition, a multi-purpose Environmental Testing and Evaluation Center is being constructed to expand studies
of the performance of a wide variety of physical, chemical, thermal, and biological treatment technologies.
When the concepts behind technologies selected for development and evaluation under this research issue
have been proven, the technologies are either handed off to the SITE Program for further development and full-
scale demonstration or cooperative R&D agreements are sought with private firms interested in commercializing
the technologies for further development under the provisions of the FTTA.
Biosystems
Biological degradation treatment systems (biosystems) are processes for the organized and controlled use of
microorganisms and their products for cleaning up toxic and hazardous wastes. Biosystems offer the potential to
significantly reduce the cost of safe, effective cleanup of hazardous waste contaminants at many Superfund sites.
Current physical and chemical treatment processes either move the chemical from one location to another or attempt
to confine further dispersion. Both techniques may leave the waste essentially intact, and they do not always restore
the site to its original state. Biological treatment can degrade the chemicals, in situ, to benign products that are
cycled within the biosphere. Biosystems offer additional benefits for Superfund cleanups including utilization of
the broad versatility of microorganisms for degrading mixed wastes; the ability to tailor treatment processes toward
specific compounds or groups of compounds at specific sites; the potential to eliminate excavation and
transportation costs; and minimization of air emissions associated with the movement of contaminants.
Microbial treatment has already been successfully used in the United States and other countries for on-site
and in situ treatment of organic contamination of soils at hazardous waste sites. Research and actual cleanup of
soils and aquifers contaminated by hydrocarbons, phenols, cyanides, and chlorinated solvents such as trichloro-
ethylene (TCE) have been conducted. Application of this technology to the cleanup of Superfund sites is becoming
possible because of greatly increased volumes of information on the biology of the degrading microorganisms and
their associated treatment. The biosystems initiative will take advantage of this newly acquired information by
applying it to the development of an inexpensive and effective biological approach to cleaning up Superfund sites
and other hazardous and toxic waste sites.
The objective of the biosystems program is to develop and demonstrate biological treatment systems for
reducing or eliminating the risk from hazardous wastes and other pollutants that have been accidentally or
deliberately released into the environment. In addition to the development and evaluation of biosystems, ORD
will also work to make new biological treatment systems acceptable to the user community and the public at large.
A critical aspect of the biosystems research program is the integration of the technical expertise of ORD biologists
and engineers.
Biological research will include characterizing basic biological processes that result in degradation of pollutants,
enhancing biological organisms to increase their ability to degrade pollutants, determining the risks involved in
releasing biotreatment products, and developing the means to mitigate adverse consequences of biotreatment
products. The microorganisms used in the biosystems treatment process are either selected from natural populations
or genetically enhanced to carry out specific metabolic functions at an increased level. Biosystems research will,
within the next few years, take advantage of the rapidly expanding capabilities in biotechnology, a term currently
used in the Agency to refer to the use of microorganisms that have been genetically engineered to accomplish
- 42 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
biodegradation. Researchers use the term "genetically engineered" microorganisms to refer to those in which the
chromosomal genetic material has been manipulated and "enhanced" microorganisms to refer to those in which
plasmids—discrete packages of extra-nuclear genetic material—have been manipulated in order to speed up the
natural selection process. Acceleration of the natural selection process is also accomplished by mixing microbial
cultures with contaminants and evaluating survivors.
Knowledge that a particular waste is biodegradable based on laboratory experiments does not necessarily mean
that a biological treatment process will be successful in the field. Engineering efforts will draw from biological
studies to evaluate, develop, and demonstrate the application of biological agents as pollutant control technologies.
Specific engineering aspects will be considered, such as getting nutrients and other amendments to the microbial
communities, delivering the microorganisms to the contaminants, removing inhibitory materials, accounting for
environmental factors like climatic conditions, and determining whether treatment systems could best be applied
in situ, on site, or at a centralized treatment facility.
The practical use of a particular bioremediation process requires information on its cost, time required, and
level of contaminant reduction. This evaluation will include comparison with conventional methodology, the use
of multiple unit operations to treat complex waste mixtures, engineering scale-up and evaluation, specific data needs,
and methods for evaluation and field-scale verification of developed technology. Contaminated sites that represent
a wide range of common contaminants and hydrogeologic settings, have been conventionally characterized, and will
be accessible over a long period of time will be selected to develop biological treatment systems to the field-scale.
Data from the field projects will be used to develop mathematical models for use in remedial action decisions,
prepare guidance documents for evaluating the use of biorestoration at sites, and design biorestoration projects.
The research plan for the development of biological treatment strategies has been divided into six major
categories based on the type of treatment process involved. This organization emphasizes the development of
field applications while maintaining enough supporting research to further our understanding of biological treatment
processes. Brief descriptions of the projects planned for FY89 and FY90 are included below.
Liquid treatment systems for treating low levels of contaminants in water on site will include:
* White Rot Fungus Field Test. Utilize the wood rotting fungus P. chrysosporium in a rotating biological
contactor to degrade hazardous liquid wastes.
* Two-Sludge Anaerobic/Aerobic Treatment ofCERCLA Leachates in POTWs. Modify the operational mode
of Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) to provide improved control of toxics in CERCLA leachates
discharged in POTW systems.
* On-Site Biological Pretreatment Followed by POTW Treatment of Leachates. Compare three biological
pretreatment alternatives for CERCLA sites to improve overall toxics control in leachates discharged through
POTWs.
Biological treatment systems for application to Superfund soils and sediments will include:
* White Rot Cultivation for Soil Treatment. Demonstrate a soil contamination treatment technology based on
the white rot fungus P. chrysosporium application to wood treating waste contaminated soils.
- 43 -
-------
Biosystems
* Feasibility Studies for the Decontamination of PCB-Containing Sediments. Provide information on those
environmental and microbiological factors that might enhance the extent and rate of PCB biodegradation under
laboratory conditions. Evaluate this information for its potential application to the biological cleanup of PCB
in estuarine environments. Develop bench-scale treatment systems using contaminated soils from New Bedford
Harbor.
* PCP Anaerobic Degradation in Sediments. Utilize Anaerobic dechlorinating consortia for enhancing degrada-
tion of pentachlorophenol (PCP) in contaminated field samples.
Combined treatment systems include chemical or physical treatments to reduce contaminant concentrations
to low levels and biological treatment systems to complete the elimination of contaminants:
* Combined use ofKPEG Chemical Treatment and Anaerobic Treatment for Remediating Contaminated Soil.
Assess the utility of combining treatment with potassium polyethylene glycol (KPEG) and anaerobic biologi-
cal treatment for remediating soils heavily contaminated with toxic organic chemicals.
Sequential application of selected treatment systems will be investigated for degrading mixtures of wastes and
particularly recalcitrant compounds:
» Anaerobic Degradation of Mixed Organic Wastes. Develop strategies for the anaerobic degradation of mixtures
of wastes containing fuel oil, cresols, chlorophenols, PCP in a mixture of fuel oil, chlorinates, benzenes, and
PCBs, by natural anaerobic communities.
* Enhanced Degradation of Creosote. Apply multiple approaches in biodegradation technology to give the
most extensive degradation of creosote in contaminated soils.
Ground-water treatment systems will include:
» Anaerobic Biological Processes for the Reclamation of Aquifers Contaminated with Carbon Tetrachloride.
Characterize the rates of secondary substrate utilization, and the transformation pathways for the anaerobic
cometabolism of carbon tetrachloride supported by denitrification of acetone or isopropanol, and demonstrate
the biodegradation of carbon tetrachloride.
The characterization of new metabolic processes, while not directly linked to field application projects, is
required as part of the biosystems research program to further the understanding of the biodegradation potential
of indigenous microorganisms. Several projects are included that will expand our knowledge of the diversity of
metabolic processes and possibly indicate a means by which new processes could be created through selection or
genetic engineering. As this understanding advances, new treatment technologies will become evident.
* Degradation Potential ofMicrobial Oxygenase Enzymes. Determine whether novel and useful oxygenase
activities can be genetically selected for in microbial cultures by specific enrichment procedures.
* Dehalogenation Potential ofSulfate Reducing Organisms. Evaluate the degradative potential of organisms
that can degrade chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons under sulfate reducing conditions.
- 44 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
* White Rot Fungus Enzyme Development. Identify the major enzyme contributions to the extracellular oxidation
of organic pollutants by P. chrysosporium and use this information to improve the performance of both water
and soil treatment technology under development, and determine the principle contributors to xenobiotic
degradation.
Private firms have expressed interest in using cooperative agreements under the provisions of the FTTA to
develop and commercialize biological treatment systems. The move into cooperative agreements will proceed
slowly in FY89 to make sure that Agency procedures are followed correctly, but once the first few cooperative
agreements are signed, progress toward including the private sector in EPA biosystems research is anticipated to
markedly increase.
In Situ Control Technologies
To ensure the availability of cost-effective technologies for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites that pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, the research program on -in situ technology evaluates the
effectiveness, costs, and cross-media impacts of chemical and physical in situ technologies and develops concepts
for in situ treatment to bench scale. In situ treatments are needed when an uncontrolled site has large volumes of
wastes or soils with low levels of contamination and the cost of excavation for off-site disposal or on-site treatment
are high in relation to the risk. The challenge of this program is to provide cost-effective control technologies that
can treat the complex mixtures found at Superfund sites and achieve high risk reduction efficiencies for pollutants
that are toxic at very low concentrations without further damaging the environment.
Delivery of treatment systems to contaminants and recovery of the contaminants without excavation of soils
are essential elements of most in situ processes and remain the biggest engineering obstacle to their application at
Superfund sites. The development and evaluation of delivery and recovery systems will therefore continue to be
emphasized in FY89 and FY90. Two of the most promising techniques to be investigated for improving in situ
delivery and recovery processes are hydrofracturing and pulsed pumping and injection.
Hydrofracturing is a technique borrowed from the oil industry, where wells in low-permeability rock are
pressurized with water to create cracks in the surrounding environment. Porous sand is then pumped into the wells
to form long sand-filled lenses that open the system and increase recovery of contaminants.
Pulsed pumping from extraction wells (turning the pump off and on) may avoid the expense of pumping and
treating large volumes of water to remove a small quantity of contaminants. This problem is commonly encoun-
tered after pump-and-treat systems have been in operation over long periods of time. Pulsed pumping allows time
for contaminants to diffuse out of low-permeability zones and allows flushing of hydrodynamically stagnant zones.
Work is continuing on site-specific pulsed pumping schemes that do not allow contaminants to be swept past
extraction wells along with the flow of ground water during periods when the wells are not pumping.
Most contaminant recovery processes involve removal of contaminants through the water phase. A new area
of investigation into improving recovery of contaminants in situ includes the evaluation of vapor-phase extraction
of contaminants from the soil's unsaturated zones. Initially, subsurface processes that control transfers of
contaminants between liquid and gas phases will be studied in order to improve the selection and efficiency of
treatment technologies. This work will use data generated on major contaminant groupings to investigate whether
it would be more effective to recover contaminants using technologies based on removal in the vapor phase. Two
- 45 -
-------
In Situ Control Technologies
promising vapor-phase recovery technologies that will be evaluated include vacuum extraction for recovering
volatiles and steam-assisted vacuum extraction for recovering less volatile contaminants.
The in situ research program will continue to address the problem of selecting remedial technologies during
Superfund feasibility studies by evaluating the costs and performance of in situ treatment technologies as they are
developed by EPA and the private sector. This information will be readily accessible to field personnel through the
creation of a database on the costs of in situ treatment technologies.
The in situ research program, over the past few years, has emphasized performance evaluations of available
treatment, delivery, and recovery systems. This will be shifted somewhat in FY90 toward the development of new
treatment systems. In preparation for the move toward more developmental work, available information on the
major problem contaminants will be organized as a basis for selecting technologies for development. Case studies
of completed and on-going remedial actions will be assembled to identify problems and promising technologies.
It is anticipated that developmental research will emphasize more cost-effective chemical and photochemical
processes. Selected concepts will be tested in field feasibility studies; those showing potential for success or
commercialization will be transferred to the SITE Program.
More emphasis will also be placed on the effect of site characterization on the cost and effectiveness of
treatment processes. The sampling strategies employed at a couple of Superfund sites will be analyzed to determine
whether sufficient data has been collected to form a basis for selecting and using remedial technologies. By
integrating the analysis of sampling strategies and site characterization information requirements with performance
data on appropriate in situ cleanup technologies, less expensive remedial technologies and plans can be selected.
On-Site Control Technologies
The goal of on-site control technologies research is to influence and encourage the commercial development
and utilization of viable systems for on-site treatment of excavated soils, sludges, and sediments at Superfund sites.
This will be accomplished through the development and field testing of promising pilot-scale systems using
technical approaches not currently being addressed by the commercial sector. On-site treatment technologies reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated materials to provide alternatives to land-filling. Both mobile
cleanup equipment and on-site technologies will be developed. Such systems are typically flow-through types of
.processes utilizing physical or chemical means to extract, degrade, detoxify, or immobilize contaminants.
An important component of the on-site research program is understanding the treatment problems at Superfund
sites in order to direct development and evaluation work to treatment technology gaps. A series of workshops
among vendors and academic and government technical experts is planned to actively develop and maintain
interactions with on-site technology users and the private sector. The on-site program is also working to characterize
problems related to three major contaminant categories: organics, metals and inorganics, and radioactive wastes.
The nature of contaminants and soil samples from Superfund sites are being examined to determine the effectiveness
of on-site treatment technologies and to anticipate technologies that will need to be used in their treatment.
A number of technologies are now, or will soon be, under development in the on-site research program. Soils
washing technology testing will emphasize removing lead, other inorganics, TCE, and other volatile organics from
soils. Laboratory studies will be conducted to improve technologies to extract organics from soils and sediments
using surfactant and chelating agents. A sequential batch reactor for microbial mineralization of excavated soils
and a system for vacuum-assisted steam stripping of low molecular weight organics are also being studied.
- 46 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Other activities that support Superfund remedial decisions include the maintenance of information systems
on the performance of treatment systems at bench-, pilot-, and full-scales, and conducting treatability studies to
meet specific Regional needs. A pilot-scale plant is needed that is mobile and can be moved to Superfund sites to
conduct treatability studies.
Combustion Techniques
Some contaminated soils are not amenable to treatment by lower-cost chemical, physical, or biological
processes. In these cases, combustion processes may be a suitable alternative. To address the need for thermal
destruction research, ORD constructed the Combustion Research Facility (CRF) at the National Center for
Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Arkansas. The specific mission of this facility is to conduct pilot-scale research
and provide data on the thermal destruction of hazardous wastes from existing Superfund sites so that combustion
technologies can be used to treat or destroy these hazardous wastes while protecting the environment and promoting
public health and safety.
The pilot-scale research incinerators at the CRF include a rotary kiln system and a liquid injection system.
