United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20460 EPA/600/R-98/154 February 1999 www.epa.gov/ORD &EPA Waste Research Strategy Barrels of waste Improved disposal techniques ------- EPA/600/R-98/154 February 1999 Waste Research Strategy National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 Printed on Recycled Paper ------- Notice This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. The document cover includes an image (barrels) used under license from Corel Stock Photos which is protected by the copyright laws of the U.S., Canada and elsewhere. The image is incorporated for viewing purposes only; it may not be saved or downloaded for use other than as presented as part of the cover of this publication. ------- Foreword The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air and water resources. Under a mandate of na- tional environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement ac- tions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl- edge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. The 1997 Update to ORD's Strategic Plan sets forth ORD's vision, mission, and long-term research goals. As part of this strategic process, ORD used the risk paradigm to identify EPA's top research priorities for the next several years. The ORD Strategic Plan thus serves as the foundation for the research strate- gies and research plans that ORD has developed, or is in the process of devel- oping, to identify and describe individual high-priority research topics. Waste research, particularly for contaminated sites, was identified by the ORD Strate- gic Plan as an area of high importance that will continue to be a major part of the ORD's research program. This publication describes ORD's strategy for conducting a waste research program. The strategy identifies broad waste research topic areas that need to be addressed, and prioritizes the research activities associated with each. The strategy is an important planning tool because it makes clear the rationale for selection and prioritization of these research activities. This research strategy is also an important accountability tool, enabling EPA to clearly track progress toward achieving its research goals, as required by the 1993 Government Per- formance and Results Act. Norine E. Noonan, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development ------- Peer Review Peer review is an important component of research strategy development. The peer review history for this research strategy is as follows: Initial Internal Agency Review: ORD Science Council: Lead Reviewers: Submitted for Comments to the Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources - Agency Principals and Subcommittee Chairs External Peer Review: Reviewers: Hilary I. Inyang, Chair Stephen L. Brown Barry Bellinger Terry Foecke James H. Johnson, Jr. Richard Kimerle Ishwar Murarka Frederick Pohland Lynne Preslo Wm. Randall Seeker Lauren Zeise Coordinated by: Final Acceptance by ORD: ORD Executive Lead: January 1997 May 1997 Robert Dyer, NCEA GilmanVeith, NHEERL June 1997 June 30 - July 3, 1997: Cincinnati, OH University of Massachusetts R2R2 Risks of Radiation and Chemical Compounds University of Dayton Research Institute Waste Reduction Institute Howard University Independent Consultant Electric Power Research Institute University of Pittsburgh Earth Tech Energy and Environmental Research Corp. California Environmental Protection Agency EPA's Science Advisory Board, Kathleen Conway, Designated Federal Official September, 1998 E. Timothy Oppelt, NRMRL IV ------- Table of Contents Foreword iii Peer Review iv Figures vii Tables vii Acronyms viii Executive Summary xi Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1 1.1 Research Strategy Purpose, Scope, and Structure 1 1.1.1 Purpose 1 1.1.2 Scope 1 1.1.3 Structure 1 1.2 Nature and Scope of the Problem 1 1.2.1 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management 1 Hazardous Waste Facilities 2 Solid Waste Management 2 Waste Combustion Facilities 2 Waste Management Costs 2 Oil Spills and Leaking Storage Tanks 2 1.2.2 Hazardous Waste Remediation (Superfund) 3 Waste Site Cleanup 3 Accidental Releases 4 1.3 Waste Research Program Mission, Goals and Resources 4 1.3.1 Mission Statement 4 1.3.2 Waste Research Goals 5 1.3.3 Relationship to Agency Goals 5 1.3.4 Relationship to ORD's Strategic Plan 5 1.3.5 Prior Research Strategies 6 CENR National Strategy 6 ORD Strategic Issue Plans 7 1.3.6 Research Program Funding Resources 7 Chapter 2. Setting Research Priorities 9 2.1 Process for Ranking Research 9 2.1.1 ORD Strategic Planning Process 9 2.1.2 Waste Research Strategic Planning Process 9 2.2 Application of the Waste Ranking Scheme 11 2.2.1 Identify Research Needs 11 2.2.2 Scope ORD's Research Strategy and Identify Research Topic Areas 11 2.2.3 Identify and Rank Research Activities 15 2.2.4 Determine How to Accomplish Research Activities 15 2.2.5 Prioritize Internal ORD Research Activities for Resource Allocation 16 2.3 Ranking Research Activities within Research Topic Areas 19 2.3.1 Ranking Research on Contaminated Sites 19 2.3.1.1 Ground Water 19 2.3.1.2Soils/VadoseZone 22 (cont.) ------- Table of Contents (cont.) 2.3.2 Ranking Research on Active Waste Management and Combustion Facilities 23 2.3.2.1 Active Waste Management Facilities 23 2.3.2.2 Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities 26 Chapters. Conclusions and Issues 31 3.1 Conclusions 31 3.2 Issues 32 References 35 Glossary of Terms 37 Appendices A. Summary of Research Needs 39 B. Related Research Programs 51 C. Research Ranking Process 59 VI ------- List of Figures 1-1. A Risk Paradigm Used by the Office of Research and Development 5 1-2. Translating ORD's Strategic Plan Into a Research Plan 6 2-1. Office of Research and Development Strategic Planning Process 10 2-2. ORD Waste Research Ranking Scheme 11 2-3. Setting Research Priorities 16 List of Tables 2-1. ORD Criteria for Evaluating and Ranking Potential Research Topics 9 2-2. Summary of Major Program Office and Regional Research and Support Needs 12 2-3. Research Activities Ranked within Each Research Topic Area 17 2-4. Selected ORD Waste Research Activities Ranked Across All Research Topic Areas 18 2-5. Focus and Ranking of Research Activities for Contaminated Sites - Ground Water 21 2-6. Focus and Ranking of Research Activities for Contaminated Sites - Soils / Vadose Zone 24 2-7. Focus and Rankings of Research Activities for Active Waste Management Facilities 26 2-8. Focus and Ranking of Research Activities for Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities.. 29 3-1. Research Activities Unfunded in the Base Waste Research Program 34 VII ------- Acronyms AST Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Measurement ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center AWMF Active waste management facility BOAT Best demonstrated available technology CA [RCRA] Corrective action CAA Clean Air Act CE Capillary electrophoresis CEAM Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling CEM Continuous emissions monitor[ing] CENR Committee for Environment and Natural Resources CEPPO Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CRP Combustion research program CSCT Consortium for Site Characterization Technology DBP Disinfection by-product DNAPL Dense non-aqueous phase liquid DOD United States Department of Defense DOE United States Department of Energy DOE-OHER Department of Energy, Office of Health and Environmental Research DOIT Develop Onsite Innovative Technology DOS Differential absorption spectroscopy DQO Data quality objective DW Drinking water EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPIC Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program ETI Environmental Technology Initiative ETV Environmental Technology Verification FAME Fatty acid methyl esters FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FRAMES Framework for Regulatory Analysis and Management of Environmental Systems FTE Full-time equivalent FT-IR Fourier-transformed infrared FY Fiscal year GAO General Accounting Office GC/AED Gas chromatography/atomic emission detection GCL Geosynthetic clay liner GHG Greenhouse gas GPRA Government Performance and Results Act GW Ground water VIM ------- GWRTAC Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center HAP Hazardous air pollutant HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables HSRC Hazardous Substance Research Center HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments HWIR Hazardous Waste Identification Rule IEM Indirect exposure methodology INERT In -Place Inactivation and Natural Ecological Restoration IRIS Integrated Risk Information System ITER Innovative Technology Evaluation Report ITVR Innovative Technology Verification Report ITRC Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation working ITVR Innovative Technology Verification Report LDR Land Disposal Regulation LIF laser-induced fluorescence LIF Laser-induced fluorescence LNAPL Light non-aqueous phase liquid MACT Most achievable control technology MARLAP Multi-Agency Radiation Laboratory Protocol MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MERA Multipathway Exposure and Risk Analysis MITE Municipal Innovative Technology Evaluation MS Mass spectrometer MSW Municipal solid waste MTBE Methyl-tertiary-butyl ether NA Natural attenuation NAPL Non-aqueous phase liquid NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment NECI National Enforcement Investigation Center NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory NETAC National Environmental Technology Applications Center NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory NIEHS National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAEL No observed adverse effect level NPL National Priorities List NRC (a) National Response Center; (b) National Research Council NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory NTP National Toxicology Program OERR Office of Emergency Response and Remediation OMB Office of Management and Budget OPA Oil Pollution Act ORD Office of Research and Development ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air OSP Office of Science Policy OST United States Department of Energy Office of Science and Technology ------- OSW Office of Solid Waste OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks P2 Pollution prevention PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PBAA [Office of] Planning, Budgeting, Analysis, and Accountability PBPK Physiologically based pharmacokinetics PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PCE Perchloroethane PIC Product of incomplete combustion PM Particulate matter PRB Permeable reactive barrier QA Quality assurance QSAR Quantitative structure-activity relationship RA Research area RCI Rapid commercialization initiative RCT Research Coordination Team RFA Request for Application ROD Record-of-decision ROST Rapid optical screening tool RTA Research topic area RTDF Remediation Technologies Development Forum S/S Solidification/stabilization SAB Science Advisory Board SAR Structure-activity relationship SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SBIR Small Business Innovative Research SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program SFE Supercritical fluid extraction SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation STAR Science To Achieve Results START Superfund Technology Assistance Response Team SVOC Semi-volatile organic compound TCE Trichloroethane TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching process TIO Technology Innovation Office TOE Total Organic Emission TOF/MS Time-of-flight/mass spectrometer TRD Technical resource document TSAP Treatability Study Assistance Program TSC Technical Support Center TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USGCRP United States Global Climate Research Program USGS United States Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tank UXO Unexploded ordinance VOC Volatile organic compound XRF X-Ray fluorescence ------- Executive Summary Chapter 1. Introduction and Background This document describes a strategy to focus waste research at a national level to reduce the greatest risks to people and the environment. This strategy builds upon the principles set forth in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) strategic plans. Key scientists, engineers, and environmental professionals were engaged in its development to achieve real progress in meet- ing the needs identified by the Office of Solid Waste and Emer- gency Response (OSWER), Regional Offices, and other stake- holders and to advance the state of the science. This strategy identifies four research topic areas which correspond to the major waste-related environmental problems (contaminated ground water, contaminated soil/vadose zone, emissions from waste combustion facilities, and active waste management fa- cilities). The strategy prioritizes research activities that ORD should undertake through Fiscal Year 2000 (FYOO). This document is intended to be a "living document" and will be updated as needed to remain current with identified customer needs and the state of the science in waste research. The research needs and priorities described in this document re- flect decisions made in the latter half of Fiscal Year 1997 (FY97). ORD's waste research program has continued to evolve since then. Purpose The purpose of this strategy is to apply ORD's strategic prin- ciples, goals, and ranking criteria to waste problems identified by OSWER and other stakeholders to set priorities for waste- related research. These priorities will be used to focus the ef- forts of ORD sponsored research (including the use of grants) and form the basis for EPA's coordination with other research organizations and stakeholders. Structure of the Plan This report is organized into three chapters. Chapter 1 sum- marizes the major waste problems facing the United States, associated risks to human health and the environment, and costs of proper management and cleanup. Chapter 2 contains the essence of the strategy. It first lists waste research needs; then describes the four environmental problem areas plus technical support along with related research activities for each topic; and finally presents the ranking of the activities with the ration- ales for the rankings. The conclusions of the strategy are dis- cussed in Chapter 3 along with outstanding issues that require further evaluation. Nature and Scope of the Problem This strategy covers research necessary to support both the proper management of solid and hazardous wastes, and the effective remediation of contaminated waste sites. As such, it responds to two major legislative mandates and large programs within the USEPAThe Resource Conservation and Recov- ery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Re- sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or "Superfund") and their amendments. The number of existing RCRA waste management facilities and abandoned Superfund waste sites is very large and their po- tential risks to human health may be significant because of nu- merous releases of contaminants to the environment. Abandoned waste sites present a risk to human health. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) found that some heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and other specific substances occur at levels of health concern in the bodies of exposed people. ATSDR concluded that "uncon- trolled hazardous waste sites and unplanned releases of haz- ardous substances that constitute emergency events are a major environmental threat to human health." (ATSDR, 1996) Waste management and remediation also have major economic impacts. The average remedial action cost at a Superfund site was about $9 million per site in1996 (U.S. EPA, 1996a). One report concluded that over the next 30 years, the nation as a whole will spend $480 billion to $1 trillion, with a "best guess" of $750 billion, cleaning up sites. (Russell etal., 1991, NRC, 1994). Chapter 2. Setting Research Priorities Priorities for waste-related research were set by using the gen- eral strategic principles, methods, and criteria identified in the ORD Strategic Plan and then adapting them to waste research topics and activities. This entailed developing a ranking scheme comprised of the following steps: (1) Identify research needs, (2) identify Congressional directives, (3) identify research topic areas and activities, (4) rank research activities, (5) determine how to best accomplish research activities (internal expertise, other areas within ORD, external coordination outside EPA, grants), and (6) prioritize research activities for funding. Identification of Research Needs Research needs were identified from two major sources: those identified by the Committee for Environment and Natural Re- sources (CENR) that were relevant to the EPA's mission, and those identified by the various programs within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Regional waste offices. The latter needs were sorted and categorized as either higher, medium, or lower priority needs. Over one hundred needs were identified during this exercise. Identification of Congressional Directives The Congress has directed ORD to conduct certain types of Superfund related activities through legislation and appropria- tions language. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu- ation (SITE) Program was identified as having Congressional direction included in appropriations' language. XI ------- Identification of Research Topic Areas and Associated Research Activities Four broad research topics were established in two categories that represent the major waste-related research problems: Contaminated Sites 1) Ground Water 2) Soils/Vadose Zone Active Waste Management and Combustion Facilities 3) Active Waste Management Facilities 4) Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities Thirty-nine (39) research activities were identified to address the major research needs in the four research topic areas. Technical Supportto OSWER and the Regional Offices, although not a specific environmental problem, was also identified as a high priority need and a major activity of ORD. Since it is not research, it is not discussed in this document. Ranking of Research Activities Using the three sets of ranking criteria identified in the ORD Strategic Plan, ordinal rankings were developed forthe research activities within each research topic area. Research activity rankings were first developed based on science criteria only. Uncertainty in risk assessment, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of risk management technologies, and the broad applicability of methods and models were the primary criteria in establish- ing the science ranking. The final rankings (shown in paren- theses next to each research activity in Table ES-1) also con- sidered a number of other non-science factors (this final rank- ing is referred to as the "Science Plus" ranking). Examples of these other factors include: Administration priorities; CENR re- search priorities; EPA Program Office priorities; regulatory or legal mandates; Agency priorities; Congressional directives; and FY98 area for new funding. Determination of How to Best Accomplish Research Activities Prioritized research activities were considered to determine how to best accomplish the activity and deliver a product to meet the associated "need". Research activities that directly corre- lated to the expertise, mission and goals of a particular ORD Laboratory or Center were retained for ranking in step six. Ac- tivities considered more appropriate for other research programs within ORD or another Federal Agency were noted for coordi- nation as appropriate. Activities that were most appropriate for external grants were likewise noted for coordination into the overall program. Detailed development and prioritization of research topic areas and activities related to epidemiological studies at waste sites (conducted primarily by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)) and nuclear, defense- and energy- related wastes (activities primarily under the Departments of Energy (DOE) and the Defense of Defense (DoD)) were not done for this version of the Waste Research Strategy. Coordi- nation with ATSDR, DOE, and DoD will be included in greater detail in later revisions to this strategy. Chapters. Conclusions and Issues Conclusions There is a large and diverse set of waste research needs that span the spectrum of the risk paradigm. As a result, well inte- grated research programs are needed for each of the four re- search topic areas which have the goal of improving our as- sessment, characterization and risk management capabilities. Also, because there are insufficient resources available to meet all these research needs, the process of ranking research top- ics and activities is critical. Four broad research topic areas relating to environmental prob- lems were identified to cover the full range of waste-related research. Priority research activities in each research topic area are: Contaminated ground water: The focus of the research ac- tivities is on the issues of: improved risk assessment, char- acterization and remediation of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs); the application and management of natural and accelerated process for subsurface remediation; and the demonstration and verification of innovative characterization and remediation technologies. Contaminated soil/vadose zone: The focus of research ac- tivities is on the issues of improved exposure and risk as- sessment of soils, the application and management of natu- ral and accelerated process for remediation, and the demon- stration and verification of innovative characterization and remediation technologies in soils and the vadose zone. Active waste management facilities: The focus of the research activities proposed for this research topic area is on the sci- ence needs related to the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), especially in multimedia, multipathway model- ing, and the development or estimation of toxicity values. Emission from waste combustion facilities: The focus of re- search in this topic areas is on the control and monitoring of emissions, emissions fate process and transport modeling, and indirect exposure and risk assessment methods and models. While there is much uncertainty, debate, and controversy about the health and ecological risks posed by waste sites, there is consensus that the economic impact of current waste manage- ment and cleanup practices is clearly large. Within this context, waste research should be viewed as a relatively small but valu- able investment to save future expenditures. Because of the multi-disciplined nature of waste-related re- search, there are many organizations (across government, in- dustry, and academia) actively involved in sponsoring research activities. In order to maximize efficiency of effort and avoid duplication, special efforts are needed to coordinate and lever- age these research programs and activities. ORD's current research program emphasizes risk management research. There is a need to increase the relative amount of risk assessment research in this program. Issues Several issues were identified that may require further atten- tion. The lack of risk characterization research Future waste strategy development Funding strategies XII ------- Table ES-1. Selected ORD Waste Research Program Activities. Research Topic Areas (in Priority Order) Contaminated Sites - Ground Water Contaminated Sites - Soils/ Vadose Zone Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities Active Waste Management Facilities RESEARCH ACTIVITIES BY PARADIGM CATEGORIES Risk Assessment Exposure Assessment - Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling (7)* - GW Exposure Factors /Pathways (21) - Estimating Human Exposure & Delivered Dose (1) - Estimating Soil Intake and Dose - Wildlife Species (3) - Indirect Exposure Characterization Modeling (13) - Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment Methods (11) - Multimedia, Multi- pathway Exposure Modeling (14) - Environmental Fate and Transport; Physical Estimation (25) Hazard Assessment - Mixtures Toxicology (26) - Ecological Risk Assessment Methods (38) - Human Dose- Response Models for Mixtures (3) - Ecological Screening Tests to Measure the Effectiveness of Treatment (18) - Mixtures Toxicology (34) - Movement of Bioaccumulative Chemicals in Food Webs (33) - Dose-Response of Key Contaminants (24) - Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for Contaminants (18) Risk Characterization Risk Management Remediation & Restoration - Natural Attenuation (2) -Abiotic Treatment of GW(9) -BiotreatmentofGW(16) - Containment of GW (17) - Demonstration Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (27) - Biotreatment of Soils (3) -Containment of Soils (18) - Demonstration Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (27) - Abiotic Treatment of Soils (31) -Oil Spills (36) Control - Emissions Prevention and Control (12) - Waste Management (36) Monitoring - Subsurface Characterization (6) - Field and Screening Analytical Methods forGW(15) - Demonstration Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (27) - Field Sampling Methods (8) - Field and Screening Analytical Methods for Soils (9) - Sampling Design (22) - Demonstration / Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (27) - Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEMs) Methods (23) - Waste Characterization and Sampling (32) * Equals the ordinal rank of each research activity across the entire Waste Research Program based on the "Science Plus" ranking factors. ------- XIV ------- Chapter 1. Introduction and Background 1.1 Research Strategy Purpose, Scope, and Structure This document describes a strategy to focus waste research at a national level to reduce the greatest risks to people and the environment and to make waste management more cost-effec- tive. This strategy builds upon the principles set forth in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) strategic plans. Key scientists, engineers, and environmental professionals were engaged in its development to achieve real progress in meeting the needs identified by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Regional Offices, and other stakeholders, and to advance the state of the science. This strategy identifies four research topic areas that correspond to the major waste-related environmental problem: contaminated ground water, contaminated soil/vadosezone, emissions from waste combustion facilities, and active waste management facilities. It also summarizes ORD technical support activities needed to assist stakeholders. This document is intended to be a "living document" and will updated as needed to remain current with identified customer needs and the state of the science in waste research. The research needs and priorities described in this document reflect decisions made in the latter half of Fiscal Year 1997 (FY97). ORD's waste research program continues to evolve. 