Each system incorporates primary and secondary combustors and associated waste handling equipment, process
controllers, safety equipment, and air pollution control devices. The CRF is fully permitted to test the entire range
of hazardous wastes normally encountered in the hazardous waste treatment industry. The research constraints that
result from the pilot-scale size of the CRF will be remedied by an expansion of the facility in FY89. Also, permit
modifications will be pursued to allow testing of air pollution control devices and combustors not currently located
at the facility.
Thermal destruction research is conducted on synthetic soils to develop knowledge and understanding of the:
* Characteristics of wastes that affect their thermal destruction, including chemical composition, physical state,
heating value, incinerability, corrosivity, toxicity, and reactivity;
» Behavior of waste matrices and definition of the thermal conditions needed to effectively treat various matrices
from Superfund sites;
» Operational characteristics of equipment such as kilns, liquid-fed incinerators, boilers, process heaters, and other
innovative thermal devices that are used, or proposed for use, to destroy hazardous wastes; and
* Operational interactions between combustion equipment and air pollution control devices so that the control
of metal emissions and other particulates can be made more effective.
In addition to evaluations of the performance of combustion technologies on synthetic soils, samples from
Superfund sites are shipped by the Regions to the CRF to conduct treatability tests of thermal processes for
destroying Superfund contaminants and cleaning the soil. Projects for FY89 will include treatability studies of
contaminated soils from the McCall and Purity Oil Superfund sites in Region 9 using the rotary kiln incinerator,
studies of the fate of metals in incinerated contaminants; and maintenance of a database on waste and combustion
results.
- 47 -
-------
Besf Demonstrated Available Technology for SARA Wastes
Best Demonstrated Available Technology for SARA Wastes
The objective of this research is to provide performance and cost data on key technologies that will be used
to treat wastes from Superfund sites. OSWER will use these data to establish best demonstrated available
technology levels for contaminated soils and debris at Superfund sites. In response to the RCRA land disposal
restrictions, OSWER is developing standards for the pretreatment of Superfund wastes that will be disposed of in
RCRA facilities. These standards will establish treatment levels through the evaluation of readily available treat-
ment technologies. In the future, Superfund wastes meeting these levels or standards may be deposited in land
disposal units. The distinction between BDAT evaluations and the development and evaluation of biosystem, in
situ, and on-site treatments is that BDAT research evaluates readily available treatment technologies to develop
standard pretreatment levels, while the others are more concerned with making more technologies readily available.
Technologies that have been tested to date in the Superfund BDAT program include high temperature
incineration for high hazard contaminants, solidification and stabilization methods for inorganic wastes, low-
temperature thermal desorption of volatile organic compounds, the KPEG process for certain contaminated soils,
and soil washing techniques for extraction of organic or inorganic contaminants.
Stabilization and solidification processes involve the addition of binders to a waste material to alter its form
and decrease contaminant mobility. Solidification increases bearing strength and eliminates free liquids in a waste.
Stabilization (synonymous with fixation) converts the waste to a more stable form, thus limiting contaminant
mobility and decreasing the surface area available for leaching.
Low-temperature thermal desorption involves heating organic-contaminated soils in a furnace to prescribed
temperatures. As heating occurs, contaminants are released from the soil as gases, which are then purged from
the system. The cleaned soils can then be disposed of on site or in a RCRA facility.
KPEG treatment of contaminated material involves mixing the waste with potassium hydroxide and
polyethylene glycol and heating the waste and reagent mixture. After the excess reagent is removed, the clean soil
is discharged. Decontamination is achieved through chemical dehalogenation of the aryl halide to form water-
soluble reaction products. The process has been successfully demonstrated for treatment of soil containing
chlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, and furans.
Soils washing involves washing waste soils with water, water containing additives, or organic solvents to
reduce the volume of soils requiring treatment. After the soils are washed and wet-sieved for particle size
separation, large volumes of cleaned soils containing the larger sized soil particles can be returned to the
environment. Soil washing has been demonstrated to work for both organic and inorganic contaminants.
Evaluations of the performance of these same technologies, except for incineration, on additional Superfund
soils and wastes are planned for FY89 and FY90. Various treatment trains consisting of one or more of the five
processes in series will also be evaluated. One to three additional technologies will be selected for BDAT evalua-
tions at the bench- or pilot-scale over the next two years. Candidate treatment technologies include biological
treatment systems, wet air oxidation of organics, and ultraviolet ozonation of liquid wastes and organics.
- 48 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Expert Systems
An expert (or knowledge-based) system is a computer program that incorporates the knowledge and simulates
the decision-making processes of human experts in order to achieve a high level performance for a particular task.
The benefits of expert systems are that the expertise of a few can be shared with many; consistent decisions can be
made across Regions even when data is limited or uncertain; individual and group productivity can be increased,
reducing project costs; and complex technical problems can be solved. Expert systems provide advice based on the
thought processes of experts, state-of-the-art scientific results, and latest regulations and guidance.
In response to OSWER needs, ORD began development of expert system prototypes in FY85. The potential
of these prototypes prompted discussions between ORD and OSWER in FY87 about the validation, long-term
support, and future development of expert systems for OSWER. Decision areas have been selected for expert
system development based on the input of the targeted user community, regulatory personnel at Headquarters, and
independent persons knowledgeable about CERCLA remedial programs. Highest priority was given to systems that
offer the possibility of significant time savings and cost reductions. An expert system shell (software designed to
facilitate expert systems development) will be designed for each system to ensure easy access by targeted. The
expert systems selected for development in FY89 are:
* A Construction Design Review system that conducts pre-final review of design plans and specifications will
ensure that they are biddable, constructable, operable, and consistent with applicable environmental regula-
tions. It will reduce project review time, increase productivity, and reduce the number of change orders.
* A Construction Claims Advisor will advise site engineers on identifying potential for a claim, recommend
follow-up steps, and minimize liability when a change in work activity occurs on site. The Construction Claims
Advisor will assist in determining whether a contractor's proposal for a change order is appropriate, suggest a
response to a variety of unpredictable events (delays, disruptions, additional work, contract disputes), and help
determine, once a change order has been approved, whether there is a legal basis for recovering costs.
* A Technical Screening and Selection of Remedial Alternatives system will screen and select site remedies based
on cross-media regulations, contaminant characteristics, media, storage techniques, and other relevant
information. The system will also attempt to identify combinations of technologies as a single alternative. It
will decrease staff workloads, improve screening uniformity, and reduce resource requirements throughout the
feasibility and remediation design phases.
* A Risk Assessment system will help assess health risks associated with hazardous waste exposure, utilize infor-
mation on appropriate alternative concentration limits (ACLs) and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), and
select models and methodologies. It will save resources and improve the timeliness of risk assessments.
» A Sampling Quality Assurance/Quality Control expert system will assist in review of plans to look for
conformance with agency guidelines and procedures and ensure that developed data will be of known quality
and be precise and accurate enough to support regulatory/cleanup actions. It will reduce staff time and improve
data collection and the consistency of analytical techniques.
The expert systems selected for initial development in FY90 are:
* Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regulation Screening, a screening tool that identifies federal and state
regulations that are applicable or relevant and appropriate in making waste management decisions. These
- 49 -
-------
Expert Systems
regulatory sections are identified based on waste characteristics, treatability options, and site location. It will
save resources and increase completeness and consistency by identifying cross-media issues in selecting and
evaluating cleanup remedies.
* Hazard Ranking System Screening, an automated system to assist in preparation of the HRS package by
collecting all necessary information pertaining to drinking water sources in the area surrounding a site. The
system will speed evaluation of candidate sites and ensure consistent quality in technical evaluations of potential
drinking water contamination.
* Scope of Work Generator, an expert system that generates site-specific scope of work, cost and schedule
estimates based on generic site class scopes of work modified for site-specific conditions. Applications include
RI and RD scopes of work. It will reduce costs and turn around time, improve consistency, reliability, and
increase staff productivity.
* Sources Catalog, a guide to existing computer tools and relevant information bases, guidance, and important
charts and technical papers. Improves use of existing expertise and resources. Provides a cost effective method
of issuing timely, accurate updates.
An advisory group comprised of targeted users, experts, and regulatory personnel will be set up to guide the
development and testing of each system. ORD will develop and maintain the expert systems and assist in training
end users, while OSWER will fund end-user training and system support and maintenance.
Test and Evaluation Facility
The major objective of the proposed Environmental Testing and Evaluation Center (E-TEC) is to develop, eval-
uate, and conduct laboratory-scale research on new and innovative hazardous waste treatment technologies that
provide alternatives to land-filling. The facility is needed to accelerate the availability of technologies essential to
implement the new cleanup standards requiring a greater reliance on permanent remedies at Superfund sites. In
addition, the facility represents a unique and mutually beneficial partnership between government, academic, and
industry organizations engaged in the study and mitigation of the hazardous and toxic waste disposal problem.
The proposed facility is to be located in Edison Township, New Jersey, utilizing existing government-owned
land and buildings. Activities conducted by EPA at the facility will generate information on the technical and
economical feasibility of new and innovative waste management technologies, analytical capabilities, processes,
methods, and devices. Treatment technologies may include any of a range of chemical, physical, biological, and
thermal processes. They will be capable of operating in either batch, continuous, or in situ modes to accomplish
extraction, immobilization, destruction, or detoxification of wastes. Performance tests will determine the
effectiveness of treatment technologies, and reliability tests will determine operating ranges and safety
characteristics. Prototype equipment, small-scale units, and full-size modular waste treatment units will be evaluated
in the facility. Criteria for selecting technologies to be tested will include safety requirements, needs for specialized
equipment, quality assurance/quality control needs, and lower costs.
Experiments conducted by ORD will provide analytical data, demonstrate performance capabilities of new
hazardous waste treatment technologies; tailorexisting technologies for application to new waste types; and improve
existing technologies with respect to their efficiencies, performance capabilities, and potential environmental
impacts. Testing at the E-TEC facility may also be necessary prior to SITE demonstrations to determine appropriate
- 50 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
design details, reliability, and economics. The FY89 budget provides for the purchase of specialized equipment
for the facility. This will include monitoring systems for NOX, SO2, total hydrocarbons (THC), total organic carbon
(TOC), O2, CO, and CO2; including sample collector, conditioning, and transport assemblies and a dual-bank, high-
efficiency paniculate air filter with vapor-phase activated carbon. Water treatment equipment will also be installed.
The proposed E-TEC facility will be fully permitted for the testing and evaluation of Superfund waste treatment
technologies. Air and water pollution control equipment will be installed to prevent uncontrolled releases.
Technologies to be tested at the facility will generally come equipped with their own pollution control devices.
In addition, the facility will provide backup emission controls that may, if necessary, be operated in tandem to
ensure adequate treatment of residues from the experimental process. Further, safety cutoffs and emergency
shutdown procedures will be activated in the event of process irregularities.
MAJOR DELIVERABLES
Annual Report on the Combustion Research Facility. This is developed annually to summarize the results of
research tests of soils and incineration technology for Superfund. The report on FY88 activities covers nine projects,
including demonstration and evaluation of the American Combustion Pyretron Burner for the SITE program.
Detailed technical reports on each project are available from the CRF. Due 1/89.
Alternative Treatment Technology Evaluations ofCERCLA Soils and Debris. This report will combine results from
FY87 and FY88 BDAT research on the relative effectiveness of soil washing, KPEG low temperature thermal
desorption, incineration, and solidification/stabilization. The results of performance tests using synthetic and
Superfund site soils will be compared. Due 9/89.
Construction Claims Module for Differing Site Conditions. A site engineer's advisor and manual will be developed
to identify potential for a claim, recommend follow-up steps, and minimize agency's liability when a change in
work activity occurs on site because site conditions are discovered to be different than originally thought. Due 9/89.
Sample Quality Assurance/Quality Control Expert System for Metals in Soils. An expert system and manual on its
use will be developed to assist in review of plans to look for conformance with agency guidelines and procedures
and ensure that collected data will be of known quality and be precise and accurate enough to support the
characterization of metals in soils. Due 9/89.
Human Health Component of Risk Assessment Expert System. The human health component of risk assessment
will be incorporated into an expert system to help assess health risks associated with hazardous waste exposure.
Due 9/89.
Expert System for Technical Screening and Selection of Remedial Alternatives. An expert systems and manual
for its use will be developed to screen and select site remedies based on cross-media regulations, contaminant
characteristics, media, storage techniques, and other relevant information. Due 12/89.
Report on Enhancing Biodegradation of a Gasoline Spill in Ground Water. This report will detail the results of
the bioremediation of ground water contaminated by a fuel spill in Traverse City, Michigan, through the addition
of amendments to the ground water intended to stimulate nitrate-respiring microorganisms. Due 5/90.
- 51 -
-------
Major Deliverables
Handbook on On-Site Cleaning Equipment. The handbook will describe a variety of currently available
technologies for treating excavated soils, sludges, and sediments. It will include test results of thermal, physical,
and biological extractive treatment technologies, including the soils washer, mobile incinerator, KPEG, and mobile
carbon regenerator. Due 6/90.
Handbook on In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste Contaminated Soils. Incorporates work done for the Handbook
on Innovative Methods for Minimizing the Extent of Contamination. Updates the 1984 report Review ofln-Place
Treatment Techniques for Contaminated Surface Soils. Will include information on how to use available
technologies including in situ delivery and recovery systems, control of volatilization, and in situ extraction,
immobilization, degradation, and attenuation technologies. Due 9/90.
Construction Claims Module for Site Event Conditions. A site engineer's advisor and manual will be developed
to identify potential for a claim, recommend follow-up steps, and minimize agency's liability when a change in
work activity occurs on site because of unpredicted events at a site, including construction delays, additional work,
and contract disputes. Due 9/90.
Report onDevelopment of'Proceduresfor Biological Cleanup of'Trichloroethylene-ContaminatedHazardousWaste.
This document will report the results of the development of bench-scale systems for the bacterial mineralization of
trichloroethylene and assess the feasibility of enhancing in situ biodegradation by the natural flora of a contaminated
site. Due 12/90.
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION APPROACH
EPA has established a formal program to accelerate the development, demonstration, and use of new or innova-
tive treatment technologies, and to demonstrate and evaluate new, innovative measurement and monitoring technolo-
gies. This program is the SITE program, which assists technology developers in the development and evaluation
of new and innovative treatment technologies, and thus enhances the commercial availability and use of these
technologies at Superfund sites as alternatives to the land-based containment or disposal systems presently in use.
The overall goal of the SITE program is to maximize the use of alternative technologies in cleaning up
Superfund sites and to encourage the development and demonstration of new, innovative measurement and
monitoring techniques. SARA defines "alternative technologies" as:
those technologies, including proprietary or patented methods, which permanently alter the composition
of hazardous wastes through chemical, biological, or physical means so as to significantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume (or any combination thereof) of the hazardous waste or contaminated materials
being treated. The term also includes technologies that characterize or assess the extent of contamination,
the chemical and physical character of the contaminants, and the stresses imposed by the contaminants on
complex ecosystems at sites.