1.1.1 Purpose The purpose of this strategy is to apply ORD's strategic prin- ciples, goals and ranking criteria to waste problems identified by OSWER and other stakeholders to set priorities for waste- related research. These priorities will be used to focus the efforts of ORD research laboratories and ORDs external grants program. It will also form the basis for EPA coordination with other Federal agencies. 1.1.2 Scope This strategy addresses waste-related environmental problems that are of greatest importance from the perspectives of both ORD's research ranking criteria and the program priorities of the OSWER and the EPA Regions. The research activities de- scribed herein are those involving the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites (e.g., Superfund, RCRA, corrective action [CA], underground storage tank and oil spill sites), as well as the assessment and control of contaminant releases from waste management (i.e., treatment, storage, and disposal). A fourth important waste management research area, pollution prevention, is addressed in a separate ORD Research Plan (ORD, 1998). Also, contaminated sediments are not explicitly addressed in this document because there is separate ORD research planning activity for this topic (ORD, 1997c). Because it is an integral part of waste management, ORD research planning activities for pollution prevention are summarized in Appendix B. ORD has significant personnel resources committed to waste technical support and these activities are closely tied to ORD's waste research program. These nonresearch activities are not addressed in this strategy. This research strategy represents the first comprehensive waste research planning done by ORD. It addresses just research funded in ORD's Waste Research Program. As indicated in Chapter 3, there are other related research activities in ORD which were not considered in the strategy but could be in future strategies. 1.1.3 Structure This strategy is divided into three chapters. Chapter I describes major waste problems faced by the United States, and their associated risks and risk management costs. This chapter also describes the mission, goals and resources of the ORD Waste Research Program, and the relationship of this research plan to the ORD Strategic Plan. Chapter 2 describes waste research needs identified by ORD, EPA's Program Offices, EPA Regions, and others. Four research topic areas are identified along with a set of research activities that ORD needs to carry out for each topic area. These research activities are then prioritized based upon a waste ranking scheme that uses ORD's strategic plan- ning principles. Chapter 3 provides conclusions from the strategic planning process and summarizes planning issues that remain to be addressed. There are three appendices. A summary of waste-related environmental research needs is provided in Appendix A in six tables, each describing research needs within one of the six Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) risk paradigm categories (discussed in detail later in this chap- ter). Appendix B provides a summary of other waste-related research programs in ORD, OSWER, other Federal agencies, and the private sector. Appendix C provides additional details to the research ranking process outlined in Chapter 2. 1.2 Nature and Scope of the Problem 1.2.1 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management In 1965, Congress passed the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the first lawto require safeguards and encourage environmentally sound methods for disposal of household, municipal, commercial, and industrial refuse. Congress amended this law in 1970 by passing the Resource Recovery Act and again in 1976 by passing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Congress revised RCRA first in 1980 and again in 1984. The 1984 amendments (referred to as the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments [HSWA]) significantly expanded the scope of RCRA. The major sections of the statute are: ------- Subtitle C, which establishes a program for managing hazardous waste from generation to ultimate disposal. Subtitle D, which establishes a program for managing solid (primarily nonhazardous) waste, such as household waste. Subtitle I, which regulates toxic substances and petro- leum products stored in underground tanks. Hazardous Waste Facilities A total of 400,000 facilities have reported generating RCRA hazardous waste in the United States (OSW, 1993a). These waste are regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. About 200 million tons of hazardous waste are generated each year by the largest generators (OSW, 1993b). While far fewer are active today, historically more than 5,000 facilities have been involved in the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. These facilities, with approximately 100,000 solid waste management units, are potentially subject to RCRA's cleanup program. One study estimates that 2,200 of these facilities will have releases to the environment which are likely to require corrective action (OSW, 1993c). The study indicates that cleanup is driven by ground water and soil contamination, and cancer or non-cancer risks of concern are estimated to occur at between 1,900 and 2,200 hazardous waste management facilities. Roughly 500 of these sites are estimated to have onsite ground water plumes that are over 10 acres in area. Roughly 1,700 of these facilities are projected to have significant contamination. Of the facilities needing cleanup, 350 are estimated to have over 1 million cubic feet of contaminated soil. EPA currently is addressing roughly 1,500 facilities under the RCRA corrective action program (OSW, 1993c). Solid Waste Management Some waste streams not managed under RCRA Subtitle C contain constituents that require safe management to protect human health and the environment. Certain large-volume categories of primarily non-hazardous waste include constitu- ents, such as hazardous metals, that may pose serious risks to exposed populations and cause extensive environmental dam- age. Large-volume wastes include oil and gas industry waste, mining wastes, waste created from fossil fuel combustion, and cement kiln dust. Overall, approximately 6.1 billion tons of these "special" wastes (as defined by the Bevel amendmentto HSWA) are generated annually (Laws, 1996). Further, about 72,000 facilities generate about 7.6 billion tons of other industrial wastes each year (OSW, 1993a). These wastes are managed in 3,300 industrial landfills and at other on- and offsite management units. Information about many manufactur- ing wastes, which include toxic organic and inorganic constitu- ents, is limited in many cases. Finally, the evidence from National Priorities List (NPL) shows that even municipal landfills must be managed carefully to prevent risks, since a number of them appear on the NPL. Approximately 209 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) are generated annually (OSW, 1995a); 127 million tons are managed in 3,600 MSW landfills in the United States, and the remainder is burned and recycled (OSW, 1996a). Waste Combustion Facilities In 1995, the United States incinerated approximately 48 million metric tons of municipal, pathological, and hazardous wastes. There were 211 municipal incinerators, 2,400 medical incinera- tors, 160 hazardous waste incinerators, 136 industrial furnaces, and 44 cement kilns burning waste materials in various U.S. locations. Concerns have been raised about emissions from waste com- bustion facilities for a number of reasons: (1) these facilities can emit significant amounts of toxic contaminants, such as dioxin, furans, mercury, lead, cadmium, and products of incomplete combustion; (2) these emissions become dispersed over large geographic areas that often include large populations or impor- tant food products (crops, animal, and dairy products); (3) exposure occurs overseveral pathways and routes; and (4) high levels of contaminants emitted from waste combustion facilities (e.g., mercury) have been measured in soil and water adjacent to waste combustion facilities. While there is much scientific uncertainty about the actual risks from contaminants emitted from waste combustion facilities, the factors listed above are enough to influence public perception and the press that these risks are very high and unacceptable. Community protests at facilities such as Waste Technologies Incorporated (WTI) in East Liverpool, Ohio, and at many Superfund sites such as New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts, and Bloomington, Indiana are examples. Waste Management Costs Waste management costs faced by the Nation are significant. It is estimated to cost between $140 and $187 million per year for hazardous waste combustion facilities to comply with proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT) regula- tions. (OSW, 1995b & 1996b) The potential cost savings from implementing the proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)for Industrial Process Wastes, which could exempt some low-hazard wastes from Subtitle C requirements, are estimated at over $100 million annually (OSW, 1995c). Oil Spills and Leaking Storage Tanks Spills and leaks of petroleum, petroleum products, and non- petroleum oils are a serious problem affecting nearly every community in the United States. Oil releases threaten public health and safety through contamination of drinking water and through fire and explosions, diminish air and water quality, compromise agriculture, destroy recreational areas, waste non- renewable resources, and cost the economy millions of dollars. Oil spills harm the environment by killing fish, birds, wildlife, and biota; they destroy habitat and food and produce toxic effects in organisms and ecosystems (Laws, 1996). Particular hazardous constituents of petroleum products have received attention because of their toxicity. They include benzene, MTBE (methyl-tertiary-butyl ether, a fuel additive intended to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from automo- biles), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Benzene is volatile and is a carcinogen. MTBE is considered a potential human carcinogen, is highly water soluble, and may not readily biodegrade. Several of the PAHs found in heavier petroleum ------- hydrocarbon blends (e.g., fuel oils) are carcinogenic or mu- tagenic(IARC, 1989). The mobility, toxicity, and biodegradabil- ity of PAHs varies depending upon the specific compound. The magnitude and complexity of the problem are reflected in our society's extensive reliance on petroleum, petroleum prod- ucts and non-petroleum oils to fuel vehicles, heat buildings, generate electricity, produce food, and manufacture a wide variety of goods. The Department of Energy (DOE) reported that approximately 212 million gallons of crude and 584 million gallons of refined petroleum products were produced in, im- ported to, or exported from the United States in 1994 (Energy Administration, 1995). Our continued national reliance on oil, the broad extent of its use, and the aging of our oil industry infrastructure suggest that oil spills and leaks will continue to be a serious problem in the future. Much of the nation's petroleum and chemicals are stored in underground storage tanks (USTs). At present, there are over 1.1 million active regulated USTs at over 400,000 sites across the United States. Through September 1996, over 317,000 petroleum releases had been confirmed at about 40 percent of the 750,000 UST facilities in existence in 1990. EPA anticipates an additional 100,000 confirmed releases by the year 2000; 30,000 new releases are reported every year as owners and operators are complying with EPA's 1998 requirements to upgrade, replace, or close substandard USTs. Besides petro- leum, there are approximately 30,000 regulated USTs that store hazardous substances. EPA also regulates about 450,000 aboveground oil storage facilities for prevention, preparedness, and response purposes (OERR, 1991). These facilities each have from one-to several- hundred individual aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); each AST may contain between 661 and 10 million gallons. Petro- leum oil and refined products are transported through approxi- mately 1.9 million miles of oil and gas pipeline and 152,000 miles of liquid pipeline in the United States. In addition, large and increasing amounts of non-petroleum oils are produced and widely used in the generation of electricity, in food processing, and in other industries throughout the country. Annually, between 18,000 and 24,000 AST oil spills are reported to the National Response Center (NRC) and EPA Regions, and between 10 million and 25 million gallons are spilled per year (OERR, 1996a). Many of these spills were largerthan 100,000 gallons in quantity; however, depending upon the location, small spills also can cause great ecological damage. 1.2.2 Hazardous Waste Remediation (Superfund) Problems with our nation's past mismanagement of hazardous waste first gained widespread attention in the late 1970s. Incidents such as the contamination of Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York, sparked widespread concern over hazardous wastes. In response to this growing concern, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. This law, commonly known as "Superfund," taxed the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad Federal authority to address the release or threatened release of hazardous substances that may endan- ger public health, welfare, or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected in a trust fund for cleaning up aban- doned hazardous waste sites. In 1986, the Superfund Amend- ments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was signed into law. SARA increased the trust fund to $8.5 billion over five years and strengthened EPA's authority to conduct cleanup and enforce- ment activities. Waste Site Cleanup EPA's Superfund program has screened hundreds of thou- sands of sites and release incidents. A measure of the imme- diacy of problems at sites is reflected in the work of the Superfund emergency response program (the EPA "Removal" program). Nearly 4,300 emergency actions have been initiated to mitigate or eliminate immediate risks to human health and to prevent future risks (OERR, 1996b). These actions have reduced potential acute risks leading to death and injury, from explosions, fire, and toxic vapor clouds. Approximately 40,000 sites have been identified as potential candidates forthe Federal Superfund remedial program (OERR, 1996b). To date, about 1,300 highest priority sites have been assigned to the NPL, and additional sites are being studied to determine whether NPL listing is necessary. The NPL sites represent approximately 3 million acres in total area. The problem is not static; new sites are constantly being proposed to EPA and the states. The size of this unaddressed problem was recently estimated by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which projected that a cap on the federal NPL might leave the states with 1,400 to 2,300 NPL-caliber sites to clean-up, at a total cost of $8.4 to $19.9 billion (Sands, personal communication, 1996). The seriousness of contamination at Superfund sites is exhib- ited by actions taken to remove populations fromthe immediate threat of contaminants at sites. The Superfund program has relocated, temporarily or permanently, almost 15,000 residents. It also has provided alternative drinking water supplies to approximately 350,000 people (OERR, 1996c). Federal facilities represent another important class of waste disposal sites where serious contamination has been identified. An estimated 61,000 potential hazardous- substance release sites exist at over 2,000 federal facilities (U.S. CEQ, 1993). Contamination at remedial sites involves substances of signifi- cant concern to EPA both because of their cancer and non- cancer hazards. Forexample, lead and PCS contamination are common problems addressed bythe remedial program. Unsafe concentrations of benzene, several chlorinated solvents, mer- cury, creosote, toluene, and other highly hazardous substances often are encountered. The Superfund program also confronts risks posed by substances such as DDT or chlordane that no longer are produced commercially but persist in the environ- ment. The existence of a hazardous contaminant in the environment does not in itself demonstrate an actual or potential threat to human health by exposure. There are reasons for serious concern. ATSDR estimates that about 11 million people live within one mile of the 1,200 NPL sites studied (Williams and Lybarger, 1996). In addition, approximately 68 million people live within four miles of these NPL sites and approximately 65 percent of the sites have identified ground water contamination ------- problems (Sands, personal communication, 1996). Further, ATSDR (1996) also reported: Exposure assessment studies conducted by ATSDR during this reporting period show that some heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and other specific substances occur at levels of health concern in the bodies of exposed people. Compounds such as lead, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and bromides are found at significant levels in people near some hazardous waste sites. Taking these health findings in the aggregate, ATSDR concludes that uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and unplanned releases of hazardous substances that constitute emergency events are a major environmental threat to human health. Although there remain significant gaps in the scientific database on the extent of human exposure to hazardous substances released from sites, and key toxicological data gaps still exist, progress has been made in better characterizing both the exposure and toxicity data bases. The human health finding accrued to date support the need for interdicting human exposure and mitigating toxicity of hazardous substances released from hazardous waste sites and similar sources of exposure. EPA has defined an acceptable human health risk range for carcinogens (10~4 to 10~6 excess cancer risk) and a threshold of concern for non-carcinogens (hazard index of 1) for Superfund sites. At most Superfund sites, risks exceed acceptable levels, and action is taken. The cancer risk exceeded EPA's accept- able range in 80 percent of sites where decisions were made in 1991, and it exceeded 10-2 at approximately 25 percent of these sites. Another recent finding is that non-carcinogenic risk represents a very significant portion of the risk addressed bythe Superfund program. The hazard index exceeded 1 at 75 percent of the 1991 sites for which decisions were made. At half ofthese sites, the hazard index was above 10, and at 15 percent of the sites it was above 100. Data from Superfund risk assessments completed from 1989 to 1995 at 380 Superfund sites show similar results (Walker, 1995; OERR, 1995). The costs of assessment and remediation of contaminated sites are large. The average remedial action cost alone at a Superfund site remediation is about $9 million per site (U.S.EPA, 1996a). A 1994 report by the National Research Council (1994) on ground water cleanup reviewed available data on the national cost of contaminated site remediation: In part because of the wide variation in contaminated sites and because the total number of sites is uncertain, estimating the total national costs of cleaning up contaminated ground water is extremely difficult. One recent, widely publicized report concluded that over the next 30 years, the nation as a whole will spend $480 billion to $1 trillion, with a "best guess" of $750 billion, cleaning up ... sites. With 90 million households in the nation, this represents a cost of $8,000 per household. Another recent report concluded that by the year 2000, the nation will be spending nearly $24 billion per year complying with requirements for hazardous waste and underground storage tank cleanup under RCRA and site cleanups under CERCLA. Some contest the accuracy of such cost estimates because of the high level of uncertainty associated with the magnitude of the contamination problem and the large number of assumptions underlying the estimates. Nevertheless, the potential enormity of the costs has fueled the debate about whether the benefits the nation will receive from ground water cleanup at hazard waste sites justify the costs. Improved site characterization can reduce cleanup costs, by millions of dollars, by better defining the volumes of soils that really need to be remediated. At a site in Missouri, $6 million was saved because an improved ORD sampling design for the site more accurately defined the location of significant contamina- tion. Similarly, millions of dollars can be saved bythe application of innovative remediation technologies. A 1996 analysis of 46 Records of Decision (RODs) that applied innovative technolo- gies of the type tested in the EPA Superfund Innovative Tech- nology Evaluation (SITE) program showed an average of $30 million saved per ROD compared to the cost of using conven- tional cleanup technologies (Gatchett, 1998). Accidental Releases In 1995, approximately 17,000 accidental release reports in- volving chemicals were made to the National Response Center (NRC, 1996). These accidents occur during the transport of a chemical, in the manufacturing process, orwhile the chemical is being employed as an end product. As a way of understanding the magnitude of the problem, the National Environmental LawCenter(1995) has calculated "worst case scenarios" for accidents involving approximately 10,000 U.S. manufacturing companies. They have concluded that close to 45 million Americans live in zip codes containing facilities with vulnerable zones extending outward more than three miles from the facility. This analysis may underestimate potential exposure, since it does not address populations vul- nerable to transportation accidents. 