There are a number of obstacles inhibiting the acceptance and use of alternative technologies for the treatment
of hazardous wastes at Superfund sites. These technologies often have not been proven to be effective on a
commercial scale or have not been used for specific applications at hazardous waste sites. As a result, it is difficult
to assure potentially responsible parties, site owners, and the affected community that technologies that have not
undergone full-scale demonstration will be effective in remediation of a site. A key component of the SITE program
is the removal of these informational impediments by supporting demonstrations that will provide reliable
- 52 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
performance and cost data. The SITE program is intended to help provide the treatment technologies necessary to
implement the cleanup standards specified in SARA that require greater reliance on permanent remedies at
Superfund sites. Components of the SITE program include the:
* Monitoring Technology Testing and Demonstration project to enhance, evaluate, and validate newly developed
techniques and systems for characterization and assessment of contamination at Superfund sites.
* Emerging Technologies Testing and Evaluation Program to assist both ORD and private industry in the
development of emerging technologies from the conceptual stage to pilot-scale demonstration. This program
encompasses two special initiatives—the Emerging Biotechnology Program to evaluate, develop, and
demonstrate emerging biosystems technology for the detoxification or destruction of hazardous wastes at
Superfund sites; and the Innovative Development and Evaluation Program to test, evaluate, and demonstrate
promising technologies developed by ORD.
* Commercial Development and Demonstration Program to assist the private sector in developing promising
technologies that can be used at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The core of the program has been the
demonstration of selected technologies to provide sound engineering and cost data on their full-scale operation.
The demonstrations are designed to provide information to potential users on site-specific applicability,
effectiveness, and cost of each technology. The results of the demonstrations also identify limitations of the
technology and potential operating problems, and permit estimation of long-term operating and maintenance
costs and long-term risks.
Monitoring Technology Development and Demonstration
The Monitoring Technology Development and Demonstration Program was established as a part of the SITE
Program to enhance newly developed techniques and systems for characterizing contaminants at Superfund sites.
Its purpose is to speed up the application of promising new monitoring technologies to Superfund problems by
providing access to Superfund sites, quality assurance oversight, and in some cases, cost sharing of demonstrations
and development. The advanced field monitoring methods research under the direction of ORD will demonstrate
innovative measurement, screening, and monitoring technologies; evaluate field-deployable equipment suitable for
rapid on-site monitoring; stimulate the development and demonstration of new technologies from the private sector,
and share technologies with other agencies.
Current analytical methods for monitoring toxic compounds from various complex chemical sources either
involve a time delay between field and laboratory analysis, or a costly, time-consuming separation of the mixture
into its components prior to analysis. New technologies are available for rapid field data generation; the
appropriateness and potential of these technologies need to be demonstrated under field conditions. The commer-
cial sector will be leveraged to provide technology for EPA field monitoring. Emphasis will be on field deployable
methods and procedures for implementation of these methods for quantification of toxicants on site. Simple, rapid,
and inexpensive field measurement methods—immunoassays, ion mobility spectrometry, fiberoptic sensors, remote
mapping and data transmission—will be selected, evaluated, and demonstrated at field sites.
A number of promising technologies are being adapted for use in the Superfund program. The development,
evaluation, and validation process has begun for fiber optics/chemical sensors, immunoassay systems, high-volume
stack samplers, air emission canister technology, X-ray fluorescence, soil gas analyzer, geophysical equipment for
- 53 -
-------
Monitoring Technology Development and Demonstration
remote sensing of buried waste, and cone penetrometers for rapid and extended-depth soil sampling. When
appropriate, data management for these evaluations will use Geographic Information System computer technology.
Immunoassay Monitoring Development and Demonstration
As part of this research program, haptens (an antigen) are being synthesized for antibody production against
several chlorobenzene compounds. Monoclonal antibodies will be produced for these compounds as part of a
cooperative agreement with the University of California, Berkeley. Under a cooperative agreement with the
University of California, Davis, work has been initiated on several nitroaromatic compounds. Haptens have been
synthesized and antisera has been produced. A cooperative agreement is being negotiated for immunoassay
development for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and phenol. Two requests for information regarding the
development and availability of immunoassays were issued—one in the Commerce Business Daily and one in
Science. The availability of funding from the Department of Agriculture is being negotiated. A field demonstration
of the pentachlorophenol immunoassay at a Superfund site is being planned.
Future immunoassay research plans include the compilation of a list of EPA priority compounds for potential
immunoassay applications. ORD will also investigate currently available standard delivery systems to determine
potential use for Agency monitoring activities. ORD intends to integrate its immunoassay techniques with ongoing
fiber optics research. Applying these tools jointly in Superfund site assessment will serve as a means to cross check
data generated by each method.
Mobile X-Ray Fluorescent Analyzer
ORD scientists have developed a uniform method for on-site analysis of inorganics using the field-portable
XRF system. This includes on-site sample preparation and analysis and set up of calibration standards for XRF
instrumentation. Future plans include visits to selected sites to demonstrate the capabilities of the field method.
The goal of this project is to transfer this technology to the Regions. A 15-minute video tape has been produced
on the portable XRF technology and its applications to screen for inorganics at hazardous waste sites. It includes
step-by-step procedures for conducting a field screening exercise. ORD is working through a cooperative agreement
with Kansas State University to demonstrate and evaluate this mobile XRF monitoring system.
Fiber Optics
A patent is being sought on a fundamental design for a fiber optic chemical sensor amenable to commercial
manufacture. This new design is a result of the collaborative developmental efforts of EPA, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), American Society for Testing and Evaluation, and Lockheed Engineering
and Science. One of the key elements of the design provided by EPA is the incorporation of the newly developed
Winston Cone used to make low-loss optical connections for the communications industry.
Plans for fiber optics research include development for aqueous-phase measurements to extend its application
to in situ ground-water monitoring. With adequate improvements in sensitivity, another potential application for
the chloroform sensor would be for monitoring trihalomethanes in drinking water. Other planned research areas
include the development of several compound-specific sensors for gasoline, aviation gasoline, and trichlorethylene.
- 54 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Emerging Technologies Testing and Evaluation Program
The Emerging Technologies Program is designed to test, evaluate, and develop technologies that can be used
for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The primary goal of the program is to foster technologies developed under
ORD's basic engineering program (Performance of Treatment Technologies) that show promise for
commercialization by the private sector. The testing and evaluation of these technologies will provide additional
alternatives for cleanup. Currently, ORD is developing technologies at the bench-, laboratory-, and pilot-scale for
use at Superfund sites. In addition, the private sector is being given an opportunity to submit candidate technologies
through published solicitations. The most promising will be further developed and tested. Successful technologies
will be available for full-scale demonstration at EPA test and evaluation facilities or Superfund sites.
SITE Emerging Biotechnology Program
ORD's emerging biotechnology research program is designed to evaluate, develop and demonstrate emerging
biosystems technology for the detoxification of hazardous wastes at Superfund sites. The program will provide
alternative, cost-effective biological technologies to effectively control and destroy hazardous wastes at Superfund
sites. It will center on the development of field-scale technologies to deal with wastes found difficult to treat by
existing technology. Activities in this area will consider the evaluation of new or proprietary strains of
microorganisms for suitable application to waste treatment at Superfund sites. This evaluation will include
comparison with conventional methodology, the use of multiple unit operations to treat complex waste mixtures,
engineering scale-up and process evaluation, specific data needs and methods for evaluation, and field-scale
verification of developed technology. The scope of treatment types to be developed under this program span from
in situ to specific reactors.
SITE Innovative Development and Evaluation Program
Over the past few years, ORD has developed alternative technologies for the destruction and cleanup of
hazardous waste. Research has progressed to the point where several of these technologies have approached the
field evaluation and demonstration stage necessary for application to Superfund wastes. After the technologies
are satisfactorily demonstrated on Superfund wastes, it is expected that they will be commercialized and marketed
by private industry through the FTTA. It is expected that market risk will be reduced and development accelerated
by conducting field evaluations and, in some cases, field demonstrations under the SITE Program. The SITE
Program will also actively disseminate information concerning these technologies. Some of the innovative
technologies currently under development include:
* An EPA Mobile Incinerator System consisting of a rotary kiln, secondary combustion chamber, and air pollution
control equipment mounted on four trailers. The system was used successfully to process dioxin-contaminated
materials from various Superfund sites and is now operating at the Denney Farm Superfund site in Missouri to
process pesticide wastes.
* An EPA Mobile Soils Washing System designed for the extraction of a broad range of hazardous materials
from contaminated soils using water as the extraction solvent. The prototype, developed using conventional
equipment for screening, size reduction, washing, and de-watering of soils, is being transferred to industry
under the provisions of the FTTA.
- 55 -
-------
SITE Innovative Development and Evaluation Program
4 An EPA Mobile Carbon Regeneration System designed for field use in reactivating spent granular activated
carbon used in spill or waste site cleanup operations. The system utilizes a carefully controlled thermal process
to remove dissolved organics from water, and is being transferred to industry under the provisions of the FTTA.
* A KPEG Chemical Detoxification process to dechlorinate toxic organochlorine compounds, like PCBs, dioxins,
andfurans. EPA's mobile field equipment is undergoing a series of tests and evaluations atSuperfund and other
sites.
SITE Commercial Demonstration and Development Program
The primary goal of this program is to evaluate commercially developed pilot-scale and full-scale technologies
through demonstrations in the field. As legislatively mandated, at least ten demonstration or development projects
will be initiated each year for the five-year period beginning in FY87. ORD and OSWER cooperate to conduct the
SITE Program. ORD is responsible for conducting the technical aspects of the demonstration and development
projects, while OSWER is responsible for matching technologies to appropriate sites and implementing the
community relations and technology transfer programs.
Each year, EPA solicits proposals from developers of technologies that destroy, immobilize, or reduce the
volume of hazardous wastes. Generally, the technology developer pays to erect and operate the equipment and to
dismantle and remove it, while EPA pays for the costs of sampling and analysis, quality assurance and quality
control, evaluating data, and preparing reports. EPA will also assist the developer in obtaining required permits.
Under SARA, federal assistance can now be provided for part of an applicant's full-scale field demonstration
project if the applicant can show that he cannot obtain private financing on reasonable terms and conditions
sufficient to carry out such demonstrations. The developers are provided extensive data that validate their
capabilities while EPA is able to assess the performance, reliability and cost of technologies. This information
will be used directly by Regional and State personnel responsible for the selection of remedies and responses at
Superfund sites.
Once EPA has selected technologies that are ready for demonstration, EPA determines which hazardous waste
site is most appropriate for each demonstration. Superfund sites are generally used for SITE demonstrations.
However, EPA will also consider Departments of Defense and Energy, state, and private site cleanups. The
overriding criterion for site selection is a location at which the demonstration can be performed expeditiously and
the most useful information gathered. Demonstrations must take place under conditions that duplicate or closely
simulate actual wastes and conditions found at Superfund sites to assure the reliability of the information collected
and the acceptability of the data by users.
The SITE program was established less than two years ago. To date, 29 developers have been accepted into
the demonstration program, including eight thermal processes, three chemical treatments, five biological processes,
five physical treatments, and eight solidification/stabilization processes. Seven SITE demonstrations have been
completed. In addition, seven applicants have been accepted for award of cooperative agreements under the
Emerging Technologies Program. Table 1 presents the status of current SITE demonstration projects.
Two major reports are produced as a result of each completed demonstration. A Demonstration Report
documenting the performance data resulting from the demonstration is prepared first. The report includes testing
procedures, data collected and quality assurance/quality control measures, and summarizes the results in terms of
performance and cost. The demonstration report also addresses applicability, pre- and post-treatment requirements,
- 56 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
and its advantages and disadvantages compared to available technologies. However, successful demonstration of
a technology at one Superfund site does not necessarily imply that it will be adopted for full-scale use at other sites.
To encourage the general use of demonstrated technologies, ORD prepares a second report that evaluates the
applicability of each technology to other sites and wastes, and provides cost estimates for these applications. This
information is disseminated to potential users through an Applications Analysis Report for each technology tested.
Developer
SITE 001
Table 1. Summary of SITE Program Demonstrations
Technology Status
American Combustion
Technologies
Haztech/Shirco
Shirco Infrared
Systems, Inc.
Hazcon, Inc.
Westinghouse
Westinghouse
Terra Vac, Inc.
Ogden Environmental
Services (formerly GA
Technologies)
Resources
Conservation Co.
Pyretron Burner
Infrared Thermal
Destruction Process
Infrared Thermal
Destruction Process
Solidification/
Stabilization Process
Pyroplasma System
Electric Pyrolyzer
In Situ Vacuum
Extraction
Circulating Fluidized
Bed Combustor
Basic Extraction
Sludge Technology
The demonstration, conducted at EPA's Combustion Research Facility on waste soils
from the Stringfellow Superfund site in California, is complete. The draft demonstra-
tion report is under final revision and the draft applications analysis is being reviewed.
The demonstration, conducted on waste oil sludge at the Peak Oil Superfund site in
Florida, is complete. The final demonstration report is complete and the applications
analysis report is under review.
The demonstration on contaminated soils from the Rose Township Superfund site in
Michigan is complete. The final demonstration report is under revision and the
applications analysis report is being written.
The demonstration on contaminated soils at the Douglassville Disposal Superfund
site in Pennsylvania is complete. The final demonstration report is complete, the
applications analysis report is under revision, and a draft report on the six-month
sampling results is complete.
Westinghouse has received a RD&D permit for the Waltz Mill Facility site in Pennsyl-
vania. The demonstration is planned for that facility subject to approval of the permit
by the state and availability of a suitable waste.
Due to a two-year delay by Westinghouse in starting this demonstration, the project
may be removed from active status.
The demonstration on waste soils from the Groveland Wells Superfund site in Massa-
chusetts is complete. The demonstration report is almost complete and the applica-
tions analysis is under review.
Current plans are for treatability testing on McColl waste at the Ogden facility with a
pilot-scale unit and a one-month field-scale demonstration at the McColl site using a
100 ton/day transportable unit.
A tentative site has been chosen in Region 5 where the demonstration may be piggy-
backed onto a removal action at a waste oil recycling site.
- 57 -
-------
SITE Commercial Demonstration and Development Program
Developer
International Waste
Technologies
DETOX Industries, Inc.
SITE 002
Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc.
Table 1. Summary of SITE Program Demonstrations (Continued)
Technology Status
In Situ Stabilization/ The demonstration on PCB-contaminated soils at the General Electric Superfund site
Solidification Process in Florida is complete. The demonstration report is under revision and the applica-
tions analysis report is under review.
Biological Degradation The demonstration will be conducted at the United Creosote Superfund site in Texas.
Process Soil samples for the treatability study are being held until the developer is ready to
proceed with the bench-scale study.
Fluid Bed Biological
Systems
A Region 8 site has been rejected by the developer. A Region 2 site is under consi-
deration.
GeoSafe Corporation In Situ Vitrification Sites in Washington and Michigan are being considered for the demonstration.
CF Systems
Corporation
Chemfix Technologies,
Inc.
MoTec, Inc.
Retech, Inc.
Sanitech, Inc.
Separation and Recov-
ery Systems, Inc.
Solidtech, Inc.
WasteChem
Corporation
Zimpro Environmental
Control Systems
SITE 003
Solvent Extraction
with Liquified Gas
Chemical Fixation/
Stabilization
Liquid Solids Contact
Digestion
Centrifugal Reactor
Ion Exchange
Technology
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solidification
Volume Reduction
Solidification
Powdered Activated
Carbon Treatment
The demonstration was recently completed on PCB-containing soils from the New
Bedford Superfund site in Massachusetts. Analysis of the results is underway.
The demonstration is being conducted on soils from the Portable Equipment Co.
Superfund site in Oregon.
Treatability studies of soil and sludge samples from sites in Regions 3 and 7 are
underway. The demonstration plan is undergoing final review.
The Butte-Silverbow Superfund site in Montana has been selected for the demonstra-
tion. The demonstration plan is being revised to incorporate public comment and the
demonstration is scheduled for May, 1989.
Several sites are under consideration for a demonstration with ground water contam-
inated by heavy metals.
The process of locating a site is continuing.
The draft demonstration plan is under revision following an intergovernmental review.
WasteChem has decided to terminate the demonstration. A final report will be
prepared that will include all the data developed to date.
Portions of the demonstration plan are complete. The planned site at the Lowery
Landfill, Arapaho County, Colorado, is now in question due to waste components that
are not amenable to biological treatment.
Biotrol, Inc.
Soils Washing A demonstration of soil washing on PCP-contaminated soils at the McGillis and Gibbs
Superfund site in Minnesota is planned for June, 1989.
- 58 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Developer
Biotrol, Inc.
CBI Freeze
Technologies, Inc.
Chemical Waste
Management (CWM)
Detox, Inc.
E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Co.
Freeze Technologies
Corp.
Silicate Technology
Corp.
Toxic Treatments USA,
Inc.
Ultrox International,
Inc.
Table 1. Summary
Technology
Biological Treatment
of Ground Water
Freezing Technology
for Separation
Rotary Thermal
Desorber
Submerged Aerobic
Fixed Film Reactor
Membrane
Microfiltration
Freezing Technology
for Separation
Silicate Adsorption/
Stabilization
In Situ Steam/Air
Stripping
Ultraviolet Ozone
Treatment for
Liquids
of SITE Program Demonstrations (Continued)
Status
Demonstration of the biological treatment of ground water contaminated with wood-
preserving chemicals from the McGillis and Gibbs site is planned for June, 1989.
The demonstration plan is under development and site selection is proceeding.
The demonstration plan is being prepared and a demonstration is scheduled for late
spring of 1989.
The SITE contractor is proceeding with the demonstration plan. Efforts are under
way to locate a site.
The SITE contractor is proceeding with the demonstration plan. Efforts are under
way to locate a site.
Work on the demonstration plan has begun. Site selection activities are underway.
A demonstration of this process on wastes contaminated with higher-weight organics
and inorganics in soils from the Tacoma Tar Pits Superfund site in Washington is
planned for August, 1989.
Combining the demonstration with a remedial action at the GATX site in San Pedro,
California, is being considered. Work on the demonstration plan has begun.
Combining the demonstration with a remedial action at a site in San Jose, California
is being considered. The demonstration plan is under review.
SITE Information Clearinghouse
The dissemination of information on the performance of technology demonstrations and applications of the
technologies is crucial once the results from the demonstration projects are available. If alternative technologies
are to be applied broadly at Superfund sites, Agency personnel, engineers, and others must have access to reliable
technical information. The clearinghouse component of the SITE program is intended make technical information
from the SITE demonstrations available in a timely manner.
Recognizing that access to this and other treatment information is essential to the acceptance and use of
alternative technologies, the SITE program developed an information clearinghouse to collect, synthesize, and
disseminate technology performance data. The clearinghouse has several components: a hotline will provide up-
to-date information on SITE projects, demonstration schedules and the availability of the results, and will also refer
callers to other sources of information; an electronic bulletin board, part of a planned computerized database
network, provides summary information on the SITE projects, demonstration schedules, and results; a reference
bibliography—a collection of reports, journals, and other documents—is housed in the EPA Library's Hazardous
- 59 -
-------
SITE Information Clearinghouse
Waste Collection, and is available at EPA's ten Regional and five laboratory libraries. The bibliography is
accessible by personal computer.
The SITE Clearinghouse will eventually include pertinent data generated by other EPA programs, such as
RCRA trial burn data, Superfund treatability studies, and other federal agency and state hazardous waste cleanup
projects. The expanded Clearinghouse will enable a user to access a central source of information on hazardous
waste treatment technology that can search all of the existing data sources, provide comprehensive searches of on-
line databases like the one at the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), conduct technical evaluations of
existing data, and serve as an interface with the various EPA research laboratories.
MAJOR DELIVERABLES
Annual Report on the Development and Demonstration of Immunoassay Detection System for Rapid Screening at
Superfund Sites. This report will highlight new applications of immunoassay techniques developed during the year.
Due 1/89.
Annual Report to Congress. This is the annual report requested by Congress on the progress of the SITE program.
It will contain summaries of the program's operation and status of selected technologies. Due 1/89.
Emerging Technology Reports. Eighty-four preproposals were received and seven Cooperative Agreement applica-
tions were selected for award; four for waste-water treatment and three for soil treatment. The first annual report
will be due 9/89.
Annual Summary on Demonstration ofFieldable and Portable X-Ray Fluorescent Analyzer System. Due 9/89.
Demonstration of Mobile Carbon Regenerator. This report will describe the results of demonstration at the
Stringfellow Hazardous Waste Site in California. This technology will be transferred to the private sector for
demonstration. Due 12/89.
Demonstration of Mobile Soils Washer. ORD will prepare a final report on demonstration of this technology. This
technology will be transferred to the private sector for demonstration. Due 12/90.
KPEG Technology - Field Testing. The report will discuss dechlorination of aromatic organic compounds to reduce
toxicity. Pilot tests with the U.S. Navy (Guam) and Region 2 will be described in the final report on commercial
interest and Superfund site cost and applicability. Due 12/90.
- 60 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION:
HEALTH EFFECTS, RISK ASSESSMENT, AND DETECTION
SARA mandates the assessment of potential threats to human
health posed by each uncontrolled waste site and explicitly author-
izes EPA to conduct and support research in detection, assess-
ment, and evaluation of the effects on, and risks to, human health
from exposure to hazardous substances. The health effects, risk
assessment, and detection programs focus on research activities
that are in direct support of the Superfund process. In addition,
the programs are designed to anticipate future Superfund needs for
such research.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM NEEDS
While a primary goal of the Superfund legislation is protec-
tion of human health, health-based data are used during only three
key phases of the Superfund process: the remedial investigation,
feasibility study, and post-closure monitoring phases. The
greatest need for health-based data occurs during the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (Rl/FS) phases. The purpose of the
RI/FS is to characterize the nature and extent of risks posed by
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and to evaluate potential
remedial options. Once a site has been cleaned up, additional
health-based data are needed to assess the adequacy of the remedi-
ation at post-closure followups.
To characterize the nature and extent of site-specific risks
during the RI phase, EPA conducts a Baseline Risk Assessment,
the procedures for which are detailed in the Superfund Public
Health Evaluation Manual (SPHEM). Risk assessment is a term
that has come to refer to the formal process by which knowledge
about the potential of substances to produce toxicity (hazard
identification) is combined with: (1) knowledge about the relation-
ship between the amount of the substance arriving at a "target" in
the body (dose) and the magnitude of effect (dose-response assess-
ment), and (2) knowledge of the magnitude of exposures likely to
occur (exposure assessment). Based on assessment of this infor-
mation, the risk is characterized and expressed as a numerical
estimate, accompanied by a discussion of the assumptions and
uncertainties on which the estimate is based (Figure 7). Quantita-
tive risk estimates provide risk managers with a better alternative
than treating all potentially hazardous substances as if they have the
Health-based data are used during
three key phases of the Superfund pro-
cess: RI, FS, and post closure. In order
to project the incidence of adverse
health effects in exposed populations,
EPA conducts baseline risk assess-
ments. Because of the importance of
risk assessment in protecting the public
health from hazardous substance expo-
sure, ORD's highest priority health
research is directed toward developing
new and improved risk assessment
methodologies. Four risk assessment
research objectives will be addressed:
(1) methods and assumptions to assess
risk from exposure to chemical mix-
tures', (2) genetic, neurological, and
reproductive biomarkers to reconstruct
exposures and predict likely effects
from exposure; (3) mathematical 4o$i*
metry models to predict target tissue
doses across species and age groups
following exposure, especiaEy to
inhaled substances (rather than use the
amount of chemical estimated to be at
the body surface);, and (4) user friend-
ly tools including structure-activity
relationship systems and graphic data-
bases for use in weighing evidence
when data am and are not available
on the chemicals of interest during
the hazard identification phase of
risk assessment Additional research
is committed to evaluating the poten-
tial health impact of cleanup options^
particularly emissions from hazardous
waste incinerators, and to designing
bioassays for post-closure monitoring
of Superfund sites. Detection re»
search provides accurate, rapid, and
affordable field-portable monitoring
and analytical methods to replace the
time-intensive laboratory-based ap-
proach now used.
same potency and also provides a basis for
-61 -
-------
Superfund Program Needs
Hazard
Identification
Dose Response
Exposure
Assessment
Risk
Characterization
Figure 7. Baseline Risk Assessment Process
setting priorities and comparing cleanup alterna-
tives. In contrast to many other regulatory
programs, SARA does not require toxicity testing
of substances found at waste sites. Rather, risk to
public health posed by a site is generally esti-
mated based on existing toxicity data.
Risk assessments are not the same as the
health assessments prepared by ATSDR for sites
on the NPL. Risk assessments include quantita-
tive information about the degree of risk. Health
assessments, on the other hand, are brief, qual-
itative evaluations of the potential public health
impact of a site. They provide an early overall
medical or public health opinion, essential for
deciding whether emergency removal actions are
necessary to protect the health of nearby commu-
nities. Health assessments are also used to advise
medical personnel of potential human health
effects and to determine whether additional infor-
mation on human exposure and associated health
effects is needed at a site. Additional human
health studies may include pilot studies of health
effects for selected groups of exposed individ-
uals, epidemiological studies, and establishment of a health surveillance program and registry of exposed persons.
As a qualitative document, a health assessment is not intended to substitute for the more comprehensive, toxicity-
based risk assessment required in the RI/FS process.
Although risk assessment is not yet a perfected science, it has emerged as the method of choice for making the
public health decisions required under SARA. Risk assessment is used in the Superfund process for defining the
degree of human health risk caused by exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at Superfund
sites, for establishing safe levels of exposure, and for developing performance goals for cleanup alternatives.
Therefore, it is necessary that risk assessments be realistic and defensible in the courts.
Because of the importance of risk assessment, the Superfund program's priority needs are improved risk
assessment methodologies and requisite data. Of particular concern is the significant improvement in the capability
to assess genetic, nervous system, and reproductive system risks from chemical exposure as well as combinations
of effects from exposure to complex chemical mixtures. The ability to fully assess these risks would provide risk
managers with a comprehensive and realistic understanding of the serious health hazards resulting from exposure
to site contaminants.
Additional program office concerns include the use of assumptions in the dose-response phase of risk
assessment, especially for inhaled pollutants like volatile organic compounds. There is also concern about how best
to handle the many data gaps and uncertainties evident in the hazard identification phase of risk assessment. For
example, in weighing evidence that a chemical has the potential to produce toxicity, the Regional risk assessor
may encounter chemicals that have never been tested adequately for toxicity. Alternatively, toxicity data may be
- 62-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
available, but their relationship to other toxicity data on the same compound may not be evident. Improvements
in both dose response and hazard identification are likely to have a major impact on the accuracy and scientific
credibility of Superfund risk assessments.
Existing technologies for detecting hazardous substances in the environment have been found to be insufficient
for Superfund needs. The Agency, therefore, is putting increasing emphasis on evaluating new technologies as well
as improving existing sampling and analytical techniques to improve the speed and affordability of hazardous
substance detection without compromising data quality. The growing number of new sites on the NPL are stretching
Superfund resources and burdening the nation's analytical laboratories. Delays between the collection of samples
and their analyses and a lack of real-time data make it difficult to keep track of rapidly changing situations and add
to the cost of site cleanup. Thus, cost-effective, on-site technologies to replace the laboratory-based approach now
used to detect contaminants at a site are a high priority for the Superfund program. Particularly needed are real-
time, portable technologies that are selective enough to accurately quantify complex chemical mixtures at concen-
trations above typical environmental backgrounds. Also needed are methods for monitoring trace contaminants in
ground water, since collecting subsurface water samples is not possible at all locations and can be prohibitively
expensive. The use of field screening technologies would decrease the cost and time required for sampling and
analysis and help the Agency shorten the RI/FS process from the current 30 month average to less than 18 months.
RESEARCH NEEDS
To improve risk assessments, research is needed in the areas of complex chemical mixtures, biomarkers,
dosimetry, and hazard identification. The principal research needs related to complex chemical mixtures are to
further validate assays for identifying health hazards from mixtures and improve the scientific basis of assumptions,
especially additivity. Currently, the SPHEM recommends using a variant of the risk assessment guidelines for
chemical mixtures. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a major assumption in these guidelines is that hazard
or risk posed by a chemical mixture is equivalent to the sum of the hazards posed by the individual constituents.
Determining the constraints that should be placed on this assumption is a major Superfund need.
Biomarkers are measures from biological samples that indicate internal organism exposure, effect, or
susceptibility to effect. While human exposure to hazardous substances is an event to be prevented, in many
instances, exposure has already occurred. Biomarkers provide the means to reconstruct possible exposures and to
determine and predict whether biological and health changes have occurred or will occur, including genetic and non-
carcinogenic effects. Biomarker data may also be used to improve the scientific basis of requisite assumptions in
the exposure phase of risk assessment.
Study of the relationship between exposure and the concentration and location of chemicals in the body
(dosimetry) is needed for constructing physiologically based pharmacokinetic models that accurately predict target
tissue dose across species and in different age groups. Many risk assessments make the assumption that the likely
exposure to a compound (i.e., an estimate of the amount of compound applied to the body) is equivalent to the
dose of the compound at its site of action in the body. While in many instances it is possible to estimate exposure
(e.g., how much of a compound is likely to be inhaled, applied to skin, or ingested), there is not a one-to-one
relationship between the amount of a compound that is applied and the amount that is actually absorbed (absorbed
dose). Further, there is no relationship between the amount that is absorbed and the amount that is actually delivered
to the target site in the body (target dose). Since determining the absorbed and target doses are critical to accurate
dose-response assessments, research is needed to facilitate the accurate determination or prediction of these factors.
- 63 -
-------
Research Needs
Many data gaps and uncertainties have become evident in hazard identification. Typically, either the chemical
of concern has never been adequately tested for toxicity, or the available data are too different to compare. When
data are lacking, guidance is needed for predicting toxicity (biological activity) based on available structure-activity
relationship (SAR) data from structurally related chemicals. When toxicity data are available but their relationship
to other data on the same compound are not evident, it may be difficult for the risk assessor to determine whether
a particular study is an "outlier" whose conclusions should be viewed with great caution, or a study representative
of many studies performed on the compound. Under these circumstances, a user friendly database is needed to
provide a framework for assessing the many studies that may be available on a single compound.