1.3 Waste Research Program Mission, Goals and Resources 1.3.1 Mission Statement The mission of the ORD Waste Research Program is to: Perform research and development to identify, under- stand, and solve current and future problems related to the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and the characterization and remediation of contaminated waste sites. Interpret and integrate scientific information to help organizations make better decisions about handling and treating of hazardous wastes. Provide national leadership in addressing emerging hazardous waste issues and in advancing the science and technology of risk assessment and risk management as they relate to hazardous wastes. ------- 1.3.2 Waste Research Goals 1.3.3 Relationship to Agency Goals The five scientific and technological goals of this research plan are: To advance the science of risk assessment to support hazardous waste management and remediation of con- taminated sites, including: Understanding the effects of exposures to hazardous wastes on human health and ecological systems. Developing processes for predicting and measuring exposure to humans and ecological systems, and uncovering the processes leading to those exposures. Estimating risk and characterizing and communicating those estimates. To develop, demonstrate, and evaluate more cost-effec- tive, innovative technologies for controlling of hazardous wastes, site characterization, and remediation. To advance the science of monitoring and predicting envi- ronmental concentrations and effects and the fate and transport of toxic material. To provide technical assistance to ensure that innovative approaches to site assessment, characterization, and remediation are applied in a consistent and effective man- ner. To lead in areas of ORD capability by providing, develop- ing, and maintaining a highly respected research program that reflects the concerns of stakeholders. Recently Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requiring each agency to submit an annual performance plan covering each program activity set forth in the agency's budget. In response to GPRA, EPA developed pro- grammatic goals, objectives and subobjectives. OSWER has developed a "Safe Waste Management" goal that has two objectives (contaminated waste sites and waste management) for which ORD has developed subobjectives: ORD Safe Waste Subobjective 1.6 - Contaminated Sites. ORD Safe Waste Subobjective 2.6 - Active Waste Man- agement Facilities. The research topic areas described in Chapter 2 of this research strategy are divided between these two subobjectives. 1.3.4 Relationship to ORD's Strategic Plan ORD has developed a strategic process for planning research that follows the risk assessment paradigm (Figure 1-1) and sets research priorities (ORD, 1997a). Figure 1-2 shows the steps recommended to translate the strategic guidance of ORD's Strategic Plan into ORD research activities. The first step is the development of research science plans (or research strategies). Each such plan or strategy deals with a selected research topic, such as waste, and is expected to: Describe the major research components and directions ORD will pursue over the next few years. Identification of Future Problem, Initiating Event, or Public Policy Mandate Risk Management Formulate the Problem Dose-Response Assessment Define Risk Management Objectives Risk Assessment Hazard Risk Identification Characterization Identify and Evaluate Risk Management Options Exposure Assessment Risk Management Decision Develop Compliance Assurance Models and Methods Implement Option(s) Develop Measures of Environmental and Public Health Improvement Monitor .. Environmental and Public Health Improvement Public Health Considerations Statutory and Legal Consideration Social Factors Economic Factors Political Considerations Reduced Environmental and/or Public Health Risk Figure 1-1. A risk paradigm used by the Office of Research and Development (Source: ORD, 1997a). ------- Describe how these components fit into the risk paradigm. 1.3.5 Prior Research Strategies Delineate the major outputs expected to be produced over the next three years. The ORD Strategic Plan also identifies general goals, long-term objectives, and activities to meet these objectives. The Waste Research Strategy contains these components of a research strategy and is consistent with, and builds upon, the goals and objectives of the ORD Strategic Plan. Previously, a number of research plans and strategies related to hazardous waste have been produced and they contributed to the identification of research needs in this strategy. CENR National Strategy The most current and important federal strategy was the President's National Science and Technology Council through its Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources ORD's Strategic Plan Objectives 1 Activities to Meet the Objectives EPA Program and Regional Office Involvement External Scientific Community Involvement Figure 1-2. Translating ORD's Strategic Plan into a research plan (Source: ORD, 1997a). 6 ------- (CENR). This group published A National R&D Strategy for Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Solid Waste (CENR, 1995). This is the first consensus Federal "framework" for research in this area. The CENR strategy has adopted "risk" as the organizing theme. Consequently, the three sections of that strategy are: Risk Assessment; Managing Risks from Toxic Substance and Wastes; and, Social and Economic Aspects of Risk Management. Each of these is further divided as shown below: Risk Assessment Hazard Assessment Exposure Assessment Risk Characterization Risk Management Pollution Prevention Control Remediation Monitoring Social and Economic Aspects of Risk Management For each of the three major sections, the CENR strategy discusses a conceptual framework, the current state of under- standing, research priorities, and a set of milestones for 1995 through 1999. The ORD Waste Research Strategy uses the CENR structure to organize research needs and proposed research activities. (The CENR "Hazard Assessment" research category incorpo- rates both hazard identification and dose-response assessment activities in ORD's risk paradigm.) Also, the CENR report is one source of research needs addressed by this Waste Research Strategy. Adopting the CENR framework and considering priority CENR research needs, helps to insure consistency of Waste Research Strategy with other Federal waste research programs. ORD Strategic Issue Plans During the early 1990s, ORD conducted research planning by developing topical "issue plans." The four issue plans most relevant to the current waste research planning activity are the Hazardous Waste Issue Plan (ORD, 1993a), the Surface Cleanup Issue Plan (ORD, 1993b), the Bioremediation Issue Plan (ORD, 1993c), and the Ground Water Issue Plan (ORD, 1993d). These issue plans summarize much of the ORD perspective on waste research priorities at the beginning of the development of this document. 1.3.6 Research Program Funding Resources In Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) ORD had a total of $23.2 million available to its Waste Research Programto conduct riskassess- ment and risk management research on contaminated sites and active waste management facilities. These funds were avail- able for: a) the conduct of waste research by EPA staff (excluding salaries, travel, etc.); and, b) extramural grants programs directly administered by the EPA. Of this total, contaminated sites research was funded at $21.7 million with approximately 80 percent of the funds being applied to risk management research and 20 percent of the funds being applied to risk research. Active waste management facilities research was funded at $1.5 million, with an approximately 157 85 split of funds between riskmanagementand risk assessment research. ------- ------- Chapter 2. Setting Research Priorities Research needs invariably exceed resources available to sup- port them, and decisions must be made about which needs to pursue. This section describes howthe selection and prioritization of waste research fits into ORD's strategic planning process, what are the waste research needs, how waste research priori- ties were developed, and what are the resulting priorities. 2.1 Process for Ranking Research The ranking of waste research builds upon ORD's Strategic Plan (ORD, 1997a) by refining the priority setting process and adding some additional criteria based upon waste-specific strategic considerations. 2.1.1 ORD Strategic Planning Process In ORD's Strategic Plan (Figure 2-1), potential research topics are evaluated by determining whether they are mandated (by the Executive, Congress, orthe courts) and if they are consistent with ORD's mission and goals. Topics that remain are ranked and a determination made as to whether ORD can make a significant research contribution to these areas. The three sets of criteria for evaluating and ranking potential research topics are: Human Health and Ecological Health Criteria, Methods/ Models Criteria, and Risk Management Criteria (Table 2-1). These criteria are to be applied to research topics to compare their potential to support effective risk reduction. 2.1.2 Waste Research Strategic Planning Process To facilitate the identification and ranking of waste-specific research, ORD developed a process called the Waste Research Ranking Scheme (Figure 2-2). ORD first identified waste re- search needs based on several sources, resulting in a lengthy list of varying degrees of specificity. Preliminary determinations were made on who should address these needs, another Federal agency, other ORD research programs, or the ORD Waste Research Program itself. Based on an evaluation of these research needs, ORD identified major waste-related environmental problems that it could address and defined these as "research topic areas" (RTAs). The RTAs in the Waste Research Strategy are: Contaminated Sites - Ground Water, Contaminated Sites - Soil/Vadose Zone, Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities, and Active Waste Management Facili- Table 2-1. ORD criteria for evaluating and ranking potential research topics.* Human Health and Ecological Health Criteria Methods/Models Criteria Risk Management Criteria What type of effect would the research investigate / mitigate and how severely might this ef- fect impact humans or ecosys- tems? Over what time scale might this effect occur? How easily can the effect be reversed, and will it be passed on to future generations? What level of human or ecologi- cal organization would be im- pacted by the effect? On what geographic scale might this effect impact humans or eco- systems? How broadly applicable is the proposed method or model ex- pected to be? To what extent will the proposed method or model facilitate or im- prove risk assessment or risk management? How large is the anticipated user community for the proposed method or model? Have the problem's source(s) and risk been characterized suf- ficiently to develop risk manage- ment options? Do risk management options (political, legal, socioeconomic, or technical) currently exist? If so, are they acceptable to stakeholders, implementable, re- liable, and costeffective? Could new or improved techni- cal solutions prevent or mitigate the risk efficiently, cost-effec- tively, and in a manner accept- able to stakeholders? Are other research organizations (e.g., agencies, industry) cur- rently investigating / developing these solutions or interested in working in partnership with ORD on the solutions? * Criteria used as "Science" Ranking Criteria in this strategy. ------- External Scientific Community Input: EPA Science Advisory Board National Research Council Other Government Agencies Private Sector ORD National Labo EPA Progr EPA Regio Research Coor - Identify Resej Evaluate Rese stories and Centers am Offices nal Offices dination Council arch Topics and arch Products Yes Reject for ORD Funding 2 Is the Topic Within ORD's Mission and Goals? Is the Topic Clearly Mandated? 1 Yes Apply Evaluation Criteria: Human Health/Ecological Health (Use Comparative Risk Analyses as Appropriate) Risk Management Methods/Models Prioritized Research Topics Reject for ORD Funding 2 Can ORD Make a Significant Contribution? Determine Research Needs: Effects Exposure Risk Characterization Risk Management Conduct External Peer Review of Extramural Research Proposals Conduct Research (In-house, Grant, Coop. Contract, etc.) Research Products 1 If so, EPA may have no discretion to reject or delay this research. 2 EPA program offices and regions may still choose to fund, using ORD labs, grants, contracts, etc., or a research sourse outside of ORD. Figure 2-1. Office of Research and Development strategic planning process (Source: ORD, 1997a). 10 ------- Needs Input OSWER, ORD, Regions, CENR Strategy, & Others Identify Research Needs Scope ORD's Research Strategy & Identify Research Topic Areas V J Identify & Rank Research Activities Determine How to Accomplish Research Activities Prioritized Internal ORD Research Activities for . Resource Allocation / Figure 2-2. ORD waste research ranking scheme. ties. All of these RTAs are discussed in detail later in this chapter. For each RTA, ORD identified a set of "research activities" that needed to be carried outto address uncertainties associated with the particular environmental problem. These research activities were evaluated and ranked within each RTA using the same three sets of criteria identified in Table 2.1. These criteria were considered when ranking the research activities and formed the basis of the "science" ranking criteria (see Section 2.2.3). Throughout this process, research needs and research activi- ties were organized using a slight modification of the risk paradigm organizing principles from the CENR strategy. Six of the CENR categories were used: three were risk assessment categories: hazard assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization and the otherthree were risk management categories: control/management, remediation, and monitoring. Pollution Prevention and Social and Economic Aspects of Risk Management were not used since they are outside the scope of this research plan. 2.2 Application of the Waste Ranking Scheme The purpose of this section is to describe what research needs were identified, howthe research priorities were developed, and what the resulting priorities were. The multi-step approach to waste ranking is outlined in Figure 2-2 and discussed below. 2.2.11dentify Research Needs Research needs were identified from three sources: 1) those identified by the CENR that were relevant to the EPA's mission; 2) those identified by the individual Program and Regional Offices; and 3) those identified by ORD. The majority of research needs are based on material provided by OSWER at the Waste Research Program Review in December 1996. Additional information on research needs from all three sources is provided in Appendix A. The OSWER and Regional research needs are summarized in Table 2-2. Generally, OSW identified hazardous waste com- bustion, multimedia science, waste technology, and pollution prevention/derived waste products as their four highest priority areas. They also identified human health sciences, ecological risk, socioeconomic, methods, and technical assistance for corrective action as high priority. OERR's highest priorities for support and research have been consistently site-specific tech- nical support, risk assessment support, innovative site charac- terization technologies, and site remediation/cleanup technolo- gies. Research priorities from OUST are focused on corrective action. The Technology Innovation Office (TIO) identified priori- ties related to continuation of the Superfund Innovative Technol- ogy Evaluation (SITE) Program and research in the areas of bioavailability and natural attenuation. The Chemical Emer- gency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) has iden- tified research related to the accidental large-scale release of gases and liquids and support of the DOE spills facility in Nevada. The Regional Offices have identified needs related to indirect exposure from waste combustion, natural attenuation, development of measurement and risk assessment tools, site- specific technical support and training courses and seminars as their highest priorities. 2.2.2 Scope ORD's Research Strategy and Identify Re- search Topic Areas In determining the scope of research to be addressed in this strategy, ORD limited itself to waste streams and related envi- ronmental problems that are of significant priority to the Agency, particularly OSWER and the Regions. This decision recognizes thatthere are numerous high priority waste-related environmen- tal problems which the Agency has to address and ORD has only limited resources to conduct related research. As a result, the research needs addressed by this strategy fall into two broad categories of environmental problems: contaminated sites and active waste management facilities. For contaminated sites the principal emphasis is on those within the Federal Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and LIST programs. Environmental problems from oil spills are also considered. Sites in these Federal programs are usually the most contaminated in the nation, and results of research on them should have wide applicabilitytoothersit.es, suchasthose 11 ------- Table 2-2. Summary of major program office and regional research and support needs. Program Office Higher Priority Needs Medium Priority Needs Lower Priority Needs osw Hazardous Waste Combustion, including - Dioxin/Furan Emissions - Surrogates and CEMs for HAPs, Dioxins, and Furans - Technical Support for Combustion Issues - Speciation Methods for PICs - Air Deposition Models - Indirect Exposure Bioaccumulation through the Food Chain Human Health Sciences - IRIS/HEAST Data Base Updates - Alternative Endpoints - QSAR/SAR Methodology Development Ecological Risk - Ecotoxicity Screening Levels, Bioavailability Mechanisms - Improved Screening Tools Multimedia Science, including - Improve Multimedia Models and Data Bases - Validation / Verification of Fate and Transport Models (Multimedia and Indirect Exposure Portions) - Subsurface Biodegradation Rates - Enhance Subsurface Models to Include Fractured Flow Socioeconomic - Risk Tolerance Thresholds for Exposed Populations - Engineering/Costing Support - Contingent Valuation Waste Technology, including - Stability/Bioavailability of Constituents in Waste Derived Products - Chemistry of Waste Leaching- Improve TCLP - Treatment Alternatives for Mercury - Efficacy of Waste Solidification / Stabilization Technologies - Natural Attenuation, Permeable Reaction Barriers - Innovative Site Characterization Technologies Methods - Speciation of Arsenic and Selenium - Pesticide Methods Development (GC/AED) - PAHs by Capillary Electrophoresis Technical Assistance for Corrective Action Pollution Prevention / Waste Derived Products, including - Source Reduction / Recycling for Processes that Generate the Most Toxic Wastes - Technologies for Reducing Barriers to Recycling - Source Reduction for Combustion Wastes 12 ------- Table 2-2. (Continued). Program Office Higher Priority Needs Medium Priority Needs Lower Priority Needs Regions (RCRA Needs) Particle Size Distribution Testing Methods in Support of Air Modeling Develop Ecological Risk Screening Values for Various Exposure Scenarios Natural Attenuation for Chlorinated Solvents - Improve the Total Organic Emission (TOE) Test Methods - Enhance Dry Gas Air Dispersion Models - Enhance Guidance on Synergistic Effects When Deal with Mixtures (Low Priority) - Fill Data Gaps in IRIS and HEAST Databases - Ecological Toxicity Mechanisms of Action for Endocrine Disrupters - Improved Biotransfer and Uptake Factors for Risk Assessments - Modify TCLP to Address Oily Wastes - Develop a Test for Corrosivity of a Solid - Develop a Test for Ignitability of a Solid - Develop a Test to Evaluate the Permanence of Stabilized Wastes OERR Site Specific Technical Support - Technical Support Centers - Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) - START - Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling) - Establish a Technical Support Center for Ecological Risk Assessment - Technology Transfer - Seminars and Courses - Program Office Support Presumptive Remedies, Soil Screening, etc. - Technology Transfer - ATTIC, etc. Site Remediation Research - Ground Water Containment - DNAPL Remediation Methods - Subsurface Reaction Walls - Phytoremediation Oil Spills Research - Technical Correction on Swirling Flask Test for Dispersants - Develop Surface Washing Effectiveness Test Oil Spills Research - Develop Bioremediation Strategies - Ecological Impacts of Countermeasures 13 ------- Table 2-2. (Continued). Program Office OERR (cont.) Regions (Superfund Needs) OUST TIO CEPPO Higher Priority Needs Site Characterization Research - Ground Water DNAPL Characterization - Natural Attenuation/in situ Bioremediation Site Characterization and Process Research - Ground Water Modeling Risk Assessment Research - Ecological Significance - Benefits versus Habitat Destruction - Dermal Toxicity Values - Bioavailability of Metals and Organics - Soil - Improved Exposure Assessment - Improved Dose-Response Assessment - Pb Uptake / Models - Dermal Exposure Model - Site-specific Technical Support - Training Courses and Seminars - Remediation Design and Field Construction Support - Develop Alternative Approaches using Immunoassay and Bioassay Tools - Develop Ecologically-based Screening Values - Natural Attenuation - MTBE Treatment - Fate and Transport Models for Risk- based Corrective Action Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program - Remediation Technologies - Monitoring / Characterization Technologies Consortium for Site Characterization Technologies Bioavailability of Families of Contaminants Metrics for Evaluation of In situ Technologies Models to Predict the Efficacy of Natural Attenuation - Support DOE Spill Test Facility Hazard Analysis Support - Large-scale Releases of Gases and Liquids Medium Priority Needs Site Characterization Research - Analytical Methods for Bioaccumulative Chemicals - Analytical Methods and QA for Complex Mixtures Risk Assessment Research - Weight of Evidence Approach for Ecological Effects Cleanup Levels Lower Priority Needs 14 ------- in state clean-up programs and Brownfields sites. ORD divided the contaminated site issues into two RTAs: Contaminated Sites - Ground Water, and Contaminated Sites - Soils/Vadose Zone. The selection of two contaminated site RTAs recognizes that there are a number of distinctions in the technical problems that need to be addressed in the saturated zone compared to the unsaturated zone. ORD will not address certain types of contaminants and waste streams because they are outside the principal areas of exper- tise, are being handled by other Federal agencies, are not an environmental priority or are not readily addressed by a re- search program with only modest resources. Radionuclidesare not being addressed because ORD lacks expertise in this area and DOE is doing research related to these pollutants. Similarly, DOD has major research programs on remediation of sites contaminated with munitions wastes. This strategy also does not address high volume wastes (e.g., mining wastes) that are excluded from RCRA either by statue or by RCRA regulations. It is important to note, however, that many of the research issues addressed by the strategy are important to these excluded waste types. For example, research on metals contamination should prove applicable to radionuclide contaminated sites, mining wastes, and utility wastes. ORD also decided to limit its research on environmental issues associated with solid waste management. ORD has conducted relatively large research programs in this area in the past, but since the early 1990s, work has been reduced in response to guidance from OMB and OSWER. As a result, a decision was made to focus on a few areas of high priority to OSWER: waste combustion, multipathway assessments, and - to the extent ORD has expertise solid waste - management and characteriza- tion issues. This resulted in two waste management research topic areas: Waste Combustion Facility Emissions, and Active Waste Management Facilities. Such choices make sense within the context of the risk para- digm, because solid waste regulations have been in place since the 1980s, and, with limited exceptions, solid waste manage- ment approaches at active waste management facilities are already minimizing risks at reasonable costs. 2.2.3 Identify and Rank Research Activities Research activities were identified that would address the major research needs within each RTA (Table 2-3). The research activities within each RTA were then ranked in a two-step process, details of which are provided in Appendix C. First, a "Science" ranking was conducted using the three sets of criteria identified in the ORD Strategic Plan (Table 2-1). These criteria were used for establishing priorities according to the three simplified graphic representations shown in Figure 2-3. Those research activities that fall within the upper right corners were considered to be high priority, those that fall in the top left and bottom right corners were considered medium and those that fall in the lower left corners were considered low. These "Science" rankings were then adjusted to take into consideration a number of non-scientific factors, yielding a "Science Plus" ranking of research activities within each RTA. Examples of these non-scientificfactors include: Administration priority; CENR research priority; EPA Program Office and Regional Offices' priorities (Table 2-2); regulatory or legal mandates; EPA priori- ties; Congressional directives; and FY98 areas for new funding. 2.2.4 Determine How to Accomplish Research Activities Research activities were examined to determine if they are best accomplished through the expertise of the waste research program at ORD Laboratories and Centers or through other means. Coordination with the Hazardous Substance Research Centers (HSRCs), other research programs within ORD, other Federal research programs, Program Office funded research activities, or independent private sector research programs will be sought when these mechanisms are more appropriate due to the particular expertise of these groups or due to constraints on available ORD waste research resources. Ecosystem effects and chemical toxicity testing for human and ecological endpoints are two areas to be leveraged with other programs. Ecosystem effects are most appropriately accom- plished as part of ORD's Ecosystem Protection Program. Chemi- cal toxicity testing for human and ecological endpoints - the routine application of standard toxicology protocols for the development of human and ecological toxicity values - could be best accomplished through coordination with the National Insti- tute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxi- cology Program. As a result, these two research activities - Ecological Effects and Chemical Toxicity Testing - were re- moved from further consideration for funding under the Waste Research Program. Congress established the HSRCs to conduct waste research through regional academic consortia. The HSRCs are conduct- ing fundamental and applied research in many of the same areas as ORD; therefore, ORD needs to coordinate closely its research to ensure it does not duplicate that of the HSRCs. The HSRCs are discussed in further detail in Appendix B. In addition, there are major waste related research programs being conducted by the ATSDR, NIEHS, DOD, and DOE as described below. Superfund legislation mandates that ATSDR and NIEHS per- form research in specific areas. ATSDR has been charged to perform health assessments at waste sites to assess whether exposure has occurred and to determine the potential impact of any exposure. ATSDR has also been directed to conduct applied substance-specific research to fill data gaps identified by its toxicological profiles. NIEHS has been directed to estab- lish a university-based basic research program. This is a mature program that conducts research in the detection of hazardous substances in the environment, evaluation of health effects, assessment of risk, and site remediation methods. DOE has also been directed by Congress to establish a program in basic environmental research through grants and DOE's laboratories. The DOE Office of Energy Research conducts additional environmentally related basic science research in a variety of areas. Many important waste sites have nuclear, mixed nuclear and hazardous, and other defense related wastes, such asconven- 15 ------- tional and chemical munitions. DOE and DOD have established research programs to address these specific needs. Coordina- tion and collaboration with these research programs will con- tinue to be pursued by ORD. By using a variety of approaches, ORD will strive to leverage resources to meet identified needs and priorities while remain- ing in the forefront of scientific research in waste-related disci- plines. This step will be revisited to consider how to best meet unfunded customer priorities when appropriate. 2.2.5 Prioritize Internal ORD Research Activities for Resource Allocation Table 2-4 presents the remaining research activities addressed by the Waste Research Strategy and are research activities that ORD should conduct if funding exists. This table shows the "Science Plus" ranking of these waste research activities across the entire Waste Research Program. This is a consensus ranking arrived at in discussions amongst ORD, OSWER and Regional representatives, and serves as guidance for ORD funding decisions through FYOO. / Little >. ./understanding \. Greatest Need for Research Least Need for Research for and J"V Greatest >reX ,Ne-ed, 1ainty\ ^ for Tool ction ^Development Narrow applicability Broad applicability Less Least \ uncertainty Need xreduction for Tool Development for and Research Risk problem Risk problem poorly characterized well characterized Research for Research Source: Adapted from Paul Slovic, Risk Perception Figure 2-3. Setting research priorities. 16 ------- Table 2-3. Research activities ranked within each research topic area. Research Topic Areas (in Priority Order) Contaminated Sites - Ground Water Contaminated Sites - Soils / Vadose Zone Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities Active Waste Management Facilities RESEARCH ACTIVITIES BY PARADIGM CATEGORIES Risk Assessment Exposure Assessment - Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling (4)* - GW Exposure Factors / Pathways (9) - Estimating Human Exposure & Delivered Dose (1) - Estimating Soil Intake and Dose - Wildlife Species (2) - Indirect Exposure Characterization Modeling (1) - Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment Methods (3) - Multimedia, Multi- pathway Exposure Modeling (1) - Environmental Fate and Transport, Physical Estimation (3) Hazard Assessment - Mixtures Toxicology (12) - Ecosystem Effects (13) - Ecological Risk Assessment Methods (14) - Human Dose- Response Models for Mixtures (2) - Screening Tests to Measure the Effectiveness of Treatment (6) - Mixtures Toxicology (12) - Movement of Bioaccumulative Chemicals in Food Webs (6) - Dose-Response of Key Contaminants (5) - Chemical Toxicity Testing for Human and Ecological Endpoints (6) - Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for Contaminants (2) Risk Characterization Risk Management Remediation & Restoration - Natural Attenuation (1) - Abiotic Treatment of GW(5) - Biotreatment of GW (7) -Containment of GW (8) - Demonstration Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (10) - Biotreatment of Soils (2) - Containment of Soils (6) - Demonstration Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (9) - Abiotic Treatment of Soils (11) -Oil Spills (13) Control - Emissions Prevention and Control (1) - Waste Management (5) Monitoring - Subsurface Characterization (3) - Field and Screening Analytical Methods for GW (6) - Demonstration Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (10) - Field Sampling Methods (4) - Field and Screening Analytical Methods for Soils (5) - Sampling Design (8) - Demonstration / Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (9) - Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEMs) Methods (4) - Waste Characterization and Sampling (4) ' Equals the ordinal rank of each research activity within each Research Topic Area based on the "Science Plus" ranking factors. ------- Table 2-4. Selected ORD waste research activities ranked across all research topic areas. Research Topic Areas (in Priority Order) Contaminated Sites - Ground Water Contaminated Sites - Soils/ Vadose Zone Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities Active Waste Management Facilities RESEARCH ACTIVITIES BY PARADIGM CATEGORIES Risk Assessment Exposure Assessment - Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling (7)* - GW Exposure Factors /Pathways (21) - Estimating Human Exposure & Delivered Dose (1) - Estimating Soil Intake and Dose - Wildlife Species (3) - Indirect Exposure Characterization Modeling (13) - Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment Methods (11) - Multimedia, Multi- pathway Exposure Modeling (14) - Environmental Fate and Transport; Physical Estimation (25) Hazard Assessment - Mixtures Toxicology (26) - Ecological Risk Assessment Methods (38) - Human Dose- Response Models for Mixtures (3) - Ecological Screening Tests to Measure the Effectiveness of Treatment (18) - Mixtures Toxicology (34) - Movement of Bioaccumulative Chemicals in Food Webs (33) - Dose-Response of Key Contaminants (24) - Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for Contaminants (18) Risk Characterization Risk Management Remediation & Restoration - Natural Attenuation (2) - Abiotic Treatment of GW(9) - Biotreatment of GW(16) - Containment of GW (17) - Demonstration Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (27) - Biotreatment of Soils (3) -Containment of Soils (18) - Demonstration Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (27) - Abiotic Treatment of Soils (31) -Oil Spills (36) Control - Emissions Prevention and Control (12) - Waste Management (36) Monitoring - Subsurface Characterization (6) - Field and Screening Analytical Methods forGW(15) - Demonstration Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (27) - Field Sampling Methods (8) - Field and Screening Analytical Methods for Soils (9) - Sampling Design (22) - Demonstration / Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (27) - Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEMs) Methods (23) - Waste Characterization and Sampling (32) * Equals the ordinal rank of each research activity across the entire Waste Research Program based on the "Science Plus" ranking factors. ------- 2.3 Ranking Research Activities within Research Topic Areas The following sections briefly describe each of the RTAs, the scientific and technical uncertainties associated with them, and the rationale for the relative rankings of the research activities within each topic area. 2.3.1 Ranking Research on Contaminated Sites 2.3.1.1 Ground Water Ground water has been contaminated by a large number of releases to the environment. In 1994, the National Research Council (NRC) estimated that the number of hazardous waste sites that are likely to have ground water contamination ranges from 300,000 to 400,000. The majority of this contamination is caused by leaking USTs, but a recent OSWER white paper indicates that up to 40,000 sites are potential candidates forthe federal Superfund program and historically about 80 percent of Superfund sites have ground water contamination. The NRC assessment includes estimates of ground water contamination at RCRA facilities (1,500-5,000 sites), federal facilities (10,000- 12,000 management units) and 20,000-40,000 state sites. In the past, concerns about contaminated ground water have been associated predominantly with its risks to human health. Three hundred and fifty thousand people have been provided with alternative sources of drinking water at Superfund sites alone, and as the percentage of the Nation's population that relies on ground water expands past 50 percent, the number of people at potential risk will increase. Concern is growing about the extent to which ground water is impacting ecosystems, particularly through ground water transfer of contaminants to sediments and to surface water, which can be significant in some watersheds during periods of low flow. Due to the complex nature of the contaminants at many sites and the complex subsurface hydrogeology encountered at most sites, there are many uncertainties associated with the assess- ment and management of ground water contamination and the cost of these activities is high. These are summarized below. For risk assessment, the major uncertainties are: transport and fate mechanisms, particularly in complex strata predicting human toxicity of complex mixtures predicting risk to ecosystems For site characterization, major uncertainties are: delineating ground water contaminants, particularly non- aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) speciation of contaminants, particularly metals sampling and detecting contaminants at low concentra- tions achieving quick, low-cost ground water and NAPL charac- terization For remediation, major uncertainties are: achieving cleanup goals of NAPLs and contaminated ground water assessing and optimizing long-term effectiveness of in situ ground water treatment and containment techniques achieving rapid, low cost cleanup To address these uncertainties and associated high-priority research needs, 14 contaminated ground water research activi- ties have been identified (Table 2-5). These activities were first ranked by a set of Science criteria and then a set of "Science Plus" criteria following a process described earlier in this chap- ter. These rankings are shown in Table 2-5 and the rationale for them is described in what follows. Science Ranking ORD has determined that the most significant problems to be addressed by contaminated ground water research are: 1) understanding the effectiveness and applicability of natural attenuation; and 2) the characterization and remediation NAPLs a major source of ground water contamination. Assessment and remediation of ground water contaminated by dissolved pollutants is an important, but somewhat lower priority. These conclusions are based on several considerations. Natural attenuation (NA) has the potential for being a relatively inexpen- sive means of remediating sites. It appears, for example, that it is an effective technique forthe remediation of fuel contamina- tion under certain conditions. There is, however, very limited understanding on how to assess whether natural attenuation is working at a site. This includes locating the plume and determin- ing the rate of contaminant disappearance. Proper site charac- terization and monitoring to show that NA is effective and protective may increase its costs substantially. NAPL research is also a high priority. NAPLs are a persistent source of ground water contamination, and the resultant loss of the ground water resource and threat to human health and the environment may last for tens of decades. Without the removal or control of these major sources, treatment of contaminated ground water must go on indefinitely. Research results that will enable locating and chemically characterizing NAPLs will aid in the development of new, cost-effective risk management op- tions, as will continued development of innovative NAPL extrac- tion and destruction options. Research on the assessment and remediation of contaminated ground water remains important. Techniques for cleaning up many sources of ground water contamination do not exist now and therefore improved, cost-effective plume remediation or containment techniques are needed to minimize risks from contaminated ground water. Similarly, improved techniques to characterize and assess the risks of ground water contamina- tion are needed to set realistic cleanup goals and reduce cleanup and monitoring costs. Research on ecosystem impacts of ground water was ranked low because health concerns are still of highest priority. Also, the impacts of ground water on ecosystems are limited, being mainly through contamination of riparian zones (e.g., sediments and surface waters); since during low flow periods ground water can contribute significantly to base stream flow. Also, since many contaminated sites lie beside or near surface waters, direct runoff fromthe sites is believed to be of greater importance 19 ------- than transport through ground water. However, many uncer- tainties about these ecosystems impacts exist, and therefore research in this area needs to be done if adequate funds exist. Science Plus Ranking As can be seen from Table 2-5, the Science Plus ranking of research activities differs from the Science ranking for research activities ranked in the lower half of the list, but the changes in ranking are not large. First, containment research was elevated in ranking because it is of high priority to OSWER. Second, the ranking of the two demonstration/verification activities was increased 1 to 3 places reflecting ORD's recognition that Con- gress has indicated that these activities are a priority through its explicit authorization of the SITE Program, its mandate for 10 SITE demonstrations, and its guidance that SITE be fully funded in FY97. Also, the SITE program recently received a very favorable SAB review. As a result of these three increases in ranking, mixtures toxicology human health effects research fell to a lower priority. With the exception of these four changes, the ranking of re- search activities changed little from Science to Science Plus. This reflects the fact that with one exception, all the Science Plus ranking factors were equally applicable to all research activities in this topic area. These factors were: 1) high priority for research across the riskparadigmintheCENRreportandbythe Program Office, and 2) high Congressional priority (reflected by the annual Superfund appropriation of about $1.5 billion [22 percentofthe Agency's budget]), high Administration priority (as reflected by the President's initiative to cleanup two-thirds of the Superfund sites by 2000, and by the tight, 8-10 year schedules for DOD and DOE site cleanups). The Natural Attenuation research activity was ranked high for reasons described above. This particular research activity is focused on remediation issues and is supported by subsurface characterization and field analytical methods research. Human Dose-Response Models for Mixtures was ranked high because there are currently very large uncertainties about the health risks from complex mixtures of ground-water con- taminants. The presence of multiple contaminants may result in enhanced toxicity(synergism), decreased toxicity (antagonism), ora simple summation ofthetoxicities ofthe individual contami- nants (additivity). Current practice is to generally assume additivity, which can result in either an under- or overestimation of the actual risk. Research in this area will use existing scientific toxicologic studies and mechanistic data to develop dose- response models and toxicity values for common mixtures of contaminants. Mixtures Toxicology was ranked lower be- cause hazard identification was judged less urgent a need than developing dose-response models or factors. Existing studies of individual contaminants should be used firstto develop dose- response models before initiating toxicologic studies of mix- tures. Once dose-response models have been developed with the existing data base, then toxicologic studies would be initi- ated on actual mixtures. The Subsurface Characterization research activity was ranked high because ofthe inherent complexity ofthe subsurface and the contribution ofthe research activityto resolving both NAand NAPL characterization problems. Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling is a high priority because it is basic to our understanding of the various natural and contaminant-induced processes that occur in an aquifer. Ground water modeling allows us to understand how these various processes, along with remediation activities, impact contaminant fate and transport. Such an understanding is important scientifically, as well as to make sitespecific assess- ment and cleanup decisions. Abiotic Treatment was ranked high because of its focus on NAPLs remediation. In addition, it involves studying in situ abiotic treatment options such as permeable reactive barriers, which are a more cost-effective option than pump-and-treatfor major classes of contaminants in ground water. Field and Screening Analytical Methods were ranked high because ofthe need for improved methods to characterize and monitor sites for natural attenuation, and quicker, less-expen- sive characterization and monitoring methods. This research would also lead to more thorough characterizations because more samples could be analyzed in the field and the results used immediate. Biotreatment and Containment research activities were ranked lower because they deal primarily with the control and remediation of contaminated ground water, a lower priority than NA and NAPLs cleanup. Biotreatment remains important to consider along with abiotic treatment because the two are likely to complement each other in terms ofthe contaminants they can address. Also, biotreatment may have application to residuals from NAPLs extraction. Under the Science ranking, contain- ment was ranked lower than biotreatment because ORD be- lieves that remediation of contaminants is at least as important as containment in terms of risk management, and because pump-and-treat can be used as a containment technique at many sites. The ranking for containment was increased be- cause OSWER feels that it is an option of equal importance to treatment with significant implementation uncertainties. Con- tainment research is particularly important for minimizing NAPL transport, for confining plumes to allow NA to occur, and for determining the long-term effectiveness of containment sys- tems. Ground Water Exposures Factors / Pathways was ranked in the middle because current research has been successful in identifying and quantifying key exposure factors such as drink- ing-water intake rates for various activities. There are still significant uncertainties associated with estimates of contami- nants from non-ingestion routes of exposure, such as showering and use of appliances. The two research activities dealing with Demonstration/Veri- fication of Innovative Technologies were moved up in the Science Plus ranking because of the high priority allotted to them by Congress. While these two research activities do not develop new technologies, they are an important ORD activity for contaminated ground water (and soils), because they allow ORD to evaluate technologies developed outside the Agency. These "independent" evaluations provide credible reports on the applicability, performance, and cost of these technologies to site managers and other decision makers. Evaluation of inno- vative ground water remediation technologies is particularly important, because there are no effective technologies currently 20 ------- Table 2-5. Focus and ranking of research activities for contaminated sites - Ground Water. Research Activity Title Natural Attenuation (NA) Human Dose/Response Methods for Mixtures Subsurface Characterization Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling Abiotic Treatment Field and Screening Analytical Methods Biotreatment Containment Ground Water Exposure Factors/Pathways Demonstration/Verification of Innovative Ground Water Remediation Technologies Demonstration/Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies Mixtures Toxicology Ecosystem Effects Ecosystem Risk Assessment Methods Potential Research Focus Determine under what conditions NA is applicable. Determine techniques for assessing site-specific applicability of NA. Develop biologically based toxicity models. Develop expert systems for determining likelihood of synergism antagonism or additivity of response. Develop surface based, noninvasive methods to characterize the structure and contaminant distributions in the subsurface. Determine processes affecting contaminant fate of transport, particularly in heterogeneous environments. Develop improved models for representing site-specific ground water fate and transport, and effects of remediation. Develop more cost-effective techniques for NAPL remediation. Develop more cost-effective techniques for ground water remediation. Develop field portable and screening analytical methods for rapid analysis of ground water. Develop analytical methods to determine the status of and to monitor the rates of natural attenuation in ground water. Determine more cost-effective techniques for ground water remediation. Develop more cost-effective methods to contain NAPLs and contaminated ground water. Develop methods for evaluating long-term effectiveness of containment systems. Determine contaminant intake rates from showering, bathing and use of household appliances (e.g., dishwashers). Develop exposure models for vapors released indoors. Produce technically sound performance, cost and applicability data for full-scale innovative remediation technologies. Produce scientifically sound performance data for innovative ground water monitoring and characterization technologies. Develop improved models of the synergistic/antagonistic effects of contaminant mixtures. Develop screening tests to determine the effects of contaminated ground water on ecosystems. Develop methods to determine the flux of ground water contaminants into sensitive ecosystems such as wetlands. Develop ecotoxicity transfer/dilution factors between ground water and surface water. Develop ground water ecotoxicity criteria and screening levels. "Science" Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 8 11 13 9 12 14 "Science Plus" Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 12 13 14 21 ------- available. Evaluation of innovative ground water contamination characterization techniques is also important to help fill gaps where there is a lack of adequate techniques and to improve cost-effectiveness. Research on Mixtures Toxicology was ranked lower because the need to develop information on interactions between mixture constituents was judged less urgent than the need to develop dose-response models for mixtures using existing databases. Ecosystems Effects and Ecological Risk Assessment Meth- ods were ranked lowest despite uncertainties about the effects of ground water on ecosystems, because the impact is expected to be low compared to human health effects. 