In addition to risk assessment needs, research is needed to improve the evaluation of cleanup options,
monitoring methods for closed sites, and field screening methods for site monitoring. Failure to select an
appropriate cleanup option may pose a significant health risk during cleanup, or may affect the final hazard posed
by the site. Thermal treatment is considered to be a plausible remedial option for Superfund. However, the potential
toxicity of emissions from hazardous waste incineration have not been determined, because methods for
characterizing their potential toxicity have not been evaluated. Thus, careful evaluation of the health risk posed by
various cleanup options, especially incineration, is needed. Although there is no mandate for biological monitoring
of closed sites, ORD anticipates such a need and plans to consider various options, one of which is biological
monitoring of site toxicity. Advanced field screening technology research is needed to support a critical need of
the Superfund program for rapid, inexpensive, monitoring technologies. It will also support ORD's efforts to
obtain accurate exposure estimates for risk assessments.
HEALTH EFFECTS, RISK ASSESSMENT, AND DETECTION RESEARCH APPROACH
ORD is taking an empirical and a theo-
retical approach involving laboratory and
field studies to accomplish its Superfund
health and detection research objectives.
Products of the research may include new
assays, biomarkers, models, databases,
software, and detection technologies as
well as procedures for evaluating mechan-
isms of toxic action and for comparing
toxic effects from exposure to different
substances. Much of this research is coor-
dinated with EPA's other research pro-
grams and other federal agencies.
Approximately 82% of ORD Super-
fund health research is committed to im-
proving the accuracy of risk assessment
(Table 1). ORD conducts research in four
critical areas for improving Superfund risk
assessments. In addition to this work,
approximately 12% of ORD Superfund
health research is committed to developing
Table 1. Emphasis of the Superfund Health Research Program
Health Research Area % of Total Subtotals
Baseline Risk Assessment 82.0%
Chemical Mixtures
Comparative Potency 9.8%
Jesting Methods 12.3%
Mechanisms 4.9%
Additivity 0.0%
Biomarkers
Genetic 29.5%
Neurological 5.7%
Reproductive 4.9%
Dosimetry 12.3%
Hazard Identification
Structure-Activity Relationships 0.8%
Graphic Activity Profiles 1.6%
Cleanup Options 12.0%
Post-Closure Blomonitorlng 6.0%
- 64 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
a basis for evaluating the health impact of various cleanup options during the FS phase. The remaining 6% will be
used to address future needs for biomonitoring closed Superfund sites. Detection technology is a separate research
area, supporting the entire remedial process.
Improve Baseline Risk Assessments
Research to improve baseline risk assessment focuses on chemical mixtures, biomarkers, dosimetry, and hazard
identification (Figure 8). Because the SPHEM is used to manage the risk assessment process during RIs, risk assess-
ment research is targeted to produce products that will be useful for, and may lead to, revision of the SPHEM. In
turn, revisions of the SPHEM (being revised in FY89) include research needs identified by manual users.
Chemical
Mixtures
Biomarkers
Multiple Health
Assays
r
Assumptions
r r r
Genetic Neuro Reproductive
Integrated Assays and
Assumptions for Risk
Assessment
Direct Methods for
Assessing Exposure
and Effect
Dosimetry
Hazard
Identification
r
Inhalation
Studies
r
SARs
r
Pharmacokinetics
r
GAPs
Mathematical Models
for Predicting Target
Dose Across Species
User Friendly Tools for
Weighing Evidence of
a Potential Health
Hazard
Figure 8. Research to Improve Risk Assessment
Chemical Mixtures
Most Superfund sites contain more than one chemical, but typically, toxicity data on mixtures of chemicals at
a site are not available. Consequently, to provide a conservative risk estimate, additivity of health risk posed by the
constituents is assumed. Relatively few data exist to evaluate the validity of the additivity assumption, even within
a particular health endpoint like neurotoxicity, and virtually no data exist to predict the impact of toxicity on an
untested organ system based on its impact on another organ system or from a different chemical. Thus, the focus
of chemical mixtures research in FY90 will be on evaluating the constraints that should be applied to the additivity
assumption, to increase accuracy of Superfund risk assessments.
Two primary approaches apply to determining the constraints that should be applied to the additivity
assumption. The first is an empirical one, in which commonly occurring mixture constituents are tested individually
and in combination using a variety of health endpoints to test the presumption of additivity. The second approach
-65 -
-------
Chemical Mixtures
is more mechanistically based, and depends on developing an understanding of the mechanisms responsible for
biological interactions that may occur between different chemicals or chemical classes.
Alone, each of these approaches has serious limitations that make it unrealistic to expect data of practical utility
within a short time frame. The main limitation of the empirical approach is that the number of possible chemical
mixtures needed to be tested is so large that the approach is not feasible for all mixtures. On the other hand, the
mechanistic approach is at least partially dependent on an understanding of the biological mechanisms of toxicity,
and this understanding has only been partially achieved, and only for certain endpoints. Thus, the approach adopted
by ORD is a hybrid of the empirical and mechanistic approaches, to capitalize on the strengths of each. Regardless
of the approach, addressing questions of mixtures in risk assessment is expected to require modification and further
validation of existing test methodologies. Consequently, an underlying activity in this project is the maintenance
of a small effort to improve the test methods.
While many different chemicals are found at Superfund sites, certain chemicals are found frequently and often
together as pairs. Consequently, ORD will focus its empirical evaluation of the additivity assumption on frequently
occurring chemical pairs and perhaps trios. The evaluation will concentrate on important health endpoints rather
than attempt to screen all possible endpoints. When preliminary tests of the pair-forming chemicals indicate that
there are multiple endpoints, research protocols will be developed that are capable of handling the important
endpoints. A coordinated strategy for linking different test protocols together will be developed to maximize return
on the research dollar. ORD developed an integrated bioassay protocol for acute and subchronic in vivo assessments
of neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, renal (kidney) toxicity, hepatotoxicity (liver toxicity), and general toxicity
in FY89. The protocol is being evaluated while investigating the toxicity of a selected set of Superfund priority
chemicals and will be ready to apply directly to issues of additivity during FY90.
Based on existing data, certain organ systems appear to be more likely targets for biological interactions than
others. The liver is one such organ system for which toxicological-biological interactions have been well described
for some classes of compounds. Many chemicals found at Superfund sites are known to be hepatotoxicants, and
for these reasons, the mechanistic approach to evaluating the additivity assumption will focus initially on
hepatotoxicity. Current efforts are committed to (1) validating an in vitro test of hepatotoxicity against an in vivo
model for predicting biological interactions produced by chemical mixtures; (2) assessing potential interactions
among selected primary contaminants; and (3) determining the mechanisms involved in selected interactions with
an appropriate in vitro model.
Blomarkers
Biomarkers are measures of variations in cellular or biochemical components, processes, structure, or function
that indicate organism exposure, effect, or susceptibility to effect through the detection Generally, biomarkers are
not measures of disease, but if an association between a biomarker and disease is well-validated, the biomarker may
be a good predictor of disease.
Biomarkers are required to evaluate the extent to which actual exposure to hazardous substances may have
already occurred (biomarkers of exposure) and whether biological/health changes have occurred as a consequence
(biomarkers of effect). Their development will provide regional risk assessors with a powerful new tool for more
directly estimating exposure and effect. It will also provide the Agency with an opportunity to leam how to interpret
and use biomarker data, which will be useful since the Agency is likely to be faced with biomarker data that it did
not generate but which it may be asked by the affected community to interpret. Some biomarkers may be readily
- 66 -
-------
Supertund Research Plan
measured and can be made available to risk assessors in the near future. Others, however, will require more
extensive research to resolve fundamental issues before they can reach their full potential as tools for the Superfund
program. This is especially true of genetic biomarkers.
ORD, ATSDR, and NIEHS have active Superfund-funded biomarker research programs, but each addresses
different issues. The ORD biomarker research program's objectives are to: (1) improve understanding of site-
specific human genetic biomarker data for estimating exposures; (2) improve understanding of site-specific human
male reproductive biomarker data for estimating exposures and effects; (3) develop biomarkers of neurotoxic effect
for use at Superfund sites; and (4) provide recommendations for biomarker procedures and interpretation of data
when site-specific epidemiology studies are performed. This program is complemented by the ATSDR program,
which focuses on biomarkers of hepatic, renal, and immunological function, and the NIEHS program, which focuses
on basic research in the development of novel biomarkers for specific kinds of substances.
The approach to achieving these goals includes five major activities: (1) an evaluation of the relationship
between exposure to Superfund chemicals and binding of these chemicals to proteins (hemoglobin adducts) or to
DNA (DNA adducts) in lymphocytes and target tissues, with a subsequent determination of the relationship between
adduct formation and genetic damage in rodents; (2) development of procedures for evaluating protein and DNA
adducts in humans, with particular emphasis on adducts resulting from exposure to chemical mixtures; (3)
measurement of marker levels in humans at baseline, high-dose, and low-dose exposures; (4) validation of
automated measurements of sperm velocity/motility in rodents and validation of recent biochemical measures for
predicting subtle reproductive dysfunction following exposure to Superfund chemicals; and (5) development of
assays to detect markers of neurotoxic damage in rodent brain, and a determination of the feasibility of measuring
these or related markers in blood or urine for eventual application to humans that may be exposed to neurotoxicants
at Superfund sites.
Genetic biomarker research is intended to provide surrogate molecules (DNA or hemoglobin) as primary or
secondary dosimeters of genetically-mediated mutagenic and carcinogenic changes. Adducts were selected because
they can be used to integrate dose over extended time periods and quantify exposure to specific chemicals.
Although progress is being made in the production of genetic biomarkers, their quantification in biological samples
must be improved to an ultratrace level for adequate discrimination of chemical effects. The capability of markers
to predict real and irreversible effects must also be demonstrated. To improve the detection of DNA adducts, ORD
is evaluating new and improved electron-capturing reagents for labeling DNA bases and nucleosides at ultratrace
levels in biological samples and is improving sample preparation techniques. The measurement of DNA adducts
in the blood of exposed organisms is a crucial step in estimating target tissue dose. However, dosimetry studies of
the persistence, half-life, and clearance of adducts will also be conducted to relate adduct levels at a single point in
time to predictions of target dose.
To test the usefulness of genetic biomarkers in quantifying cancer, sister chromatid exchanges, micronuclei,
and DNA adducts will be measured in human and rodent blood lymphocytes exposed to polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbons, common at Superfund sites and as incineration by-products. In another human population, the frequency
of adducts in blood cells will be measured prior to, during, and after breast cancer treatment. Blood samples will
be collected from women with a mass in the breast and from controls with benign disease.
Reproductive biomarker research will target sperm measures, mutagen markers, endocrine function, and inter-
nal dosimetry for predicting effects from exposure to hazardous substances. Sperm velocity/motility was selected
- 67 -
-------
Blomarkers
because it is a known indicator of reproductive health and an acceptable alternative to the lengthy and expensive
multi-generational reproductive screening procedures.
A commercial semen analyzer is being evaluated using rat spermatozoa to determine its accuracy and sensi-
tivity for detecting toxicant-related differences in sperm motility. The analyzer is capable of determining sperm
counts, percent of motile sperm, and sperm velocity over a range of sperm concentrations and collection intervals.
Protocols will be produced and tested for use in assessing toxicant effects on sperm motility. Sperm motility
changes will also be compared with endocrine changes, gonadal organ size, and potential toxicant effects on sperm
maturation. The objective is to provide in vitro methods to monitor sperm maturation during toxic stress by
correlating epididymal cell function and sperm motility. Since subtle changes in sperm maturation can be detected
in the protein function of in vitro epididymal cells, homogeneous epididymal cell cultures are being grown for use
in these tests. Other in vitro tests being investigated include sperm microinjection for assessment of sperm and
odcyte function and cultures of preimplantation embryos.
Some reproductive biomarker research will be conducted on human populations occupational^ exposed to
hazardous substances to validate the predictive capability of biomarkers for human health hazards. Cooperative
agreements for these studies are in place, and experimental protocols have been completed and approved.
Biochemical methods for assessing the functional integrity of the nervous system of toxicant-treated animals
will be evaluated for use as biomarkers. Preliminary studies of several neurotoxic endpoints indicate that
neurotoxicity methodologies most likely to succeed as screens for hazardous wastes are in vivo protein assays that
are specific to the nervous system. Among the variety of proteins that have been selected for study, a glial protein
has shown particular promise. The concentration of this protein significantly increases in experimental animals
exposed to known quantities of neurotoxicants. This and other protein assays will be further refined and evaluated
using a variety of toxic chemicals separately and in selected combinations. The product of this research will be part
of a biochemical testing scheme for characterizing central nervous system neurotoxicity. In the future, ORD will
develop and validate in vitro screens, such as the use of brain slices and tissue cultures to determine the structural
integrity of a toxicant-exposed central nervous system.
Dosimetry
ORD expects to improve the scientific basis of exposure and dose-response estimates in risk assessment by
generating relevant empirical data and constructing mathematical models. Emphasis will be on construction of
physiologically based pharmacokinetic models (dosimetry models) for predicting doses from the inhalation of
hazardous substances.
Superfund risk assessments require estimations of exposure and determinations of dose-response relationships.
While ambient chemical concentration information may be available for air, water, and soil, the critical exposure
data are those that indicate the amount likely to be absorbed and transported to the target tissue (dose). Dosimetry
models are mathematical descriptions of the disposition of a chemical and its metabolites in the body, usually
expressed in experimentally measurable physiological rates and capacities. When properly formulated and tested,
such models can predict dose among species and under untested exposure conditions.
Since dose cannot easily be determined by direct experimentation, dosimetry modeling has become the only
practical means for obtaining such information. As a relatively new science, dosimetry models for dose-response
assessments require pharmacokinetic data and the construction and validation of methodologies.
- 68 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
For a few chemicals, dosimetry models exist for predicting dose in laboratory animals3. However, models for
predicting dose absorbed by inhalation that are based solely on animal exposure data are likely to be inaccurate.
This is due, in part, to significant species and age differences in the respiratory tract. The purpose of the project is
to construct dosimetry models that take airway geometry into account and can be used to make age-appropriate
quantitative predictions of dose delivered to human lung and other tissues for inhaled compounds, including
particle-bound organics. These models should significantly increase the accuracy of risk assessment.
The research approach requires formulation of physical lung and larynx casts and models to represent the air
fluid dynamics of inspiration as it relates to particle distribution and deposition in the airways. Data obtained from
these systems will be used to develop theoretical, mathematical models to characterize airway deposition. Single-
photon-emission computerized tomography (PET) techniques will be used to v alidate the models in vivo. Additional
data will be generated on volatile organic compounds in blood and body tissues and used against the mathematical
models to validate models use inter- and intra-species comparisons.