2.3.1.2 SoilsA/adose Zone The complexity and heterogeneity of soil/vadose zone matrices present a large number of technical challenges to their assess- ment and remediation. There are numerous uncertainties associated with soil/vadose zone decisions and the cost of remediation is still high (remedial actions alone cost an average of $9 million perSuperfund site in 1996). Local risks to humans and ecosystems, high costs and uncertainty in decision making are all reasons for supporting contaminated soil/vadose zone research. Specific scientific uncertainties are associated with each step of the site evaluation and remediation process. In the risk assess- ment process, major uncertainties are: magnitude of effects on human health and the ecosystem contributions of indirect pathways to receptor exposure availability of adsorbed contaminants and treatment re- siduals to human and ecological receptors intake of contaminants across multiple exposure routes - ingestion, dermal exposure, and inhalation In the site characterization process, major uncertainties are: sampling of contaminants to determine their location and magnitude quantitative analysis of selected compounds design of sitespecific sampling strategies physical characterization of soils and the vadose zone In remediation, major uncertainties are: applicability of treatment techniques to different contami- nants and soil matrices, particularly heterogeneous matri- ces cost of remediation techniques To address these uncertainties and associated high-priority research needs, 13 research activities were identified (Table 2- 6). These activities were first ranked by a set of Science criteria and then a set of Science Plus criteria following a process described earlier in this chapter. Science Ranking ORD determined that a combination of site characterization, risk assessment and remediation research is needed in this topic area to address important scientific and technical issues, help clarify the risks posed by contaminated sites to surrounding communities, and reduce the high costs of site remediation. There are improvements needed in site risk assessments to reduce uncertainties in the magnitude of human health effects, and there are limited tools to evaluate the risks that these sites pose to ecosystems. The high cost of site remediation (and the ineffectiveness of some available technologies) requires re- search on innovative technologies. Improved site characteriza- tion contributes to both risk assessment and risk management, helping to define risks more accurately and define what needs to be remediated. Science Plus Ranking The Science Plus ranking of research activities (Table 2-6) varies little from the Science ranking for contaminated soils/ vadose zone, except that the two research activities on demon- stration/verification of innovative technologies are ranked higher in the Science Plus ranking. This reflects the fact that with this one exception, all the Science Plus ranking factors were equally applicable to all research activities in this topic area. These factors included: 1) high priority given research across the risk paradigm in the CENR strategic plan and by the Program Office; 2) high Congressional priority (as reflected by the annual Superfund appropriation of about $1.5 billion); and 3) high Administration priority (reflected by the President's initiative to cleanup two-thirds of the Superfund sites by 2000 and by the tight 8-10 year schedules for DOD and DOE site cleanups). The two demonstration/verification research activities were given a higher ranking under Science Plus because Congress has indicated the importance of such work by requiring that ORD conduct ten demonstrations per year as part of the SITE program. The Estimating Human Exposure and Delivered Dose and Biotreatment research activities were ranked highest, in part because both address the availability of contaminants in soils to impact receptors, particularly humans. Currently, it is as- sumed that all or most of an agent found in soils is biologically available, but this assumption is probably inaccurate. Improved estimation of the fraction of contaminants that are biologically available to humans or ecosystems could significantly reduce the estimates of risks at contaminated sites and reduce the cost of remediation by raising the level of the cleanup standard. The Estimating Human Exposure research activity would develop better models and factors for making these estimates for indi- vidual contaminants in soil. Research would include developing models for dermal exposure, estimating soil intake rates for children and adults, and estimating bioavailability of contami- nants. Inthelongterm, the Biotreatment research activity would evaluate the effectiveness of different types of biotreatment processes in different soil media based on these models and factors. The Estimating Human Exposure research activity was also ranked high because its goal is to reduce other uncertainties associated with risk characterization. These include increasing the certainty of multipathway analysis, developing statistical distributions for exposure factors, and addressing specific is- sues related to soil risk, such as intake rates for children and adults. 22 ------- The Biotreatment research activity was also ranked high be- cause it would address natural attenuation of contaminants in soils (and landfills). Natural attenuation in soils has the potential for being a relatively low-cost means of site remediation, if its selection is justified and its progress is monitored to insure that there are no significant environmental risks. In addition, the Biotreatment research activity develops enhanced biotreatment processes for soils, vadose zones and landfills. These all have the potential to significantly reduce remediation costs, particu- larly in situ processes. Estimating Soil Intake and Dose by Wildlife Species was ranked in the upper half because ecological risks are becoming more significant as drivers of cleanup levels at many contami- nated sites. In most cases, soils are believed to have a more significant ecological risk at contaminated sites than do con- taminated ground waters, due to the greater variety of wildlife that can come in direct contact with contaminated soils or feed on species residing in these soils. There are numerous uncer- tainties about the extent to which soil contaminants impact ecosystems and therefore ecosystems may not be adequately protected. Field Sampling Methods and Field and Screening Analyti- cal Methods were both ranked near the top because: uncer- tainty associated with site characterization is often high, thereby leading to uncertain risk assessment or high remediation costs, and there are significant savings in time and money to be gained by conducting analyses in the field. Ecological Screening Tests to Measure Effectiveness of Treatment was ranked near the middle because it deals only with bioavailability issues and therefore is a more narrowly focused research area than Estimating Human Exposure or Wildlife Species research. The Containment research area was ranked in the middle because its use is increasing because of its relatively low cost, yet there are still uncertainties about the long- term effective- ness of these systems and the most effective ways to install them. Also, there is the potential to reduce costs further by utilizing new materials for containment. The research activity Sampling Design was ranked in the middle because improved designs can have a significant impact on reducing costs of cleanup by more accurately identifying what volumes of soils need to be remediated and what and where the sources of the risks are. The two research activities dealing with Demonstration/Veri- fication of Innovative Technologies were moved up in the Science Plus ranking because of the high priority allotted to them by Congress. While these two research activities do not develop new technologies, they are an important ORD activity for contaminated soils (and ground water) because they allow ORD to evaluate processes developed outside the Agency and through these "independent" evaluations provide credible re- ports on the applicability, performance and cost of these pro- cesses to site managers and other decision makers. The Abiotic Treatment research area was ranked below Con- tainment, Biotreatment and Demonstration/Verification of Inno- vative Remediation Technologies because it has less potential to impact cleanup costs or achieve significantly lower remediation levels. There are, however, important areas where abiotic treatment, either alone or as part of a multifaceted management option, is needed for cost effective site clean up. The two remaining research activities: Mixtures Toxicology and Oil Spills are of less importance than the other research activities. Oil spills was ranked relatively low because its primary impact is to ecological systems. Research on Mixtures Toxicology of soil contaminants was ranked lower due to the sequence in which activities should be conducted to maximize research yield. For example, knowledge of the bioavailability of soil contaminants assists in predictions of the toxicological impact of mixtures. 2.3.2 Ranking Research on Active Waste Management and Combustion Facilities Research evaluated underthis topic area is limited to supporting OSWs Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), develop- ing the treatment technologies for wastes and waste streams that are hard to treat, and to understanding hazardous waste combustion risks and risk management options. 2.3.2.1 Active Waste Management Facilities The current regulatory approach to the management of hazard- ous wastes is extremely burdensome and costly to the U.S. economy. In addition, the regulations are overly conservative and not founded on risk. As a result, the Administration is proposing regulatory reforms to provide administrative and economic relief by developing a multimedia, multipathway risk- based approach that is expected to exclude many wastes and waste streams from regulatory control under Subtitle C of RCRA (Hazardous Waste Identification Rule [HWIR]). In addition, acceptable disposal of hazardous wastes is specified by Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) rules. As part of these rules, Best Demonstrated Available Treatment (BOAT) technologies are specified that must be used to treat the waste prior to disposal. BOAT technologies were identified for each hazardous waste stream in the late 1980s and early 1990s and were based on the most effective treatment technologies that were commercially available at the time. It was recognized that there were some hard-to-treat wastes for which available technologies were either not sufficiently effective, or were very expensive, and that ongoing efforts would be needed to upgradethe BOAT technolo- gies for a limited number of hazardous waste streams. Major uncertainties are associated with several elements of the risk paradigm. Of the 400 waste constituents that require the development of "exit levels" underthe proposed HWIR, 220 are without health-based levels (even fewer for ecologically based levels). These values need to be determined or estimated. In addition, approximately 210 of the constituents are without adequate analytical methods (current methods cannot measure the constituents at the proposed exit levels). Current multimedia modeling is constructed on a" most critical pathway" basis rather than on a mass balance basis. Components of some of the models are probabilistic and well developed (e.g., ground water) while others are poorly developed and deterministic or not developed at all. There is no system to exchange information between existing or planned models and data bases. Existing toxicity and environmental fate data bases are out of date and need to be updated with existing literature and new data. Methodologies to conduct assessments on mixtures or to ac- 23 ------- Table 2-6. Focus and ranking of research activities for contaminated sites - Soils / Vadose Zone. Research Activity Title Potential Research Focus 'Science" Ranking "Science Plus" Ranking Estimating Human Exposure and Delivered Dose Estimate soil intake rates for children and adults. Evaluate the bioavailability of contaminants in various soil matrices. Develop and validate biokinetic dose-response models for lead and other heavy metals. Derive dermal absorption factors for common soil contaminants. Develop biotransfer and bioaccumulation factors for contaminants to facilitate estimates of exposure via the food chain. Develop statistical distributions for exposure factors to facilitate use of probabalistic techniques to evaluate variability and uncertainty (e.g., Monte Carlo methods). 1 Biotreatment Determine under what conditions biotreatment processes can reach risk-based cleanup levels. Develop less expensive cleanup processes for frequently found hard-to treat contaminants (e.g., TCE, PAHs, PCBs). Develop inexpensive permanent cleanup options for landfills. Determine when natural attenuation is an appropriate remediation option for soils and landfills. Estimating Soil Intake and Dose for Wildlife Species Develop critical ecological exposure factors such as: species- specific soil intake rates, uptake factors from soils to plants to herbivores, species-specific dietary factors uptake factors from herbivores to carnivores, and data on migratory and range patterns. Develop a wildlife contaminant exposure model that should be useful for constructing and evaluating site-specific scenarios. This model would allow calculations of intake via the food web and analyses of multiple exposure pathways and species. It would also include a probabalistic component to evaluate variability and uncertainty. Field Sampling Methods Develop sampling methods that better preserve the integrity of contaminants in soil (e.g., volatile organic compounds). Develop sampling approaches to better ensure that a sample is "representative" of the area surrounding tile sample location. Field and Screening Analytical Methods Develop field-portable methods for rapid in situ determination of contaminants in soils. Develop analytical methods to determine the status and rates of natural attenuation in soils. Containment Develop methods for evaluating the long term effectiveness of containment systems. Develop more cost-effective containment systems. Ecological Screening Tests to Measure Effectiveness of Treatment Develop inexpensive methods to screen for significant risks from treatment residuals. Develop inexpensive methods to determine cleanup goals. Sampling Design Develop new statistical designs for sampling/characterizing contaminated soils at waste sites (e.g., multivariate, 3-D technologies). 24 ------- Table 2-6. (Continued). Research Activity Title Demonstration/Verification of Innovative Remediation Techniques Demonstration/Verification of Innovative Monitoring Technology Abiotic Treatment Mixtures Toxicology Oil Spills Potential Research Focus Produce technically sound performance, cost and applicability data for full-scale innovative remediation techniques. Produce technically sound performance data for innovative soil monitoring and characterization technologies. Develop less expensive cleanup processes for hard-to-treat contaminants and matrices. Develop improved models of the synergistic/antagonistic effects of common soil contaminant mixtures. Develop more effective ways to remediate spills in an environmentally safe manner. "Science" Ranking 12 12 9 10 10 "Science Plus" Ranking 9 9 11 12 13 count for cumulative effects are nearly non-existent. Sound approaches for determining specific waste constituent compli- ance with proposed exit levels do not exist or, at best, have not been validated. Uncertainties still exist in the treatment of some hazardous waste streams. There still remain a number of hard-to-treat waste streams, such as those containing mercury. As a result, it is not always possible to obtain the desired cleanup levels using current treatment technologies. In addition, there have been advances in existing, inexpensive treatment technologies (solidification/stabilization) that may make them more broadly applicable than previously, thus reducing costs of hazardous waste management. Also, there is a need to reduce the volume of solid wastes requiring disposal, and this is not being done as quickly as it might, partially because of the uncertainty aboutthe applicability of innovative recycling processes. This uncertainty may be reduced by improving the availability of technically sound infor- mation on innovative recycling techniques by having indepen- dent evaluations done on them cooperatively by government and private sectors. To address these uncertainties and associated high priority research needs, six research activities have been identified (Table 2-7). These activities were first ranked by a set of Science criteria and then a set of Science Plus criteria following a process described earlier in this chapter. Science Ranking ORD has determined that a combination of environmental fate, exposure modeling, risk assessment, and waste management research is needed in this topic area. All four research areas are of high priority because each addresses important scientific and technical issues that can help determine or reduce the risks posed by active waste management facilities and hazardous waste generators. Science Plus Ranking As can be seen from Table 2-7, the Science Plus ranking of research activities is identical to the Science ranking exceptthat the activity, "Chemical Toxicity Testing for Human and Ecologi- cal Effects," moved to the bottom of the list. With this one exception, the Science Plus ranking factors had little impact. These factors included: 1) high-priority across the risk paradigm in the CENR Strategic Plan and by the Program Office (OSW), 2) HWIR as a high-priority effort under the Administrations regulatory reform efforts, 3) the identification of waste research as "an area of high importance" in the ORD Strategic Plan, and 4) SAB and ORD recommendations for research resulting from their review of OSWs proposed HWIR. ORD considers the "Chemical Toxicity Testing for Human and Ecological Effects" research need to be of lower priority since it is essentially routine testing and is expensive. The remainder of this section describes the rationale for the Science Plus relative ranking of the six research areas. This ranking reflects the application of science and other factors to determine the relative importance of each research activity. The first four research areas (Multimedia, Multipathway Ex- posure Modeling; Environ mental Fateand Transport, Physi- cal Estimation; Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for Contaminants; and Waste Characterization and Sampling) are all responsive to the research needs identified by recent ORD and SAB reviews of the proposed HWIR. Research in all four areas is needed if a scientifically sound HWIR approach is to be developed. Current exposure and risk models lack the ability to produce true multimedia, multipathway analyses. Major improvements are needed to ensure various models are compatible from the perspectives of computational, pathway, environmental scale, time scale, error propagation, and mass conservation/balance. Significant uncertainty still remains in the fate, transformation, and transport of many of the waste contaminants regulated 25 ------- under RCRA. These uncertainties include metal and organic compound speciation and the effects and rates of reductive and biological fate processes. Until test-based toxicity values become available, provisional values will have to be estimated from the literature, from struc- ture activity relationships, or from physical/chemical properties of the constituent. Much uncertainty remains in these current estimation methods, especially relatedto mixtures, bioavailability, and pharmacokinetics. As is the case for toxicity values, analytical methods are inadequate (as a result of poor sensitivity or specificity) or nonexistent for 210 of the 400 constituents. For wastes and waste constituents to "exit" regulatory control under RCRA, they must be present at concentrations less than the proposed "exit level" values developed through the multimedia, multipathway risk assessment approach proposed in HWIR. Great uncertainty exists, however, in how this is determined. OSWER has estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars per year can be saved as a result of this regulatory approach, but the research is needed to ensure the science is available to support a creditable HWIR (OSW, 1995c). The Waste Management research area ranks fifth out of six areas. It is relatively less- important since it is a much more mature research area for ORD and significant resources have been committed to this area in the past. Most RCRA wastes and waste streams have established BDATs. However, there are still a number of "hard to treat" wastes where research could provide new or less-expensive technological solutions. Chemical Toxicity Testing for Human and Ecological End- points ranks last because it is the routine application of stan- dard toxicity testing protocols and is very expensive, thus, not a suitable use of limited research resources. 2.3.2.2 Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities There are 307 municipal waste combustion facilities with a current capacity of 104,000 tons per day. About 30 million people in 35 states and 900 communities are served by munici- pal waste combustion facilities. This accounts for approximately 16 percent of the waste generated annually. These facilities are known to emit toxic contaminants such as dioxin, furans, cad- mium, lead, and mercury. In addition to large municipal waste combustion facilities, there are thousands of small incinerators such as those used to dispose of medical wastes. Recent studies indicate that medical waste incinerators are a major source of mercury emissions. There are also over 300 facilities burning hazardous wastes. These facilities include waste combustors (e.g., incinerators, cement kilns), industrial boilers and thermal desorption units. All of these units are burning complex mixtures of toxic contaminants, often in high concen- trations, and therefore can contribute significant emissions on a site-specific basis if improperly designed or operated. Public acceptance of waste combustion and thermal treatment as a viable disposal technology is very low because of our inability to answer questions concerning the safety of this waste manage- ment option. The risks associated with combustion facilities are potentially very high because (1) the number of combustion facilities is high, (2) the facilities have the potential to emit very toxic contaminants such as dioxin, furans, mercury, lead, and cad- mium, (3) these emissions become dispersed over large geo- Table 2-7. Focus and ranking of research activities for active waste management facilities. Research Activity Title Multimedia, Multipathway Exposure Modeling Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for Contaminants Environmental Fate and Transport; Physical Estimation Waste Characterization and Sampling Waste Management Chemical Toxicity Testing for Human and Ecological Endpoints Potential Research Focus Develop true multimedia, multipathway exposure and risk models that support HWIR. Review animal toxicologic studies, human epidemiologic studies, structure activity relationships, and then conduct dose-response assessments to derive Reference Doses, Reference Concentrations and/or cancer slope factors. Provide the science and environmental data needed to understand the fate, transport and transformation of RCRA constituents. Develop the sampling methods, techniques and designs necessary to determine compliance with proposed RCRA exit level values. Develop analytical methods with the necessary specificity and sensitivity to support exit level determination and compliance monitoring. Develop more cost-effective treatment options for hard-to- treat wastes. Determine the applicability of innovative treatment options to hazardous wastes. Perform toxicity testing for high priority contaminants constituents of hazardous waste streams. "Science" Ranking 1 3 2 5 6 4 "Science Plus" Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 26 ------- graphic areas that often have large populations or produce important food products (crops, animal, and dairy products), and (4) exposure occurs over several pathways and routes. These risks are also perceived by the public as very high as evidenced by community protests at facilities such as Waste Technologies Incorporated (WTI) in East Liverpool, Ohio, and at many Superfund sites such as New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts, and Bloomington, Indiana. The risks associated with combustion facilities are also highly uncertain and cut across the risk assessment paradigm. Areas of major uncertainty in exposure assessment include: What contaminants are being formed? What additional contaminants are formed as the emissions disperse and are transformed in the environment? What is the fate and transport of the contaminants? Where do they go and who might be exposed? What is the geographical scale of exposure? Current studies indi- cate that airborne contaminants are extremely mobile and can affect regional receptors. How much contamination are people and ecological re- ceptors exposed to? Through what exposure pathways? How much contamination eventually makes its way into our food? And how much of the contamination found in our food is bioavailable to cause a toxic response in human receptors? How effective and accurate are current monitoring tech- nologies? Areas of major uncertainty in hazard assessment include: How toxic to humans are the contaminants that are being released? What doses of dioxin, furans, mercury, lead, cadmium and other contaminants are safe for human receptors? How harmful to ecological receptors are the contaminants that are being released? What amounts of dioxin, furans, mercury, lead, cadmium and other stressors are harmful? Areas of major uncertainty in risk characterization include: Which contaminants being emitted present the greatest risk to human health and the environment and, thus, should be the focus of control efforts? What is the risk of cumulative continuous exposure? Combustion facilities are normally evaluated and regu- lated based on their individual emissions, exposure, and risk to surrounding receptors. The cumulative impact of continuous emissions from multiple combustion facilities and other sources of contaminants is not known. The areas of greatest uncertainty in risk management are: How can emission levels of contaminants be reduced most cost-effectively? What are the combustion processes that lead to contain- ment formation? Are process design/operation changes appropriate, or should add-on controls be used? What are the cheapest ways to minimize emissions from small combustors? How can the control of multiple emissions be most cost-effec- tively accomplished? To address these uncertainties and associated high priority research needs, six research areas were identified: 1) exposure characterization and modeling; 2) continuous emission monitor- ing; 3) evaluation of the movement of metals in the food chain; 4) indirect pathway riskassessment methods; 5) dose-response assessments of key contaminants; and 6) emissions prevention and control (Table 2-8). ORD first ranked these research areas relative to each other based on the potential for the research to either reduce risk; reduce uncertainties in risk estimation, site characterization or risk assessment; or reduce cleanup costs. The third column of Table 2-8 lists the research activities in order of decreasing priority based on this Science ranking. The fourth column Table 2-8 lists the ranking of research activities in terms of "Science Plus," reflecting revised priorities based on Congressional man- dates, Program Office and Regional priorities, and other impor- tant considerations that are more of a managerial nature than solely scientific. The Science Plus ranking of research activities is identical to the Science ranking for waste combustion facilities. This reflects the fact that all the Science Plus ranking factors were equally applicable to all research activities in this topic area. These factors included: 1) high priority for research across the risk paradigm in the CENR report; 2) high Administration priority as reflected by the Administrator's Combustion Strategy, which requires that all hazardous waste combustion facilities be evalu- ated for health and ecological impact using the indirect exposure methodology; 3) high priority by the Office of Solid Waste and Regional offices as evidenced by their commitment to establish with their own funds a Technical Support Center to evaluate indirect exposures; and 4) listing of waste research as "an area of high importance" in the ORD strategic plan. Application of the Science Plus criteria did not impact any of the rankings with in the Combustion Facility research topic. Applying the Science Plus criteria resulted only in some minor changes in the ordinals when combustion facility research areas were compared to the other three hazardous waste topic areas. The combustion research areas dropped to slightly lower ranks due to several factors. First, issues relating to combustion were judged by ORD as not as high a priority to the program offices as contaminated ground water or contaminated soil. Secondly, Congressionally authorized programs which received relatively lower science rankings (e.g., various SITE demonstration pro- grams) were bumped upward in their science plus rankings. The Waste Research Coordination Team (RCT) judged that the highest priority areas within the waste combustion facility topic area were emission prevention and control and exposure char- acterization/modeling. Emission Prevention and Control in- volves the characterization of waste combustion systems and their emissions along with the development and evaluation of techniques to prevent emissions formation or control their release. This area addresses incinerators and industrial sys- tems burning wastes. It studies the reduction of emissions by system design and operation changes, as well as through the use of add-on controls. This area was judged as the highest priority because of the high potential for risk reduction and cost savings that could be achieved with reduced emissions from the waste combustion facilities. Indirect Exposure Characteriza- 27 ------- tion/Modeling involves developing improved fate, transport, and transformation models of contaminants that are emitted from waste combustion facilities. Current models lack the ro- bustness and resolution to provide adequate fate and transport data needed to accurately estimate exposure and risk. Potential avenues of research include developing improved/validated complex terrain models for combustion sources, vapor-particle partitioning of semi-volatile organics (chlorinated dioxins and PAHs) under ambient conditions, air deposition of semivolatile organics (chlorinated dioxins, PCBs, higher molecular-weight chlorinated benzenes/phenols, PAHs, and high molecularweight phthalates), vaportransportto surfaces, wet and dry deposition, surface vapor uptake in plants and animals, mathematical models, parameter characterization, validation of models for dry gas deposition and air dispersion, and methods for particle size distribution for input to air dispersion models. This area was judged as the highest priority because of the very large uncer- tainties associated with the fate, transport, and transformation of emissions from waste combustion facilities. Research on Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment Methods is needed to develop, validate, and refine a methodology that estimates exposures from combustion facilities via indirect (non-inhalation) exposure pathways. The indirect exposure methodology (IEM) is a multimedia and multi-pathway model that was developed for application to numerous emitted pollut- ants being released from stationary combustion sources. The methodology was developed to provide a set of procedures for the estimation of exposures resulting from emitted pollutants that have been transferred from the atmosphere to environmen- tal media and biota. In addition, indirect exposures may result from uptake and transfer of an atmospheric pollutantthrough the terrestrial or aquatic food. Tasks in this research area include refining and validating the algorithm, developing guidance manu- als on how to properly select input parameters, and developing an expert system. Research in this area is a high priority because recent risk assessments of waste combustion facilities indicate that the greatest risks appear to be those caused by these indirect exposure pathways. Typically, the risks resulting from indirect exposure pathways are an order of magnitude higher than those from the direct inhalation of emissions. Conducting Dose-Response Assessments of Key Contami- nants Released is also a high priority. The purpose of this research area is to develop updated dose-response risk assess- ments for contaminants that present the greatest risk from combustion facilities. As more scientific data become available in the form of animal toxicological studies, human epidemiologi- cal studies, and mechanistic toxicodynamic models, toxicity values (reference doses, reference concentrations, and cancer slope factors) will need to be updated to provide a more accurate estimate of risks. Because there is a linear relationship between the toxicity values and risk, any change in the toxicity value will translate into the same change in estimated risk. Currently, the "risk drivers" are mercury, dioxin, furans, cadmium, and lead. Because there are many ongoing epidemiologic and toxicologic studies of these contaminants, the Waste RCTjudged that it was very important that the results from these emerging studies be evaluated and that current toxicity values be updated if neces- sary so that the risks from waste combustion facilities can be accurately estimated. Research on Continuous Emissions Monitoring Methods is another important research area. Acceptance of incineration as a viable treatment option for hazardous waste has been hin- dered by an inability to know continuously how well the combus- tion units are performing and whetherthere are any unexpected emissions. Emphasis in this research area would be on toxic metals (lead, mercury, cadmium), dioxins, furans and other semi-volatile organics. Simple, inexpensive methods are espe- cially needed for monitoring the thousands of small incinerators (e.g., medical waste incinerators) around the country. While this research area is very important in providing assurance to the public about the reliability of operations and uncertainties asso- ciated with incinerator emissions, ORD judged this area to be less critical than the previously described research areas, which should provide more reduction of uncertainty in our estimates of exposure and risk. The purpose of research studying the Movement of Bioaccumulative Chemicals in Food Webs is to determine the ecological effects of emissions from combustion facilities by studying their uptake and transferthrough terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Research would include the identification of indica- tor species and studies of species-specific exposure rates. Research would also include the study of contaminant bioavailability in combustor residues, including those from ther- mal treatment units. While this is an important area of research, ORD judged it to be a relatively lower priority because many of the principal contaminants of concern such as mercury and cadmium, have already been widely studied or are currently being studied by other programs. Any research would be tar- geted toward issues specific to waste combustion, such as bioavailability of specificforms of contaminants being emitted by waste combustion. 28 ------- Table 2-8. Focus and ranking of research activities for emissions from waste combustion facilities. Research Activity Title Emission Prevention and Control Indirect Exposure Characterization/Modeling Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment Methods Continuous Emissions Monitoring Methods Dose-Response of Key Contaminants Studies of the Movement of Bioaccumulative Chemicals in Food Webs Potential Research Focus Develop a better understanding of the combustion processes that lead to emissions formation. Characterize toxic emissions from industrial hazardous waste combustion units. Determine the most cost-effective means of controlling emissions from hazardous waste combustion units, especially industrial units and small incinerators. Determine the fate and transport of emission contaminants. Develop models that identify and predict the formation of secondary contaminants from primary emissions. Test and validate indirect exposure methodology (IEM) using site specific data. Develop and validate contaminant biotransfer and uptake factors. Develop guidance manuals and software program to apply IEM procedures. Develop improved instruments that measure (on a "real time" basis) what contaminants are being released to the environment. Complete the risk assessment of mercury. Develop toxicity values (Reference Doses, Reference Concentration, Cancer Slope Factors) for critical contaminants. Determine ecological effects of metal emissions. Study the movement of mercury in aquatic environments. Determine bioavailability of metals. "Science" Ranking 1 1 3 5 4 6 "Science Plus" Ranking 1 1 3 4 5 6 29 ------- 30 ------- Chapter 3. Conclusions and Issues Based on the analysis of research needs and ranking of re- search topics described in Chapter 2, ORD reached several conclusions and identified three issues that may require further attention. 3.1 Conclusions 1. There is a large and diverse set of waste research needs that span the spectrum of the risk paradigm. As a result, well integrated research programs are needed for each research topic area which have the goal of improving our assessment, characterization and risk management capabilities. Because there are insufficient resources available to meet all these research needs, the process of ranking research topics and activities is critical. The large volumes of solid and hazardous wastes generated in the United States pose a number of environmental problems that EPA is responsible for minimizing. Given the variety of waste types and of past waste management practices, it is not surprising that there is also a variety of technical and scientific issues that need to be addressed. The CENR report identified broad risk assessment and risk management research needs for waste-related environmental problems, and OSWER and the Regions identified more- focused needs that support their regulatory programs. 2. Four high-priority research topic areas and associated re- search activities were identified: Contaminated Sites - Ground Water. The National Research Council (NRC) has estimated that 300,000 to 400,000 sites have contaminated ground water from USTs, and about 80 percent of the NPL sites have contaminated ground water. The subsurface is also the most complex and costly me- dia to characterize, model, assess, and remediate, and there are still numerous scientific uncertainties associated with each of these topics. Congress ap- propriates approximately $1.2 billion annually to clean up the NPL sites and the Waste Research Program has demonstrated repeatedly the ability of its re- search to significantly reduce these costs. The focus of the research activities (Table 3-1) is on the issues of: improved risk assessment, character- ization and remediation of non-aqueous phase liq- uids (NAPLs), the application and management of natural and accelerated process for subsurface remediation, and the demonstration and verification of innovative characterization and remediation tech- nologies. The activities shown for contaminated sites - ground water are currently funded in the base research pro- gram except for mixture toxicology and containment of ground water. Contaminated Sites - Soils/Vadose Zone. The complexity and heterogeneity of soil/vadose zone matrices present many challenges to their character- ization, assessment, and remediation. The cost of remediation is still high; remedial actions alone aver- aged approximately $9 million per site in 1996. The focus of research activities (Table 3-1) is on the issues of improved exposure and risk assessment of soils, the application and management of natural and accelerated process for remediation, and the demon- stration and verification of innovative characterization and remediation technologies. The activities shown for contaminated sites - soils/ vadose zone are currently funded in the base re- search program except for mixture toxicology and estimating soil intake and dose for wildlife species. Active Waste Management Facilities. Currently, hazardous waste regulations are burden- some and costly to the U.S. economy. A proposal to provide administrative and economic relief by devel- oping a multimedia, multipathway risk-based approach to exclude waste and waste streams has been made (proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule). However, for this rule to succeed, significant new science, models and data are required. Also, OSWER has identified a number of waste control/ treatment issues for waste and waste streams that are hard to treat or where current technological solutions are too costly or do not meet current treatment standards. The focus of the research activities proposed for this research topic area is on the science needs related to HWIR, especially in multimedia, multipathway model- ing, and the development or estimation of toxicity values. The activities shown for active waste management facilities are currently funded in the base research program except for the development of provisional toxicity values and waste management. Emission from Waste Combustion Facilities. Waste combustion facilities are know to emit toxic contaminants such as dioxins, furans, cadmium, lead, and mercury. In addition to large municipal waste combustion facilities, there are thousands of small incinerators such as those used to dispose of medical waste which are suspected of being a major source of mercury emissions. Public acceptance of incinera- tion as a viable disposal technology is very low because of our inability to answer questions related to emission sources, emissions monitoring, indirect 31 ------- exposure pathways, and economical control and moni- toring of small incinerators. Research in this topic area is on the control and monitoring of emissions, emissions fate process and transport modeling, and indirect exposure and risk assessment methods and models. No research is funded currently in the base waste program. 3. While there is much uncertainty, debate, and controversy about the health and ecological risks posed by waste sites, there is consensus that the economic impact of current waste man- agement and cleanup practices is staggering. Within this context, waste research should be viewed as a relatively small and valuable investment to save future expenditures. Waste management and remediation are estimated to cost as high as $750 billion (Russell, etal., 1989). In contrast, ORD's research budget for FY97 was less than $50 million. This research, however, has yielded significant savings. For ex- ample, ata mining site in EPARegion 8, a$50,000 bioavailability study reduced cleanup costs from $8 million to $4 million (Weiss, 1997). Similarly, use of a phased characterization/sampling and analysis design at a dioxin contaminated soil site resulted in an overall savings of approximately $6.0 million (Ryti, etal., 1992, and Ryti, et a/., 1993). A 1996 Analysis of 46 RODs showed that where innovative technologies of the type tested in the SITE program were used instead of conventional technolo- gies, showed that an average savings of $30 million dollars per ROD was achieved (Gatchett, 1998). Clearly, there have been significant reductions in remediation costs resulting from re- search, and it is expected that future research will yield similar benefits. 4. Because of the multi-disciplined nature of waste-related research, there are many organizations (across government, industry, and academia) actively involved in sponsoring re- search activities. In order to maximize efficiency of effort and avoid duplication, and to improve every organizations' under- standing of waste research needs, special efforts need to be made to coordinate and leverage these research programs and activities. 5. ORD's current research program emphasizes risk manage- ment research. There is a need to increase the relative amount of risk assessment research in this program. About 80 percent of ORD's current waste research program is invested in risk management and monitoring, while only 20 percent is invested in risk assessment research. This is due to several factors. First, within ORD, the waste research program is the only place where characterization and remediation re- search specific to hazardous waste and Superfund sites is conducted. In contrast, a number of other ORD research programs (Human Health Protection, Ecological Research, etc.) have research efforts on topics related to generic risk assessment that benefit the waste programs. Additionally, CERCLA has mandated that ORD conduct 10 technology demonstrations per year as part of the SITE program. These activities utilize a significant portion of ORD's Superfund re- search resources. Finally, both NIEHS and ATSDR have Congressionally mandates to conduct basic research and de- velop toxicological profiles. While these efforts do not necessar- ily have a direct relationship to risk assessments at sites, they are helpful to the Superfund program. There are several areas where risk assessment issues need to be addressed, either as part of the ORD waste research pro- gram, or by other research programs inside ORD or elsewhere. The research activities identified in Table 3-1 are those that should be conducted in whole or in part in the ORD waste research program. Both the risk assessment research activities (left three columns) and the risk management research activities (rightthree columns) address high-priority research needs. This research strategy provides guidance on deciding the relative emphasis that should be placed on risk management and assessment research from FY97 to FYOO. 3.2 Issues 1. Lack of Risk Characterization Research. The CENR report identified risk characterization as a commonly overlooked, yet very important, research priority. ORD does not have any research activities under this component of the risk assessment paradigm. Should ORD conduct additional research in this area? If yes, should it be part of the Waste Research Strategy or is it more appropriate as part of another research plan such as the Research Strategy for Human Health Risk Assessment? 2. Future Waste Strategy Development. This waste strategy and its associated research plans present the first comprehen- sive waste research planning done by ORD. The planning will not stop with publication of this document. The authors plan to coordinate ORD discussions that will lead to a more integrated set of research activities both across ORD waste research and with other related ORD research programs, such as ecosystems protection. The research strategy itself will be revisited within two to three years to provide guidance beyond FYOO. 3. Funding Strategies. The number and diversity of research needs far exceeds ORD's ability to meet them. ORD has identified a set of research activities through which it believes can make significant scientific contributions and that are respon- sive to many of the high priority needs. However, some of these activities are not currently funded in our base research program (FY97). These unfunded research activities are identified in bold in Table 3-1. Strategically, ORD will use four approaches to identify funds for these unfunded priorities. They are: Annual Reallocation of Funds Annually, for both the enacted and President's budgets, ORD will look for opportunities to reallocate funds to higher priority research from completed or lower priority research activities. Research Appropriate for ORD's External Grants Program Annually ORD will identify research needs that are appropriate for the external grants program. Generally, this will be in areas where fundamental advances to the science are needed. Unfunded high priority research activities will be emphasized. 