Hazard Identification
Hazard identification is the first phase of a risk assessment. In this phase, a weight-of-evidence judgment is
rendered on the existence of a potential hazard at a Superfund site. Typically, the judgment about a potential hazard
is based on a subset of existing data for some of the chemicals at the site. Often, however, data are lacking or
difficult to interpret. The objective of this research is to provide user friendly tools for weighing the evidence that
a particular effect might occur when data are lacking or when data are available but are difficult to compare.
This research will develop a similarity index, based on toxicity data from structurally similar chemicals, for
making quantitative predictions of the biological activity of Superfund chemicals, particularly polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). A quantitative structure-activity relationship model of PAH toxicity using current test data
and analyses of structural information will provide a means for using existing toxicity data from structurally related
compounds when data are lacking. Additional research will apply graphic activity profiles (GAPs) to Superfund
priority chemicals and determine the feasibility of expanding the database to include developmental toxicants. This
will provide a user-friendly, computer-based program that graphically presents toxicological data of greatest utility
in predicting human health effects.
Evaluate Health Impact of Cleanup Options
During the FS, consideration must be given to different cleanup options. One option that has potential for many
Superfund sites is incineration. However, emissions from incinerators constitute a form of complex mixture whose
potential toxicity has not been considered. Since emissions from incinerators are truly complex mixtures with many
more constituents than can be monitored readily, alternative strategies must be used for evaluating their potential
health impact. A strategy recommended by the National Academy of Sciences for estimating the toxicity of
incinerator emissions is the comparative potency approach (Figure 9).
The comparative potency approach for Superfund compares the effects of a number of different substances
(or mixtures) based on the outcome of a restricted series of bioassays, principally mutagenicity bioassays. Gas or
Physiologically based phaimacokinetic models that accounted for differences in metabolic rates and saturation levels
between humans and rodents were used in 1987 to update EPA's risk assessment document for dichloromethane (methylene
chloride).
- 69 -
-------
Evaluate Health Impact of Cleanup Options
liquid chromatography is used to separate (fractionate) and quantify chemicals in the emissions, and bioassays are
used to identify biological activity. The choice of mutagenicity bioassays is based on some evidence supporting
the assumption that if the relative potency of different carcinogens in different bioassay systems is constant, then
the mutagenicity produced by a particular emissions mixture may be related to human cancer potency. The
comparative potency approach has been applied to emissions from other combustion sources like diesel exhaust and
wood stoves. The purpose of this project is to evaluate its utility for characterizing the potential toxicity of
hazardous waste incinerator emissions.
Hazardous
Waste
Incinerator
Emissions
r
Comparative
Potency
Approach
Characterization of
Potential Toxicity
Figure 9. Research to Evaluate Health Impact of Cleanup Options
Since incinerator emissions are known to contain substances that are not readily detected by conventional
mutagenicity assays (such as chlorinated organic compounds), new bioassays capable of detecting the mutagenicity
of these compounds are being developed and validated. They will be used to compare the mutagenic potential of
the hazardous waste incinerator emissions with the toxicity of emissions from residential heating sources. In order
to relate mutagenicity and carcinogenicity data, organic extracts of incinerator emissions will be evaluated for their
ability to initiate mouse skin tumors. Bioassay-directed fractionation techniques are being developed and will be
applied to the problem of identifying the most active constituents in emissions.
Develop Test Methods for Post-Closure Biomonitoring
Many Superfund sites will require periodic post-closure reviews to determine the potential of residual toxicity.
For this reason, a simple, short-term bioassay will be evaluated for use as a sentinel surveillance system at closed
sites (Figure 10). Based on the present state of bioassay development, the tests most likely to be available within
the next few years are those of genetic toxicity. Since animal genetic studies are expensive, in situ plant assays are
being evaluated as potential surrogates for on-site animal studies of genetic toxicity.
Closed
Sites
r
Surveillance with
Plant Assays
(Potential Surrogates
for Animals)
Monitoring Potential
Residual Toxicity
Figure 10. Research to Test Methods for Post-Closure Biomonitoring
-70 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Two species of yellow and green maize (Zed) plants will be used to measure gene mutation, and tradescantia
and vicia plants will be used to measure chromosome aberrations at test and control sites. The validation of the
tradescantia and vicia plant assays are already underway with chemicals frequently found at hazardous waste sites.
A national workshop was convened to assess the current status of in situ monitoring and to help chart the future
course of the project Next steps include performing on-site studies at selected sites before and after cleanup and
relating in situ data to laboratory-derived data on the same samples. Future steps include evaluating the feasibility
of developing animal in situ models as well.
Advanced Reid Screening Technology
To meet the need to replace costly and time-intensive laboratory analyses now used to detect Superfund site
contaminants, several emerging technologies that can quantify on-site contaminants and provide rapid results are
being evaluated (Figure 11). The emphasis is on highly sensitive, in situ methods using portable instrumentation,
including remote sensing techniques. In situ screening provides almost immediate results and is less expensive
than laboratory-based sampling approaches that require off-site removal of hazardous substances.
Field Sampling
and Analytical
Technologies
and Protocols
Sensitive, Reliable,
Rapid, and Portable
' Field Methods
Evaluation,
Modification,
and Validation
Figure 11. Research to Evaluate Detection Technology
Available field sampling and analytical instruments are primarily designed to detect vaporized chemicals and
do not provide the specificity required by the Superfund program for exposure estimates. Technologies for
Superfund need to be applicable to solid, liquid, and vapor media; sufficiently sensitive to accurately resolve
concentrations of chemicals against typical environmental backgrounds; capable of rapid qualitative and quantitative
analysis; easily deployable; reliable under field conditions; and affordable. The quality of exposure estimates for
risk assessment depends on the accuracy of contaminant concentration measured in the ambient environment. The
Agency has identified a number of emerging technologies that appear capable, with modification, of meeting all
of these needs.
New technologies include a prototype, field-portable, XRF system for heavy metal screening; field portable gas
chromatography; fiber-optic and related sensors (primarily utilized for in situ ground-water monitoring); soil gas
methods; canister-based field sampling methods for detection of volatile organics; immunoassays; and portable
Fourier-transformed infrared (FTIR) spectrometry. Additional methods based on photoacoustic spectroscopy,
developed for military use, and ion mobility spectrometry also show promise. Multi-sensor arrays coupled with
multivariant pattern recognition techniques, thermal or laser desorption gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, and
multi-detector gas chromatography also are possibilities. To more fully characterize the biological activity of
complex environmental samples, chromatography and other field screening techniques can be coupled with
bioassays and biomarkers of genotoxicity.
-71 -
-------
Advanced Field Screening Technology
Modified XRF systems will provide EPA with field portable, in situ, heavy metal detectors that can identify
high concentrations of copper, zinc, and lead in soil. These systems, which do not require sampling, analyze
approximate metal concentrations quickly enough for site managers to know at the end of each day exactly where
the next day's cleanup should be directed.
Chromatography is used to separate and quantify toxicants. Chromatographic processes are based on the
absorption, adsorption, ion-exchange, or size properties of materials in a column used to separate and quantify
toxicants. The mobile phase in the column, which may be gas or liquid, generally contains the solvent used for
separation. Advances in column technology have revolutionized detection of toxicants in complex mixtures. Recent
advances in detector technology have increased the number of detectors available for identifying the specific
compounds swept through the column by the mobile phase.
Gas-liquid chromatography is the method most commonly used for quantifying organic toxicants. A field
portable unit is being evaluated for use at Superfund sites. In the meantime, ORD is trying to bring into immediate
use a gas chromatograph that contains flame ionization and electron-capture detectors to rapidly detect volatile
organic compounds. The chromatograph, which is not yet portable, will be used in conjunction with canister-based
air samplers. Work continues on a remote air monitoring capability using FTIR systems and on other forms of
chromatography needed to identify a variety of different compounds.
Mass spectrometry is often coupled to Chromatographic systems to provide a highly sensitive detection method.
When chromatography and mass spectrometry are used together, a portion of the toxicants separated by
chromatography pass into a mass spectrometer, where it is bombarded by an electron beam. Ions separated by the
beam are accelerated through a magnetic field where they are identified by their response to the gravity induced
by the magnetic field. Computers are used to analyze their response and to compare the results to a library of
patterns characteristic of known molecules.
Remote, in situ detection and quantification of a variety of contaminants in water-related media is now possible
using fiber optics coupled to a laser fluorimeter. The system eliminates the need for sampling and provides near-
real-time measurements of trace concentrations of contaminants underground or at remote locations up to 500 meters
from the analyzer. When light from the laser impinges on a contaminant molecule or atom, the light is absorbed.
As the molecule or atom loses its excitation energy, it emits radiation, a process called "fluorescence." This
fluorescent energy is returned through the fiber to a remote location where it is detected and analyzed using
computers. Optical fibers and a laser to provide a source of high-energy light, yield near-maximal sensitivity.
The field screening program relies on a competitive solicitation process to identify potential technologies and
conduct applied research for the adaptation of selected technologies. Limited EPA resources are extended by
establishing partnerships with the private sector and other federal agencies. For example, the cost of developing
the XRF was borne by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration and EPA. The private sector is taking
on much of the cost of developing immunoassays such as monoclonal antibodies, which are applicable to the
detection of a wide range of hazardous substances.
Advanced field screening technology research products include improved field portable in situ technologies,
standardized field sampling protocols, and preliminary performance evaluation reports. When sufficiently
developed, technologies may be recommended for demonstration in the SITE program and the preparation of
procedures and guidance documents for their use.
- 72 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
SARA divides the responsibilities for conducting Superfund health research among three agencies—EPA,
ATSDR, and NIEHS. Each provides important, complementary health information to the Superfund program.
SARA requires that the agencies coordinate research with programs under other legislative mandates and with each
other to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure completion of their responsibilities. Senior managers and scientific
staff of ATSDR, NIEHS, and EPA meet regularly to coordinate their respective activities.
ATSDR's principal research responsibilities under SARA include preparation of health assessments, toxico-
logical profiles, a national registry of serious diseases and illnesses, a national registry of persons exposed to toxic
substances, health advisories, and health consultations in emergencies. Toxicological profiles on each of
approximately 275 substances commonly found at sites on the National Priorities List are required under §104 of
SARA. They include an evaluation of available lexicological and epidemiologic information on specific hazardous
substances, and will be used, in part, to determine whether new lexicological and exposure research is needed and
as input to ATSDR's health assessments for NPL sites. As a result of EPA's experience in toxicology and risk
assessment, the Agency is assisting ATSDR by producing the first 25 toxicological profiles. EPA expects to be
involved in the preparation and update of additional profiles.
NIEHS supports a basic research program in epidemiologic and ecologic studies. This includes advanced
techniques for the detection, assessment, and evaluation of the effects of hazardous substances on human health;
methods to assess risks to human health presented by hazardous substances; methods and technologies to detect
hazardous substances in the environment; and basic biological, chemical, and physical methods to reduce the amount
and toxicity of hazardous substances. Although the NIEHS Superfund research program is not directed toward the
responsibilities that drive much of EPA's research (risk assessment, cleanup, and regulations), cooperation between
the two agencies is routine.
MAJOR DELIVERABLES
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Field Screening Methods. Due 2/89.
Draft Report on Evaluation of Uncertainties in Pharmacokinetic Models. Due 3/89.
Report Comparing Monitoring Data and Computer Modeling at Five NPL Sites. Due 5/89.
Interim Report on In vitro to In vivo Extrapolation, Metabolic Parameters. Due 10/89.
Report on Adaption of Prototype Data Telemet/Locator System to Portable X-ray Analyzer. Due 12/89.
Final Report on Portable X-ray Fluorescence for Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites. Due 12/89.
Annual Report on Markers and Dosimetry Research Activities for Exposure Monitoring. Due 12/89.
Report on Portable X-Ray Fluorescence for Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites. Due 12/89.
- 73 -
-------
Major Dellverables
StatisticalMethods for Integrating BiologicalMonitoring Data into Public Health Evaluation and Quantitative Risk
Assessments. Due 1/90.
Report on Mutagenicity ofSuperfund Chemicals, Including Chlorinated Compounds Found at SuperfundSites. Due
5/90.
Report on Dermal-Absorption Pharmacokinetic Model. Due 6/90.
Genetic Activity Profiles on Hazardous Substances Listed Under SARA §110 and Toxicity Information for SARA
Title III. Due 6/90.
Report on Chemical Mixture Interactions Between Ground-Water Contaminants. Due 7/90.
Final Report on Multiple-Compound Pharmacokinetic Modeling. Due 9/90.
Quantitative Dosimetric Models for Inhaled Compounds to Refine Exposure/Dose Assessment Animal-to-Man
Extrapolation Models. Due 10/90.
Report on Hemoglobin Adduct Bioassayfor Use in Assessments of Human Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals at
Superfund Sites. Due 10/90.
Report on the Use of Integrated Bioassay Testing Protocols in Hazard Assessments ofSuperfund Sites. Due 11/90.
Report on Two-Tiered Testing Strategy for Using Nervous System-Specific Proteins as Biomarkers ofNeurotoxicity.
Due 12/90.
Artificial Intelligence SAR Computer Program Based on Chemical Similarity Measures that Can Estimate Relative
Toxicity within Classes ofSuperfund Chemicals. Due 8/91.
Detailed Report to Characterize Mutagenic and Cancer Health Effects oflncinerator Emissions and Residuals. Due
9/91.
Report on Comparative Metabolism of Selected Site-Specific Chemicals for Exposure/Dose Assessment Extrapo-
lation Methods. Due 9/91.
Report on Utility of Sperm Quality as an Endpointfor Predicting Reproductive Impairment and for Validating
Additional Biomarkers Used in Reproductive Hazard Identification. Due 9/91.
Report on Methods to Quantitate Internal Human Dose from Exposure to Superfund Chemicals for Risk Assessment.
Due 10/91.
Report Evaluating Methods for Detecting Genetic Damage Directly in Humans Applicable to Biochemical
Epidemiologic Studies ofSuperfund Chemicals or Superfund Sites. Due 10/91.
Report on Sentinel Surveillance Methods for Hazard Identification at Uncontrolled Industrial Waste Sites. Due
12/91.
- 74 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
OSWER is responsible for implementing laws designed to
mitigate or prevent environmental pollution. Central to the execu-
tion of its responsibility is the availability of reliable, high-quality
scientific and technical information. Recognizing that some of the
information needed to address current or emerging problems is not
available, Congress has enacted legislation to authorize EPA
funding of university-based basic research programs that support
OERR's mission.
Section 31 l(d) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to establish five
to ten University Hazardous Substance Research Centers
(HSRCs), whose mission is to conduct long-term and short-term
research, training, and technology transfer on problems in the
manufacture, disposal, and management of hazardous substances
that are crucial to the specific geographic area served by each
Center.
In 1980, EPA initiated a research grants program within the
Office of Exploratory Research (OER) to provide support for
long-term university research in areas relevant to its regulatory
mission. With the enactment of SARA, the exploratory research
program was expanded in 1987 to include grants for Superfund-
related basic research. CERCLA §311(c) explicitly authorizes
grants for the detection of hazardous substances in the environ-
ment and the evaluation and assessment of the effects and risks
posed to human health.
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH APPROACH
Recognizing that some fundamental
information needed to fulfill OERR's
mission is not available, Congress has
enacted legislation to authorize EPA
funding of university research centers
and university research grants.' EPA has
established five University Hazardous
Substance Research Centers. Lead
institutions are the New Jersey Insti-
tute of Technology, Kansas State Uni*
versity, University of Michigan, North
Carolina State University, and Stan-
ford University, Each Center per-
forms innovative long-term research
and technology transfer activities re-
lated to the manufacture, use, trans-
portation, and management of hazar-
dous substances. EPA's competitive
university research grants program is
intended to expand the scientific basis
for solving Superfund program needs
and to maintain strong ties to the aca-
demic community. Grants are selec-
ted on the basis of technical merit,
potential relevance to EPA research
needs, and contribution to a balanced
research program. The grants stimu-
late university scientists to work on
EPA's technical problems, comple-
ment existing EPA programs, and
provide a stronger creative base for
mission-oriented research needed for
EPA's regulatory and enforcement
programs.
EPA has established five University Hazardous Substance
Research Centers and a competitive grants program to expand the scientific basis for solving Superfund program
needs and to maintain strong ties to the academic community. Grants are an important means by which EPA funds
research on relevant environmental topics in the academic sector.
University Hazardous Substance Research Centers
The purpose of the Hazardous Substance Research Centers is to conduct research and training related to the
manufacture, use, transportation, and management of hazardous substances. Each Center performs innovative
long-term research and technology transfer activities relating to key hazardous substance problems experienced
by the Regions served by the Center. The Centers combine leading-edge research with a familiarity and concern
for grassroots needs. Under the statute, the federal share of a grant cannot exceed 80 percent of the costs of
- 75 -
-------
University Hazardous Substance Research Centers
establishing and operating the Center and conducting research activities by the grant recipient. Grant funds cannot
be used in the acquisition of real property or construction of any building.
In March, 1988, EPA published a solicitation to seek proposals for the establishment of five university-based
Hazardous Substance Research Centers. The solicitation specified that academic institutions with significant
research and training programs in areas relating to hazardous substances were invited to submit proposals. The
solicitation also specified that competing universities would have to be located in the geographical region that they
proposed to serve. Thirty-three proposals representing 96 universities and colleges were received by the closing
date of June 27, 1988. To comply with authorization language and to facilitate Regional interaction with the
Centers, ORD partitioned the country into five pairs of EPA Regions (Figure 12).
Kansas State University
(Regions 7&8)
University of Michigan
(Regions 3&5)
Stanford University
(Regions 9 & 10)
\
New Jersey
Institute of
Technology
(Regions 1 & 2)
North Carolina
State University
(Regions 4 & 6)
Figure 12. Superfund Hazardous Substance Research Centers
Five separate peer-review panels composed of technical experts from outside the Agency were convened to
select the HSRCs for each pair of Regions. The selected universities and their expected research emphases are:
» The New Jersey Institute of Technology will be the lead institution for Regions 1 and 2. Other institutions in
the consortium are Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, Rutgers University, Stevens
Institute of Technology, Tufts University, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. This
Center will emphasize soil and ground-water treatment technologies and thermal destruction of solid wastes.
-76 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
» The University of Michigan will be the lead institution for Regions 3 and 5. Other institutions in the consortium
are Michigan State University and Howard University. This Center will concentrate on bioengineering and the
microbial treatment of contaminated aquifers and soils.
» North Carolina State University will be the lead institution for Regions 4 and 6. Other institutions in the con-
sortium are the University of North Carolina and Texas A&M. This Center will emphasize waste minimiza-
tion.
* Kansas State University will be the lead institution for Regions 7 and 8. Other institutions in the consortium
are Montana State University, University of Iowa, University of Missouri, University of Montana, University
of Nebraska, and the University of Utah. This Center will feature treatment of metal mining, agricultural, and
organic wastes.
4 Stanford University will be the lead institution for Regions 9 and 10, with support from Oregon State University.
This Center will stress bioremediation.
Each Center has a Science Advisory Committee that will meet twice annually to advise the Center director on
areas of research and to review current and proposed research projects for technical soundness, innovation, and
relevance to the Center's mission. The committee consists of technically qualified individuals from EPA, academia,
industry, and state and local regulatory agencies.
Each Center also has a Training and Technology Transfer Advisory Committee that will meet once a year.
The committee includes representatives from OSWER, Regional offices, ORD's Office of Technology Transfer
and Regulatory Support, ORD laboratories, industry, and state and local regulatory agencies. All Centers will
provide training and technology transfer up to a level of 15 percent of their funds.
Each Center is required to submit an annual report of its progress to EPA, which will include a listing of all
peer-reviewed publications and other materials published during the year, training courses given, symposia and
workshops sponsored, and any other significant accomplishments. To ensure adequate oversight of the direction
and accomplishments of the HSRCs, the Hazardous Waste/Superfund Research Committee will periodically conduct
program reviews of each HSRC program.
The Centers will coordinate among themselves as well as with other organizations engaged in similar activities,
including the Hazardous Waste Research Center at Louisiana State University (one of eight EPA-sponsored
Environmental Research Centers), the Center for Intermedia Transport Research at UCLA, and the National Science
Foundation Hazardous Waste Center at UCLA. Coordination of their programs will be guided by the Office of
Exploratory Research to ensure efficient development and delivery of appropriate research results and technology
and improved training of personnel engaged in the management and handling of hazardous substances. An
estimated 100 articles will be published annually in peer-reviewed journals and over 20 training courses will be
conducted. Numerous activities will be carried out to transfer technology to the academic community, private
sector, state and local agencies, and the public.
University Research Grants
As a part of its long-term research effort, ORD established the research grants program within the Office of
Exploratory Research in 1980 and began issuing Superfund-related grants in 1987. The objectives of this program
- 77 -
-------
University Research Grants
are to develop an effective means to stimulate university scientists to work on EPA's technical problems,
complement existing EPA programs, and provide a stronger creative base for mission-oriented research needed for
EPA's regulatory and enforcement programs. This program is an important part of an overall multidisciplinary
research program to address health, environmental, and engineering issues associated with hazardous substances.
Researcher-initiated grant applications are received in response to an annual general solicitation and special
thematic solicitations called Requests for Applications (RFAs). The RFA is a mechanism by which proposals are
solicited for a one-time competition in a narrowly defined, high-priority research area. Grants from both
mechanisms are selected on the basis of technical merit, potential relevance to EPA research needs, and contribu-
tion to a balanced research program.
The grants selection process uses a dual system of review. Ad hoc panels, comprised of at least three scientists
or engineers from the relevant field, meet to review each proposal. Applications that pass the scientific panel review
are then evaluated by EPA staff for their relevance to EPA's mission. The combined recommendations are ranked
and the grants are awarded until available funds are exhausted.
The FY89 general solicitation seeks proposals for research in the following general program areas. Every
scientifically meritorious proposal will be considered even if does not fall within these program areas, however,
all proposals selected for funding must be relevant to EPA's mission.
* Environmental Biology. The major objective of the environmental biology research program is to provide a
scientific basis upon which the Agency can make decisions concerning human health effects and risk assess-
ments. The principle concern is to determine whether, and to what extent, exposure to various environmental
pollutants contribute to health risks. Areas of interest include models and methodologies for predicting human
health effects and risk assessment in human populations.
* Environmental Health. The environmental biology research program supports a broad range of research in the
areas of risk assessment, ecosystem structure and function, toxicology, biotechnology, and degradation
processes. The program seeks information that, in combination with exposure data, allows the prediction of
the environmental risk of pollutants on individual organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems. Areas
of interest include risk assessment, ecosystem structure and function, toxicological effect studies on chemical
reactions and their rates, and the physics of the movement of pollutants in air, water, and soil. The resulting
tools and information will allow the estimation of total exposures needed for risk assessments. Areas of interest
in air pollution research include exposure monitoring systems and advanced analytical methods, transport and
fate studies, and modeling studies. Areas of interest in research on pollution of fresh, marine, and estuarine
waters, soils, ground waters, and sediments include transport and fate studies, monitoring systems, and
analytical measurements.
* Environmental Engineering. The environmental engineering research program supports fundamental research
needed to provide solutions to pollution control problems outside the scope of the Agency's response-directed
research program. New, innovative toxic substances control and waste management techniques are sought to
provide cost-effective advanced multi-media pollution control technologies. Areas of interest include proof-
of-concept research in high-risk, high-potential technical areas, pilot-scale evaluation and cost performance
testing of innovative technologies, and fundamental thermal destruction/combustion research leading to less
pollutant production and to better incineration of hazardous wastes.
- 78 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
* Environmental Air/Water Chemistry and Physics. The environmental air/water chemistry and physics research
program supports research leading to the basic scientific tools for establishing the levels at which pollutants
occur or might occur in the environment. The program includes projects in analytical chemistry, studies on
chemical reactions and their rates, and the physics of the movement of pollutants in air, water, and soil. The
resulting tools and information will allow the estimation of total exposures needed for risk assessments. Areas
of interest in air pollution research include exposure monitoring systems and advanced analytical methods,
transport and fate studies, and modeling studies. Areas of interest in research on pollution of fresh, marine, and
estuarine waters, soils, ground waters, and sediments include transport and fate studies, monitoring systems,
and analytical measurements.
In addition to the general annual solicitation, when the Agency wants to explore a new research area and
existing Agency research efforts are minimal, applications are sought through the more narrowly defined RFAs.
These are limited to non-profit research organizations and educational institutions. Five to ten, two-year research
agreements are usually awarded.
While a specific research theme has not yet been chosen for the FY89 RFA, it is anticipated that one will be
issued inMarch, 1989. The most probable candidate is in situ treatment of hazardous wastes, which was also issued
in FY88. The FY88 RFA solicited proposals for the development of innovative cost-effective methods for the in
situ treatment of hazardous wastes. Treatment includes the degradation of wastes, but not their immobilization.
Biological techniques that use genetically engineered microorganisms were not included because special clearances
are required. In situ technologies must meet the following requirements to be considered for a grant:
* The net result of the technology must be the degradation of contaminants to reduce their toxicity and
concentration in soil and ground water. Processes in which the net result is to transfer contaminants between
media or to immobilize a contaminant within a single phase are not acceptable.
» Providing the technology meets the first criteria, efforts that improve only a portion of the overall process are
acceptable, such as improving mass transfer or the reaction steps that limit a particular process.
» In all technologies to be considered, the soil phase must remain in place, although mechanical devices that
promote local mixing of the soil may be incorporated in the process.
* Processes that add chemical and biological agents to the ground water or that remove products of subsurface
degradation at the surface are permissible as long as all degradation processes occur on site in the upper surface
of the soil, vadose zone, or ground water.
* On-site or pump-and-treat processes where pollutants are treated or removed from contaminated water or air
after being brought to the surface are not acceptable.
The proposed research must do more than merely demonstrate a particular technology that is already being
applied. Efforts should be made to extend the application to other types of soil or to mixtures of wastes where a
technology has previously been successfully demonstrated with single contaminants. Methods for treatment of
complex mixed wastes, including those that are relatively insoluble, are of particular interest. In situ treatment
technologies can include chemical detoxification, electrochemical decomposition, physical methods for subsurface
mixing, biotreatment methods, reagent delivery systems, and reaction product recovery systems.
- 79 -
-------
University Research Grants
The FY88 in situ treatment RFA resulted in the award of eight research grants:
* Characterizing and Modifying Important Properties ofAnion-Exchange Resins for Selective Removal of Toxic
Anions.
* Enhanced Bioremediation of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants in Soil/Water Systems through Addition of
Solubilizing Agents.
4 Optimization of In Situ Biodegradability of Subsurface Soil Contaminants.
* Promoting In Situ Dechlorination of Aromatic Compounds through Catalysis by Extracellular Enzymes.
4 Anaerobic Microbial Transformation ofHomocyclic and Heterocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated
Benzenes, and Mixtures, and the Relevance to Bioreclamation.
4 In Situ Biodegradation of Hazardous Chemicals Enhanced by Chemical Oxidation.
4 In Situ Treatment of Trichloroethylene-Contaminated Ground Water.
4 Lysimeter Control of Aerobic Biodegradation in the Vadose Zone.
MAJOR DELIVERABLES
Annual reports on Hazardous Substance Research Center and competitive grant research and activities will be
prepared at the end of each fiscal year. The publications and other outputs of the HSRCs and grantees will be
available through the Office of Exploratory Research and the university researchers.
- 80 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
RESEARCH PLANNING PROCESS AND RESOURCES
Total resources for conducting the Superfund research program in FY89 will be $72.97 million and 102.8 FTEs.
Planning and budgeting this research requires extremely close cooperation and working relationships between ORD
and OSWER senior managers and technical staff. This need is met through a combination of formal and informal
interactions with OSWER and Regional managers and technical staff.
RESEARCH COMMITTEE
The Hazardous Waste/Superfund Research Committee (Figure 13) is an advisory committee to the Assistant
Administrator for ORD and is jointly chaired by Office Directors representing both ORD and OSWER. Its role
is to direct research activities to meet priority needs of the Superfund program. It is responsible for reviewing the
hazardous waste and Superfund research programs, determining whether high-priority researchneeds are being met,
negotiating research approaches to best meet identified needs, and recommending resource allocations to the ORD
Assistant Administrator. Three standing subcommittees, Superfund Research, Hazardous Waste Research, and
Technology Transfer, are also jointly chaired by ORD and OSWER personnel. The Superfund research program
is primarily coordinated by the ORD and OSWER co-chairs of the Superfund Research Subcommittee, although
the Hazardous Waste and Technology Transfer Subcommittees are responsible for integrating hazardous waste
research and technology transfer programs, respectively, with Superfund research. Designated Regional
representatives participate in the Research Committee and Subcommittee planning process through attendance at
meetings, teleconferencing and use of the OSWER Electronic Bulletin Board to exchange information.
Research Needs
Research Plans
Regions
OSWER
Hazardous Waste/
Superfund
Research
Committee
Superfund
Subcommittee
RCRA
Subcommittee
Technology
Transfer
Subcommittee
ORD
Figure 13. Hazardous Waste/Superfund Research Committee
- 81 -
-------
Research Committee
Work groups composed of ORD, OSWER, and Regional representatives under each Subcommittee negotiate
research priorities and programs at the staff level and narrow down those issues that must be brought before the
Subcommittees or the full Committee for decisions that often involve tradeoffs from one research area to another,
higher-priority area. Historically, the work group organization paralleled the research budget issues. However, this
is not required, and the Superfund Subcommittee restructured its work groups early in FY88 to enhance cross-
office communicationsi
The Research Committee, Subcommittees, and work groups provide the organizational structure, senior
management oversight, and technical expertise to manage year-round coordination of Superfund research. ORD's
Superfund research programs are guided by a combination of an annual, formal, Research Committee process and
informal input from OSWER and the Regions throughout the year. The Superfund work groups have the day-to-
day responsibility to ensure that program office priorities are factored into research plans; extramural resource
allocations reflect priorities; research results are conveyed to the program and Regional offices in a timely manner,
technical issues between ORD offices, laboratories, and Program offices are resolved expeditiously; and ongoing
research projects reflect expectations and priorities. Generally, technical issues and priorities are resolved at the
work group level. Potential deviations from Committee agreements approved by the Subcommittee co-chairs are
submitted in writing to the Committee co-chairs for approval. The applicable ORD office directors and ORD's
Office of Research Program Management (ORPM) are also involved.