32 ------- Other Research Programs Where a Need May Be Met ORD will seek to identify other ORD, Federal, or private sector research programs where high priority waste research needs may be met. Additional Resources Should additional resources become available, they will be allocated to high- priority unfunded or underfunded research activities. 33 ------- Table 3-1. Research activities unfunded in the current base waste research program (shown in bold). Research Topic Areas (in Priority Order) Contaminated Sites - Ground Water Contaminated Sites - Soils/ Vadose Zone Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities Active Waste Management Facilities RESEARCH ACTIVITIES BY PARADIGM CATEGORIES Risk Assessment Exposure Assessment - Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling (7)* - GW Exposure Factors /Pathways (21) - Estimating Human Exposure & Delivered Dose (1) - Estimating Soil Intake and Dose - Wildlife Species (3) - Indirect Exposure Characterization Modeling (13) - Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment (11) - Multimedia, Multi- pathway Exposure Modeling (14) - Environmental Fate and Transport; Physical Estimation (25) Hazard Assessment - Mixtures Toxicology (26) - Ecological Risk Assessment Methods (38) - Human Dose- Response Models for Mixtures (3) - Ecological Screening Tests to Measure the Effectiveness of Treatment (18) - Mixtures Toxicology (34) - Movement of Bioaccumulative Chemicals in Food Webs (33) - Dose-Response of Key Contaminants (24) - Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for Contaminants (18) Risk Characterization Risk Management Remediation & Restoration - Natural Attenuation (2) -Abiotic Treatment of GW(9) - Biotreatment of GW(16) - Containment of GW (17) - Demonstration Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (27) - Biotreatment of Soils (3) -Containment of Soils (18) - Demonstration Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (27) - Abiotic Treatment of Soils (31) -Oil Spills (36) Control - Emissions Prevention and Control (12) - Waste Management (36) Monitoring - Subsurface Characterization (6) - Field and Screening Analytical Methods forGW(15) - Demonstration Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (27) - Field Sampling Methods (8) - Field and Screening Analytical Methods for Soils (9) - Sampling Design (22) - Demonstration / Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (27) - Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEMS) Methods (23) - Waste Characterization and Sampling (32) Equals the ordinal rank of each research activity across the entire Waste Research Program based on the science plus ranking factors. ------- References Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1996. Report to Congress 1993, 1994, 1995. U.S. Department of Human Health Services, Public Health Service, 1996. Carlin, A., P.P. Scodari, and D. H. Gamer. 1992. Environmental Investments: The Cost of Cleaning Up. Environment3A(2):'\2- 20, 38-44. Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources. A Na- tional R&D Strategy for Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Solid Wastes. Washington, DC: National Science and Tech- nology Council, 1995. Energy Administration. 1995. Petroleum Supply Annual I. Wash- ington DC: U.S. Department of Energy, May 1995. Gatchett, A., and K. Edwards. 1998. SITE Program Success: Cost Savings to Government and Increased Revenue for Technology Vendors. Remediation 8(4). Higgins, B. W. 1996. The Case for Municipal Waste Combus- tion. Environmental Solutions, Vol. 9, No. 10:27-32. Industrial Economics, Inc. 1991. Initial Assessmentofthe Scope of the Contaminated Media Problem. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Policy Analysis and Contaminated Media Cluster. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1989. I ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon, France. Laws, Elliott P. 1996. Correspondence to Genevieve Matanowski, Ph.D., EPA Science Advisory Board, Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Academy of Sciences. 1994. Science and Judge in RiskAssessment. Washington, DC: National Research Coun- cil. National Environmental Law Center. 1995. Nowhere to Hide. August. National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Wa- ter Cleanup. Washington, DC, National Science Press. National Response Center. 1996. National Data Bases: Acute Hazard Events Data Base, Accident Release Information Program, Emergency Release Notification System, Hazard- ous Materials Information System, Marine Safety Information System, National Response Center Incident Reporting Sys- tems. Washington, DC. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1991. Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Program Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1996a. Emer- gency Response Notification System (ERNS) Database. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1996b. Compre- hensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System(CERCLIS). Washington, DC: U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1996c. National Environmental Indicators Data Compilation. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. 1997a. 1997 Update to ORD's Strategic Plan, EPA/600/R-97/015. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. 1997c. Contaminated Sediments Research Work Plan - Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. 1997d. Human Health Risk Assessment Research - Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. 1997e. Ecosystems Protection Research Plan - Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. 1998. Pollution Preven- tion Research Strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency. Office of Science and Technology. 1996. Fuel Oxygenates and Water Quality: Current Understanding of Sources, Occur- rence in Natural Waters, Environmental Behavior, Fate, and Significance. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, March. Office of Solid Waste. 1993a. RCRA Data Summary. Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. 1993b. The Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency. Office of Solid Waste. 1993c. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. 1995a. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1995 Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. 1995b. Regulatory Impact Assessment for Propose Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards - Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 35 ------- Office of Solid Waste. 1995c. Addendum to the Assessment of the Potential Costs and Benefits of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule for Industrial Process Wastes, as Pro- posed. Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. 1996a. List of Solid Waste Landfills. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste. 1996b. Second Addendum to the Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards - Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Russell, M., E.W. Coglazier, and R. R. English. 1991. Hazard- ous Waste Remediation: The Task Ahead. Knoxville, Univer- sity of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Educa- tion Institute. Ryti, R.T., etal., 1992. Superfund Soil Cleanup. Environmental Testing and Analysis. Jan - Feb. Ryti, R.T., etal., 1993. Superfund Soil Cleanup: Developing the Piazza Road ... Design. J. Air Waste Management Associa- tion 43:197-202. Sands, C. 1996. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November. Science Advisory Board. 1995. Human Exposure Assessment, A Guide to Risk Ranking, Risk Reduction, and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Council of Environmental Quality. 1993. Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup: A Report of the Federal Facilities Group. Washington, DC: Office of the President. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I-Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. EPA540-1-89-002. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. EPA. 1993a. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Mar- kets and Technology Trends. EPA542-R-82-013. Washing- ton, DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S. EPA. 1993b. A Review of Federal Authorities for Hazard- ous Materials Accident Safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, EPA 550/R-93/002. Decem- ber. U.S. EPA. 1996a. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Mar- kets and Technology Trends. 1996 Edition, EPA542-R-96- 005. Washington, DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. U.S. EPA. 1996b. Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Federal Register. 61(79): April 23. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment Program. 1995. A Preliminary Assessment of the Occurrence and Possible sources ofMTBE in Ground water in the United States, 1993-1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Williams, R. and J. Lybarger. ATSDR 1996 Program Review. Crystal City, Virginia, July. 36 ------- Glossary of Terms bioavailability: The availability of a chemical to an animal, plant or microorganism. It may be assayed by measurement of uptake, toxicity or biodegradability. biomarker: A measurable indicator of exposure or effect in a biological receptor. biodegradation: The biological conversion of an organic compound to products of simpler structure, often inorganic products. bioremediation: The treatment of contaminants by biodegradation to reduce their concentration. biosensor: An analytical device composed of a biological recognition element (enzyme, receptor, DMA, antibody, or mi- croorganism) in intimate contact with a signal transducer (e.g., electrochemical, optical, thermal, or acoustic) that together relate the concentration or chemical property of an analyte to a measurable electronic signal. cellular biology: the cellular level. The study of processes and interactions at cone penetrometer: A hydraulically driven [geotechnical] tool for characterizing the arrangement of hydrogeologic materials. dose-response assessment: The evaluation of the relation- ship between chemical exposure concentrations (dose) and the incidence of adverse effects in humans or other species (re- sponse). exposure assessment: The determination of the conditions under which people could be exposed to contaminants and the doses that occur as a result of such exposure scenarios. hazard assessment: The activities of hazard identification and dose-response assessment. hazard identification: The determination of the identities and quantities of chemicals present as contaminants in the environ- ment or manufactured for various uses, and the types of hazards they may pose to human health. hydrofracturing: The injection of water into [contaminated] consolidated sediments to create fractures that increase the permeability of the sediments, thereby increasing the effective- ness of in situ treatment processes. immunoaffinity: A separation technique using chromatography specific antibodies to extract the target analyte(s) from an environmental or biological matrix prior to detection by immunoassay or instrumental methods. immunoassay: An analytical method based on the interaction of a specific antibody with its target analyte(s) used for detection and quantitation. Although based on biological reagents, immu- noassays are physical assays. immunochemical method: Analytical methods based on the reaction of a specific antibody with its target analyte(s) for extraction, cleanup, concentration, detection and quantitation. immunochemistry: A scientific discipline bridging chemistry and biology, providing highly specific and precise quantitative methods for the study of environmental contaminants and human exposure assessment. incineration: Thermal destruction of waste materials by oxidation. innovative technology: Technology lacking sufficient pub- lished cost and performance data. in-situ remediation: Remediation processes that are pro- cesses applied "in place" in the ground, without excavation of the contaminated soil. karst terrain: An irregular limestone region with sinks, underground streams and caverns. kriging: A statistical procedure that geologist use to characterize subsurface; kriging maximizes the information obtained from a given number of samples. mechanistic data: Information describing the process of how a toxic reaction occurs in an organism. methodological research: Research conducted to develop improved procedures to evaluate risks. mixed wastes: Wastes containing radio nuclides as well as other non-radioactive contaminants. nonaqueous-phase liquid: A liquid consisting of organic compounds that are not completely miscible with water. natural attenuation: Naturally occurring processes in the environment that act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume or concentration of contami- nants. pharmacokinetics: The field of study concerned with defining, through measurement or modeling, the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and the excretion of drugs or chemicals in a biological system as a function of time. physiologically based: Pharmacokinetics based on mea- sured pharmacokinetics (PBPK) physiological variables such as blood flows through organs. phytoremediation: sites using plants. Set of processes that clean contaminated risk assessment: The systematic, scientific characterization of potential adverse effects of human or ecological exposures to hazardous agents or activities. 37 ------- risk characterization: The description of the nature of adverse effects that can be attributed to chemical contaminants, estima- tion of their likelihood in various exposed populations, and evaluation of the strength of the evidence and the uncertainty associated with the risks estimates. risk management: The process of identifying, evaluating, selecting, and implementing actions to reduce risk to human health and to ecosystems. risk paradigm: A theoretical framework describing the components of risk assessment and risk management pro- cesses, and the interconnection of these components. Also, termed the "risk assessment/risk management paradigm." soil horizon: A layer of soil approximately parallel to the land surface that differs from adjacent layers in physical, chemi- cal, and biological properties or characteristics such as color, structure, or texture. soil vapor extraction: The use of vapor extraction wells with blowers or vacuum pumps to remove contaminants from soils and the subsurface. solidification: Encapsulating the waste in a monolithic solid of high structural integrity. solid waste management unit: A facility used for the treat- ment, storage or disposal of solid waste, including hazardous wastes. stabilization: Converting contaminants into less soluble, mobile or toxic form. stakeholders: Persons and organization who have an interest in an activity because they are involved in or affected by it. thermal desorption: The use of elevated temperatures to remove contaminants from soils by causing them to vaporize. toxicokinetic data: Information describing the adsorption distribution metabolism and elimination of a chemical in an organism. vadose zone: The subsurface zone that extends between the ground surface and the ground water table. vertical geomembrane curtain wall barrier: A vertical wall consisting of a thin, low permeability man-made material inserted in the ground to contain or divert ground water. 38 ------- Appendix A. Summary of Research Needs All the detailed research and support needs identified by the CENR, the Program Offices, Regional Offices, and the ORD are arrayed by risk paradigm in Tables A-1 through A-6 (one table for each element of the risk paradigm). These tables include data that identify the specific support or research need, the source of research need, and who/where the need should most appropriately be addressed. This set of needs is considered to be the "universe of needs" and the basis upon which ORD will determine what research is appropriate and for which it has the capability and capacity to conduct. The table attempts to identify "where" each identified research need should most appropri- ately be addressed. Those needs that are (or may be in the future) addressed in this plan are identified by ORD Waste Research Plan in bold. In many cases, relevant or related research is being conducted elsewhere that will partially or fully meet the stated research need. These other locations are also identified. If there is no entry for a given research needs, research is not currently planned nor has it been identified as being conducted elsewhere. 39 ------- Table A-1. Summary of research needs - Hazard Assessment. Risk Paradigm Element Hazard Assessment Research Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed IDENTIFICATION OF TOXIC - Greater emphasis on noncancer endpoints. - Improved understanding of the biological basis for toxicity and biologically-based extrapolation models between species. - Effects of short term exposure to contaminants at different ages. - Effects of dermal exposure on cancer and noncancer endpoints. - Effects of contaminants on ecological receptors. CENR OERR osw CENR OERR OSW CENR OERR OSW CENR OERR OSW CENR OERR OSW ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan Ecological Research Strategy DOSE-RESPONSE ANALYSES - Biologically based toxicokinetic models. - Variation in susceptibilities within and across species. - Improved understanding of biological mechanisms of action at the organ, cellular, and subcellar level. - Understanding the relationship between exposure and dose, especially as it relates to bioavailability of contaminants. - Improved understanding of the effects of complex mixtures. - Development of predictive models of population dynamics for selected ecological or societal species of interest. CENR OERR OSW CENR OERR OSW CENR OERR OSW CENR OERR OSW CENR OERR OSW CENR OERR OSW ORD Plan ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan ORD Plan ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan ORD Plan ORD Waste Research Plan Ecological Research Strategy 40 ------- Table A-2. Summary of waste research needs - Exposure Assessment. Paradigm Element Exposure Assessment Research Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed PHYSICAL ESTIMATION, TRANSFORMATION, AND FATE - Improve understanding of abiotic processes controlling transport, fate and bioavailability of chemicals in soil, natural waters, and sediment. - Improve understanding of bioaccumulation and metabolic processes controlling biodegradability of chemicals in microbial populations in soils, natural waters, and sediments. - Enhancement of the IV1INTEQA2 database. Validation/verification. - Addition of Redox database to MINTEGA2. - Evaluation of fate and transport parameters for hazardous constituents. - Expert analysis of biodegradation rates for the subsurface environment. - Develop a working understanding of the microbiologic and abiotic processes contributing to the degradation of contaminants in the subsurface, especially as related to natural attenuation. - Determine the environmental fate of vegetable oils and animal fats in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. CENR CENR osw osw osw osw OERR OERR ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Multimedia Research Program ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Multimedia Research Program ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Multimedia Research Program ORD Air Toxic Research Program (in part) ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan PATHWAYS AND - Improve methods for diagnosing route of exposure and exposure history. - Improve data on human activity patterns (e.g., food ingestion rates, time in various settings, etc.). - Better procedures / models for assessing dermal exposure, especially from soil, including matrix-specific and receptor- specific (e.g., race) properties. - Bioaccumulation of metals, especially mercury. - Bioaccumulation of semi-volatile organics (chlorinated organics, PAHs, higher MW phthalates) and metals in terrestrial plants and animals, cycling of xenobiotics from terrestrial plants to detritus to soils to soil organisms. - Methods/models for determining the bioavailability of metals and organics from soils via the ingestion exposure route, plant to animal, animal to human (direct and indirect exposure). - Guidance for determining residential exposure (dermal, inhalation) from NAPL contaminated ground water and soils (vinyl chloride, benzene, etc.). - Develop methods to collect exposure data from minorities, disadvantaged populations or other groups (children , women, etc.) likely to be disproportionately affected. CENR CENR CENR OERR OSW OSW OERR Regions OERR CENR OERR ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) 41 ------- Table A-2. (Continued). Risk Paradigm Element Exposure Assessment Research Needs Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND FACTORS (cont.) - Improved understanding of exposure to dose relationships. CENR ORD Human Health Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) ORD Air Toxics Research Program (in part) MULTIMEDIA, MULTIPATHWAY EXPOSURE MODELING - Evaluate existing/developing new fate, transport, and exposure assessment models for multimedia assessments. - Better procedures to assess complex (e.g., multipathway/multichemical) exposure scenarios. - Enhancement of OSW subsurface fate and transport models by incorporating fractured flow and heterogeneous porous media. - Validation and verification of fate and transport models in general. - DOE Spill Test Facility -- fundamental dispersion modeling research - Research on large-scale gas releases and liquid spills under varying weather, density, terrain, and surface roughness conditions to validate and enhance exposure models. CENR OSW CENR OSW OSW OSW CEPPO CEPPO ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Multimedia Research Program ORD Research Plan ORD Multimedia Research Program ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Multimedia Research Program ORD Air Toxics Research Program (in part) EXPOSURE MODELING TECHNICAL SUPPORT - Fate, transport and modeling support for HWIR, OUST, OERR. OSW OUST OERR ORD Waste Research Plan EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION / MODELING - COMBUSTION / INCINERATION - Correlation between combustion mercury emissions and methyl mercury levels in biomarkers. - Vapor-particle partitioning of semi-volatile organics (chlorinated dioxins and PAHs) under ambient conditions. - Air deposition of semi-volatile organics (chlorinated dioxins, PCBs, higher MW chlorinated benzene and phenols, PAHs, and higher MW phthalates). - Vapor transport to surfaces - wet and dry deposition. - Surface vapor uptake - plants and soils. - Mathematical models, parameter characterization, and validation of models for dry gas deposition air dispersion. Regions OSW OSW OSW OSW OSW Regions ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Multimedia Research Program (South Florida Mercury Study) ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Human Risk Assessment Research Plan (in part) ORD Air Toxics Research Program (very little) ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Air Toxics Research Program (very little) ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Air Toxics Research Program (in part) 42 ------- Table A-2. (Continued). Risk Paradigm Element Exposure Assessment Research Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed CHARACTERIZATION / MODELING - COMBUSTION / INCINERATION (cont.) - Methods for particle size distribution for input to air dispersion models. Regions ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Air Toxics Research Program (in part) INDIRECT PATHWAY METHODS - COMBUSTION / INCINERATION - Indirect eco and human exposure methodology for combustion sources (incineration/thermal desorbers). osw OERR ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Air Toxics Research Program (in part) Table A-3. Summary of waste research needs - Risk Characterization. Risk Paradigm Element Risk Characterization Research Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed RISK INTEGRATION - Methods to integrate the elements of a risk assessment in complex cases. - Quantitative statistical methods to evaluate variability and uncertainty. - Methods to assess cumulative risk. - Methods to include cultural and behavioral aspects into risk analysis. CENR CENR CENR CENR ORD Human Risk Assessment Research Plan ORD Human Risk