The Technology Transfer Subcommittee is responsible for recommending priorities for technology transfer
activities funded through the Committee, which include integrated technology transfer programs for Superfund,
hazardous waste, enforcement, and underground storage tanks. Within the constraints placed on the use of Trust
Fund monies, the Technology Transfer Subcommittee encourages activities that address several program needs
using the same resources. In addition, the Technology Transfer Subcommittee serves as an advisory body to
OSWER, setting priorities for program office resources. Since the Technology Transfer Subcommittee has
representatives from most of the ten EPA Regions, it provides an excellent vehicle for directly addressing Regional
needs.
CONTINUING OVERSIGHT
To ensure continuing oversight by senior managers and quality technical analyses used in decision making,
EPA has expanded its formal and informal research program reviews. The Research Committee conducts three
to four research program reviews each year that include ORD representatives to inform senior OSWER managers
of the progress of the research program. ORD conducts laboratory reviews each year encompassing the entire ORD
research program to ensure headquarters review of research progress and to foster improved communication between
laboratory and headquarters technical staff. Special mid-year research program reviews are conducted by the
Technology Transfer and Superfund Research Subcommittees, including both ORD and OERR managers, for high-
priority program areas such as health and risk research, technical support, and ground-water research. In addition
to these internal EPA reviews, ORD offices and laboratories invite peer reviews by scientists and engineers from
universities and other federal agencies to ensure the scientific credibility of its research projects.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB), established by the Environmental Research, Development, and Demon-
stration Authorization Act Amendments of 1978, is the principal independent advisory board used by EPA's
Administrator to obtain outside advice on the scientific aspects of important public health and environmental issues.
- 82 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Many ORD programs have been referred to the SAB for scientific review, and the Board has been instrumental in
shaping specific research programs and initiatives that support major Agency decisions.
RESEARCH PROJECT TRACKING
OSWER needs to be informed of progress and interim results of ongoing research to plan its own regulatory
and enforcement agenda and to ensure that field office staffs have the most current information available. In
response to this need, ORD and OERR instituted a joint Superfund Research Program Tracking System in 1987.
Its key elements are the development of a project database, identification of ORD contacts, and the involvement
of OSWER project monitors—technical staff responsible for regularly reviewing progress of the Superfund research
projects. The tracking system presents OSWER with the opportunity to exert some influence on the direction and
progress of research.
Information on the scope of program activities and specific deliverables is provided to OSWER at the beginning
of each fiscal year. OERR managers provide comments on whether these documents reflect the research agreed to
in Research Committee deliberations. ORD provides quarterly reports to OSWER to indicate the status of activities
and deliverables. The Quarterly Reports include at least one interim milestone in the current year for all deliverables
listed for completion in subsequent years. Quarterly Reports also explicitly state the completion and delivery dates
of any products due during the reporting period. ORD's Program Coordination Staff has primary responsibility for
coordinating the compilation of status reports and making sure the reports are prepared in an accurate manner and
delivered in a timely fashion. The ORD Superfund Subcommittee work group members ensure that any significant
redirections in schedules, products, or resources that ORD must consider during the year are immediately
communicated to OSWER and coordinated as they occur.
OSWER's project monitors are responsible for keeping abreast of the status of activities in the Superfund
research program for the program office. The project monitors are in continued contact with ORD Program Element
Coordinators and selected laboratory personnel to discuss the research and suggest additional products that would
ensure greater program support. OSWER project monitors brief OERR's Deputy Director on significant activities
and any problems that have been brought to their attention, which allows ORD and OSWER senior management
to negotiate problems as they arise.
The success of the system depends on the quality and completeness of the reports, oversight and monitoring
of the tracking process, and good follow-up by ORD offices when issues arise within the research program. Senior
managers of the Superfund program rely heavily on this process to maintain an awareness of the content of the
Superfund research program and its progress.
SUMMARY OF RESOURCES
ORD resources for FY89 Superfund research are summarized in the following four figures. Figures 15 and 16
present the total dollars and FTEs planned within ORD's eight broad technical issues (unshaded areas in Figure 14).
The total dollars include Research and Development (R&D) resources and Salaries and Equipment (S&E) resources.
Figures 17 and 18 present the total dollars and FTEs planned within ORD's four major research program areas
(shaded areas in Figure 14). Figure 19 presents a historical overview of ORD research funding within the eight
technical issues over the period 1981 through 1989.
- 83 -
-------
Summary of Resources
Technical
Support
Field
Procedures
and
Guidance
^
Development
and
Evaluation
' . " =
Fundamental
Research
Quality Assurance for Field Sampling and Laboratory Analysis
Technical Assistance at Specific Sites
Manuals and Training Seminars
Field Methods for Superfund Site Assessment and Cleanup
Health Effects,
Risk Assessment,
and Detection
Techniques
Superfund
Innovative
Technology
Evaluation
Program
(SITE)
Performance of
Treatment
Technologies
University Centers and Grants
Figure 14. Overview of ORD Superfund research program
(reproduced from Introduction).
RESOURCE CHANGES FOR FY90
Administrator William K. Reilly commissioned an internal Management Review of the Superfund Program,
which was completed within three months of his confirmation in the Spring of 1989. This "90-Day Study" sets forth
a comprehensive, long-term strategy for the Superfund program. Several key findings and recommendations deal
with pressing needs for enhanced technical information and support to EPA field personnel—primarily Remedial
Project Managers. While many of these needs were already recognized by Superfund and ORD management, and
some initiatives were underway to respond to them, this review accelerated some of the initiatives from the FY91
planning year into FY90.
A key role for ORD's support to the Superfund program is hands-on, site-specific technical assistance and
consulting. In response to the Administrator's "90-Day Study", ORD's Superfund research program received a one-
time, above-base enhancement of $1.1 million to be obligated during FY90 and FY91, and a permanent increase
of 25.5 FTEs (plus the associated salary and benefits resources). These enhancements were allocated as follows:
* Accelerated or enhanced research on bioassessment protocols and biodegradation and assistance to EPA Regions
on a number of ecological risk assessments ($0.7 million).
» Accelerated work on expert systems designed to assist Regional field personnel and managers in making
technical decisions. There will also be a companion program to the SITE effort to evaluate actual cleanup
projects that have used treatment technologies in novel ways ($4.9 million).
- 84-
-------
Supertund Research Plan
» A Super-fund Technical Assistance Remedial Technology (START) program to provide engineering and
technical assistance to Regions on selected highly complex sites on a continuing basis. In addition, ORD will
conduct waste-treatability studies for Regions on request in order to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency
of alternative remedial approaches ($3.7 million plus 15 FTEs).
» Health effects assessments, reportable quantity methods and adjustments for newly listed substances, hazardous
substances, chronic toxicity, and carcinogenicity of lead compounds ($0.3 million).
» Inexpensive, rapid field-portable screening and sampling equipment and methods development, and evaluation
of promising commercial systems for conversion to Superfund requirements ($0.8 million).
* A Superfund Technical Liaison Program is placing an ORD scientist on the staff of each Regional program to
ensure continuous coordination with laboratories and assistance to Regions in identifying ORD expertise for
assistance in the field ($0.7 million plus three FTEs).
* The Superfund Technical Support Centers at four ORD laboratories have received 7.5 additional FTEs for on-
going technical assistance activities.
Aside from these special enhancements, ORD base resources for FY90 are essentially equivalent to FY89.
However, there are three significant differences between the FY89 budget and the FY90 base budget presented in
Figures 15-18:
» The Safety Procedures and Equipment program, within Field Procedures and Guidance, is being phased out.
EPA and Superfund contractors obtain equipment from commercial vendors who meet existing standards. With
the development and promulgation of clothing and equipment standards, EPA believes that the continued
development and innovation of equipment is best left to the private sector and to federal or state agencies that
regulate worker safety. Approximately $700 thousand is being redirected from this topic to fund start-up costs
for the Environmental Test and Evaluation Center ("E-TEC"; formerly the Test and Evaluation Facility).
» The resources for University Centers and Grants in FY89 ($14,049,500) include a $5 million carryover from
FY88 for the Superfund Hazardous Substance Research Centers. This carryover is not reflected in the FY90
President's budget, which therefore shows a reduction for University Centers and Grants.
* Small increases in Expert Systems and Field Sampling Quality Assurance, accomplished by an internal
reallocation of funds, which do not affect resource totals.
Actual funding levels for ORD research are dependent upon Congressional appropriations. As this document
was completed, representatives from ORD and OS WER were reviewing priorities and preparing recommendations
to ORD's Assistant Administrator to carry forward through FY91, and identifying gaps and issues to initiate
planning for FY92. This document will be updated and revised over the following year to address these subsequent
years of Superfund research.
- 85 -
-------
Summary of Resources
Total FY89 = $72,974,300
Performance of Treat-
ment Technologies
$12,968.8K(17.8%)
SITE Program
$19,420.5 K (26.6%)
Health Effects, Risk
Assessment, & Detection
$7,699.3K(10.5%)
University Centers & Grants
$14,049.5K(19.2%)
Quality Assurance
$4,790.7K (6.6%)
Technical
Assistance
$7,104.5K(9.7%)
Manuals & Training
$692.4K(1.0%)
Methods for Site
Assessment
$6,248.6K (8.6%)
Total FY90 = $78,282,800
Performance of Treat
ment Technologies
$15,121.8K (19.3%)
SITE Program
$18,861.3K (24.1%)
Health Effects, Risk
Assessment, & Detection
$7,424.4K (9.5%)
University Centers & Grants
$10,083.3K(12.9%)
Quality Assurance
$4,607.1 K (5.9%)
Technical
Assistance
$14,044.5K(17.9%)
Manuals & Training
$1,685.0K(2.2%)
Methods for Site
$6,455.4K(8.2%)
Figure 15. ORD Superfund Research Budget for FY89 and
FY90 Total Dollars (Thousands)
- 86-
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Total FY89 = 102.8 FTEs
Performance of Treat
ment Technologies
23.3 FTE (22.7%)
University Centers
& Grants
1 0 FTE (1 0%) Quality Assurance
9.0 FTE (8.7%)
SITE Program
16.0 FTE (15.6%)
Health Effects, Risk
Assessment, & Detection
6.0 FTE (5.8%)
Technical
Assistance
21.2 FTE (20.6%)
Manuals & Training
2.0 FTE (2.0%)
Methods for Site
Assessment
24.3 FTE (23.6%)
Total FY90 = 131.9 FTEs
Performance of Treat
ment Technologies
22.7 FTE (17.2%)
SITE Program
17.6 FTE (13.3%)
Health Effects, Risk
Assessment, & Detection
7.0 FTE (5.3%)
Methods for Site
Assessment
12.3 FTE (9.3%)
University Centers
& Grants
1.0 FTE (0.8%) Quality Assurance
9.0 FTE (6.8%)
Technical
Assistance
57.3 FTE (43.4%)
Manuals & Training
5.0 FTE (3.8%)
Figure 16. ORD Superfund Research FTEs for FY89 and FY90
- 87 -
-------
Summary of Resources
Total FY89 = $72,974,300
Technical Support
$11,895.2K(16.3%)
Field
Procedures &
Guidance
$6,941 .OK (9.5%)
Fundamental Research
$14,049.5K (19.3%)
Development & Evaluation
$40,088.6K (54.9%)
Total FY90 = $78,282,800
Technical Support
$18,651.6K (23.8%)
Field
Procedures &
Guidance
$8,140.4K (10.4%)
Fundamental Research
$10,083.3K(12.9%)
Development & Evaluation
$41,407.5K(52.9%)
Figure 17. ORD Superfund Prog
Total Dollars (Si
ram Budget for FY89 & FY90
&E and R&D)
- 88 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Total FY89 = 102.8 FTEs
Technical Support
30.2 FTE (29.4%)
Field Procedures & Guidance
26.3 FTE (25.5%)
Fundamental Research
1.0 FTE (1.0%)
Development &
Evaluation
45.3 FTE (44.1%)
Total FY90 = 131.9 FTEs
Fundamental Research
1.0 FTE (0.8%)
Technical Support
66.3 FTE (50.3%)
Development &
Evaluation
47.3 FTE (35.9%)
Field Procedures & Guidance
17.3 FTE (13.1%)
Figure 18. ORD Superfund Program FTEs for FY89 & FY90
- 89 -
-------
Summary of Resources
University Centers
20000'
15000-
10000-
5000-
Health Effects, Risk
Assessment, & Detection
20000
15000-
10000-
5000 -
•81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
'81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation
20000
15000-
10000-
5000-
Performance of
Treatment Technologies
20000
15000-
10000-
5000-
•81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
'81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
Figure 19. Annual Superfund Research Budget
in thousands of dollars for 1981-1990
- 90 -
-------
Superfund Research Plan
Methods for Superfund
Site Assessment
20000
15000
10000'
duullll
'81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
Manuals and Training
Seminars
20000
15000
10000-
5000 -
0-
'81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
Technical Assistance
at Specific Sites
20000
15000-
10000-
5000 '
Quality Assurance
20000
15000-
10000-
5000 -
0-4
.ullll
'81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
'81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90
Figure 19. Continued. Annual Superfund Research
Budget in thousands of dollars for 1981-1990
- 91 -
-------
Appendix • Office of Research and Development Organization
APPENDIX - OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
Office of Research Program
Management (ORPM)
Office of Technology Transfer and
Regulatory Support (OTTRS)
Office of Exploratory
Research (OER)
Office of Environmental Engineering &
Technology Demonstration (OEETD)
Office of Environmental Processes
and Effects Research (OEPER)
Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment (OHEA)
Office of Health
Research (OHR)
Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems,
and Quality Assurance (OMMSQA)
Program Planning,
Coordination, and
Information Management
Center for Environmental
Research Information;
Regional Scientists
University Centers and
Grants
Two Engineering
Research Laboratories
Six Environmental
Research Laboratories
Two Environmental
Criteria and Assessment
Offices; Three Risk
Assessment Groups
Health Effects
Research Laboratory
Two Environmental
Monitoring Laboratories;
Atmospheric Research &
Exposure Assessment Lab
Figure 20. Office of Research and Development Organization
- 92-
-------
Superfund Research Han
Newport,
OR
Corvallis
OR
Las Vegas, NV
Monticello, MN ?uluth' MN
Narragansett,
Rl
•Edison, NJ
Cincinnati, OH
Warrenton, VA
Research Triangle
Park, NC
Athens, GA
Ada, OK
Figure 21. Location of ORD Laboratories (*) and Field Stations (•)
- 93 -
. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990/748-012/07275
------- |