Assessment Research Plan ORD Human Risk Assessment Research Plan COMMUNICATION - Risk communication strategies that include community members - Better statistical and communication tools to communicate risks to the public and risk managers. CENR CENR 43 ------- Table A-4. Summary of waste research needs - Control. Risk Paradigm Element Control Research Needs Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed COMBUSTION - Characterization of dioxin/furan emissions from boilers, especially boiler tubes and boilers of various types; and from halogen acid furnaces. - Full scale PIC testing to better understand formation dynamics; particularly post-combustion PICs. - Determine good combustion practices (design and operation) which will minimize emissions of priority pollutants, especially for small combustors. - Develop control techniques for mercury emissions. Improved mercury speciation. - Characterize emissions of high priority semivolatiles and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Waste combustion and develop effective control techniques. - Identification of organic and PIC surrogates for non-dioxin organics. OSW osw OSW osw osw osw ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan (related bench studies) ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan TECHNOLOGY - Research the chemical dynamics and long term efficacy of emerging waste solidification and stabilization technologies. - Evaluate treatment alternatives for wastes that contain mercury, particularly in light of air emissions and elemental mercury. - Evaluate the cross media transfer of contaminants during treatment. - Evaluation of ground water/surface water interactions. - Municipal Innovative Technology Evaluation (MITE) Program. - Guidelines: Life Cycle Management Evaluation of Waste Management osw osw osw osw osw osw ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan (Part of ORD tech. devel. activities) ORD Eco. Protection Plan P2 Research Plan POLLUTION PREVENTION & RECYCLING - Source Reduction/Recycling Options for High Priority Processes. - Technologies to Reduce Barriers to Recycling. - Source Reduction Opportunities for Combusted Wastes. - Criteria to Delay MACT Implementation Dates. - National P2 Roundtable RCRA Priorities Support. osw osw osw osw osw P2 Research Plan P2 Research Plan P2 Research Plan 44 ------- Table A-5. Summary of waste research needs - Remediation. Risk Paradigm Element Remediation Research Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed GROUND WATER REMEDIATION - Conduct field evaluations of ground water remediation technologies to obtain data on performance, cost and environmental effects. - Develop, demonstrate and evaluate in situ technologies, such as bioremediation, to remediate subsurface plumes. - Develop technologies to characterize, model monitor and remediate contaminated plumes in ground water, particularly DNAPLs. - Identify new or improved techniques for removing or treating subsurface DNAPLs. - Develop workable site characterization protocols for evaluating the potential for using natural attenuation to meet cleanup goals in the subsurface. - Develop understanding of microbial and abiotic processes contributing to contaminant degradation in the subsurface. - Conduct research to better understand the process associated with reactive barrier effectiveness and develop improved barrier media. - Develop improved methods of remediating ground water using vegetation planted and grown in the contaminated areas. - Develop improved methods for monitoring and evaluating performance of barriers designed to control migration of contaminated ground water. - Conduct research to understand the fate and remediation options for MTBE in fuels. - Conduct research in natural attenuation of fuels in ground water. CENR CENR OERR CENR OSWER Regions OSWER OERR OERR OERR OERR OUST OUST ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan SOILA/ADOSE ZONE REMEDIATION - Conduct field evaluations of contaminated soils remediation technologies to obtain data on performance, costs and environmental effects. - Develop, demonstrate, and evaluate in situ technologies, such as bioremediation, for remediation of contaminated soils. - Evaluate the applicability of composting remedies to stabilization of metals in surface soils. - Develop workable site characterization protocols for evaluating the potential for using natural attenuation to meet cleanup objectives in the subsurface. CENR CENR ORD OERR OSWER ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan 45 ------- Table A-5. (Continued). Risk Paradigm Element Remediation Research Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed SOIL/VADOSE REMEDIATION (cont.) - Conduct research on NA of fuels in soils and vadose zone. - Develop understanding of microbial and abiotic processes contributing to contaminant degradation in the subsurface. - Develop improved methods of remediating soil using vegetation planted and grown in the contaminated area. - Investigate the basic natural biological, chemical, and physical mechanisms that affect the toxicity or mobility of contaminants in soils to identify and optimize remediation processes. - Determine the long-term effectiveness and costs of containment systems, the proper means of monitoring them and ways to fix them effectively. - Evaluate treatment technologies for contaminated sediments. OUST OERR OERR ORD OERR Regions ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Contaminated Sediments Work Plan LANDFILLS - Develop, demonstrate, and evaluate in situ technologies, such as bioremediation, for remediation of landfills. - Evaluate the performance of waste containment systems at working landfills. CENR ORD OERR ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan OIL SPILLS - Develop, evaluate, and demonstrate innovative technologies to remediate and restore environments impacted by oil spills or chemical releases - Evaluate the environmental impacts of oil spills remediation options. CENR OERR ORD Waste Research Plan CLEAN UP - Develop techniques to measure the health of ecosystems and the effectiveness of restoration efforts. - Develop techniques for determining risk-based cleanup goals for a variety of remediation technologies. CENR OERR Regions ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan - Develop new information management and quality assurance tools and procedures to improve the speed with which data are collected, tracked, interpreted and reviewed at sites. - Provide site-specific technical support, including in-depth support that deals with complex remediation problems. CENR OSWER ORD Waste Research Plan 46 ------- Table A-5. (Continued). Risk Paradigm Element Remediation Research Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed BETTER MANAGEMENT DECISIONS (cont.) - Provide support for the development of Presumptive Remedies (guidance to speedy remedy selections and promote technically sound, consistent selections). - Expand bioremediation field data base to include composting. - Direct research and development expertise towards solving site-specific cleanup problems. - Provide site-specific technical assistance on the application of subsurface modeling at contaminated sites, especially to address cleanup technical impracticability and the applicability of natural attenuation. - Develop methodologies for evaluating the outcomes, or benefits, of cleanup projects. - Develop tools and provide guidance on how to estimate costs of remediation projects to support cleanup decisions and justify budget requests. - Develop and implement ways to ensure that recent scientific/engineering advances can be rapidly and correctly implemented in remediation practice. - Develop means to keep remediation stakeholders informed about state-of-the-art solutions to the highest priority technical problems. - RCRA CA Tech Support - Remediation OERR OERR OERR OSWER OERR OERR ORD ORD osw ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan (technical support) ORD Waste Research Plan (to be determined) ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan FEDERAL FACILITIES - Conduct field evaluations of technologies to remediate radioactive wastes and mixed wastes in order to obtain data on performance, cost and environmental effects. - Develop a national federal test site program at federal facilities to support technology development and evaluation. - Develop, demonstrate, and evaluate innovative technologies for characterization, identification, and remediation of energetic materials (e.g., unexploded ordinances and chemical munitions). - Coordinate development of robotics waste separation and characterization technologies that are applicable to high- level waste, mixed wastes, landfills and contaminated soils, and ground water contaminated plumes. CENR CENR CENR CENR DOE DOD, DOE DOD DOE 47 ------- Table A-6. Summary of waste research needs - Monitoring. Risk Paradigm Element Monitoring Research Needs Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed - Innovative site characterization (especially and related to VOCs, metals, and natural attenuation). OERR ORD Waste Research Plan FIELD AND ANALYTICAL - Speciation of arsenic and selenium. - Evaluation of pesticide screening by GC/AED. - Direct determination of PAHs by capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence detection. - Lower analytical detection limits for bioaccumulative chemicals. - Develop a wider spectrum of immunoassay tools and methods for soil screening. - Improve data on contaminant levels and release rates from sites, especially field analytical methods. - Improve TCLP, especially for oily wastes. - Develop corrosivity and ignitability tests for solids. OSW OSW OSW OERR Regions CENR OERR Regions Regions ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Drinking Water Research Program (in part) ORD Air Toxics Research Program (in part) CONTINUOUS MONITORING (OEMs) - Analytical methods for chloro- and bromo- dioxins and furans. Air, soils, waste residue, continuous emission monitors (CEMs) for combustion sources. - Develop guidance or improve analytical methods for better speciation of organics (PICs). - CEMs for mercury and mercury species. - Improved surrogates for emissions of PIC HAPs and associated CEMs. - Lower detection limits of VOST methods for PICs. - Improved discrimination of coeluting PIC peaks. - Inexpensive monitors for good combustion conditions for small units. - Improvement to the Total Organic Emissions Test (TOE). OSW OSW OSW OSW OSW OSW OAQPS Regions ORD Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan DEMONSTRATION & VERIFICATION OF FIELD MONITORING AND CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES - Demonstration of innovative monitoring and site characterization technologies. OERR TIO ORD Waste Research Plan 48 ------- Table A-6. (Continued). Risk Paradigm Element Monitoring Research Sorted by Major Research Activities Source of Research Need Who/Where Will Be Addressed SPATIAL ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZED SAMPLING - Innovative site characterization (especially as related to natural attenuation). OSW OUST OERR ORD Waste Research Plan SURFACE /SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION - Innovative site characterization (especially as related to natural attenuation). - Develop innovative techniques for locating DNAPLs in the subsurface. - Develop methods for monitoring and evaluating the performance of barriers designed to control migration of contaminated groundwater, especially DNAPLs. OSW OUST OERR Regions OERR OERR ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan MONITORING AND CHARACTERIZATION TECHNICAL SUPPORT - Technical support on sampling and analysis and GEMS for PICs, metals, and PM. - RCRA corrective action technical support. - Superfund site-specific monitoring and characterization (including remote sensing) technical support. - Training courses: fate and transport of contaminants and DNAPLs. OSW OSW OERR Regions Regions ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan ORD Waste Research Plan 49 ------- 50 ------- Appendix B. Related Research Programs B.1 Related Research in the Office of Research and Devel- opment B.1.1 Hazardous Substances Research Centers The competitive Hazardous Waste Research Centers were created as a result of the CERCLA amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-499). Section 311, directs EPA to " ... make grants to institutions of higher learning to establish and operate not fewer than five hazardous substance research centers in the United States. In carrying out this program the Administrator should seek to have established and operated 10 hazardous sub- stances research centers in the United States." The legislation goes on to say responsibilities shall include at least research and training related to the manufacturing, use, transportation, disposal, and management of hazardous substances and pub- lication and dissemination of the results of the research. The focus of each center is to parallel problems within the geo- graphic regions of the Centers. ORD currently is supporting five HSRCs through base re- sources or Congressional directive. The Centers draw financial supportthrough EPA, otherfederal agencies, academia, states, local communities and the private sector. The following table identifies the centers, their focus and their participating mem- bers. Table B-1. Hazardous Substances Research Centers. Center Name Center Focus Consortium Members Northeastern HSRC Industrial Waste Incineration/thermal treatment Characterization and monitoring In situ remediation Ex situ treatment processes MIT, New Jersey Inst. of Tech, Rutgers, Princeton, Stevens, Tufts, Univ. of Med and Dentistry of NJ. Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic HSRC In situ Bioremediation In-situ bioremediation technology « Surfactant introduction tech. Bioventing U. of Michigan, Howard U. Michigan State Great Plains/Rocky Mountain HSRC Contaminated Soils and Mining Wastes Soil and water contaminated with heavy metals Soils and groundwater contaminated by organic chemicals Wood preservatives that contaminate water Pesticides identified as haz. waste Improved tech. and methods to characterize and analyze contaminated soils Waste minimization and P2 methods and technology Kansas State U., Haskell Indian Nations U., Lincoln U., Montana State U., South Dakota State, U. of Iowa, U. of Missouri, U. of Montana, U. of Nebraska, U. of Wyoming, U. of Northern Iowa, and Utah State U. South and Southwest HSRC Contaminated Sediments « In-situ chemical mobilization processes in bed and confined disposal facilities In-situ remediation « In-situ detection Louisiana State U., Georgia Inst of Tech. , Rice U. Western HSRC Groundwater Cleanup and Site Remediation Chlorinated solvents Halogenated aromatic compounds Nonhaloginated aromatics including petroleum derivatives Ordnance wastes Heavy metals Evaluation of factors affecting the transport and fate of chemicals in the environment Design and management issues for site remediation Stanford U., Oregon State U. 51 ------- B.1.2 Minority Centers Two minority centers are currently funded: Southern University at Baton Rouge and University of Texas - El Paso. Both Centers are funded from within the Waste Research Program. B.1.3 Small Business Innovations Research and Explor- atory Research Grants Small Business Innovation Research is a Federal, Congression- ally mandated program funded through a set-aside of 2.5 percent of extramural research funds appropriated within an agency. The program's primary focus is on cleanup, resulting in proof of concept and actual demonstration of individual entrepreneur's technologies, many of which have application to remediation. The most current topic areas being pursued are addressed in the following table: "SBIR FY 1997 Topic Areas." ORD has for many years solicited for exploratory research beyond that covered by directed or focused STAR solicitations. It is the opinion of ORD that there are many outstanding investigator initiated ideas that could contribute and move the science forward, yet have no vehicle for funding. The Explor- atory Grants program attempts to fill this void. Eligibility is for academic institutions and non-profits. Broad areas of solicita- tion tend to be in categories such as: environmental chemistry, environmental physics, engineering, and human health and ecological effects. Proposals are solicited for all media, includ- ing waste management, risk assessment and remediation. B.1.4 Companion ORD Research Strategies The Waste Research Strategy is one of 10 separate strategies that have recently been or are being developed by ORD. They are: Table B-2. Minority Centers funded from within the Waste Research Program. Center Name Center Focus Consortium Members Center for Environmental Resources Management Problems that effect low-income individuals and groups Minority residents of the Mexico border region Strengthen the capability of Hispanics to enter environmental careers U. of Texas at El Paso Institute for Environmental Issues and Policy Assessment Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Pollution Prevention Environmental Equity Mississippi River Env. Strategy Environmental Risk Southern U. at Baton Rouge Table B-3. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) topics for 1997. SBIR FY 1997 Topic Areas Drinking Water Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment and P2* Wet Weather Flow Treatment and Pollution Control Prevention and Control of Indoor Air Pollution Prevention and Control of NOx, VOCs, SO2, and Toxic Air Emissions* Treatment, Recycling, and Disposal of Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes and Sediments* In situ Site Remediation of Organically Contaminated Soil, Sediments and Groundwater* Treatment or Removal of Heavy Metals at Contaminated Sites* Pollution Prevention* Advance Monitoring and Analytical Technologies* * Of probable interest to the waste plan and clients 52 ------- Drinking Water Disinfection/DBPs Participate Matter Arsenic in Drinking Water Endocrine Disrupters EMAP Human Health Risk Assessment Ecosystems Protection Global Change Pollution Prevention Components of a number of these strategies, particularly those on human health, ecosystems and pollution prevention, deal with issues related to waste risk assessment and risk manage- ment. Completed strategies and abstracts of those still in preparation may be found at the ORD web site: www.epa.gov/ ORD/resplans. B.1.5 Pollution Prevention Research Since the early 1990s, ORD's pollution prevention research and development program has been transformed from an extramu- ral effort that promoted pollution prevention through technical assistance and information transfer to an in-house effort de- voted to scientific and technical research on pollution prevention tools, methodologies, technologies, and approaches. Resource allocations have been reduced and targeted at support that provides post-doctoral researchers, master's-degree assistants, technicians, and analytical services with which to build the in- house capabilities of ORD scientists and engineers. This shift has caused ORD to reevaluate its pollution prevention priorities and to focus on a smallerset of high priority activities where it can make a significant contribution based on its unique expertise and capabilities. In preparing the Pollution Prevention Research Strategy, it was essential that the above reorientation be given full consider- ation, and that a research and development program in pollution prevention be targeted at and supportive of building and strength- ening ORD's in-house capabilities. As a result, four long-term goals have been identified: /. ORD will deliver broadly applicable tools and methodologies for pollution prevention and sustainability. II. ORD will develop and transfer pollution prevention technologies and approaches. III. ORD will verify selected pollution preven- tion technologies. IV. ORD will conduct research to address economic, social, and behavioral research for pollution prevention. Pollution prevention progress in the next ten years will not proceed as rapidly as in the past ten, but the results of that progress can be even more significant. The "next wave" of pollution prevention can provide economic and environmental benefits in a host of situations. Since these advances likely will represent more fundamental changes in individual lifestyle, industrial process design (e.g., clean technologies), consumer products (e.g., benign chemicals), and land use, future research and development must focus on quantum leaps instead of incremental improvements. ORD will only be ableto sustain this future direction if it concentrates on longer-term research which will produce a new generation of tools and technologies that move pollution prevention beyond the obvious and less formi- dable opportunities of the past. B.2 Related Research Sponsored by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OSWER provides resources to ORD and non-ORD entities for research of particular emphasis for their programs. Funding to any single project may be one time only or may be part of a longer term commitment. In the paragraphs below, several research areas that have been funded and identified by OSWER are described. Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) Analysis of emergency gas release data: CEPPO is providing funds under the Clean Air Act through the Na- tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to the Desert Research Institute (DRI) for analysis of emer- gency gas release data collected at the Nevada Test Facility. The original data were generated by research work funded by ORD under the Clean Air Act; however, funding was terminated in September 1995. The data are critical to industry and others to validate dispersion model- ing approaches to support hazard and risk assessments for the prevention of catastrophic accidental releases. Catastrophic accidental release: At the Wharton School ofthe University of Pennsylvania, CEPPO-funded research projects are in progress on issues associated with cata- strophic accidental release risk assessment, risk manage- ment, risk decision-making and accident investigation. Catastrophic release of propane gas: Under a cooperative agreement with CEPPO, the State of Delaware is develop- ing a model risk management program and plan for pro- pane, including the modeling and assessment ofthe con- sequences of catastrophic releases of propane gas. Chemical accident prevention: Under a cooperative agree- ment with CEPPO, the National Institute for Chemical Studies is conducting outreach, training, and technical assistance in chemical accident prevention, addressing particularly small businesses and local communities, and focusing on Sections 112 (r) and 507 the Clean Air Act. They are also analyzing local state and Federal chemical accident investigation reports to highlight problem areas, trends and significant findings. Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators, EPA 510-B-97-001 - OUST is developing a manual that will help state and federal underground storage tank (UST) regulators evaluate and promote expedited site assessments. The manual will coverfive major UST site assessment issues: the expedited site assessment process, geophysical methods for UST site investigations; soil gas surveys; direct push technologies; and field analytical methods for petroleum hydrocarbons. The equipment and methods presented in the manual will be evaluated in terms of applicability, advantages, and limitations for petroleum UST sites. OUST anticipates the manual will be available in March 1997. Howto Effectively Recover Free Product At Leaking Under- ground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For State Regulators, 53 ------- EPA 510-R-96-001, September 1996 - This manual assists regulators in determining when recovery of free product is necessary, whether an appropriate recovery method has been proposed, and whetherthe free product recovery plan provides a technically sound approach. (This manual was done in conjunction with NRMRL, but was published as an OUST document). How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, EPA 510-B-95-007, May 1995 - This manual has been proposed, and whetherthe correc- tive action plan provides a technically sound approach to achieve cleanup. It covers 10 technologies. Office of Solid Waste (OSW) Risk Assessment Exposure scenarios for wastes in commerce - Hazardous wastes are increasingly being re- cycled and the products from these recycling operations are finding their way into commerce and use by the public. Consequently, these materials have a number of unique attributes that require special evaluation. In particular, this work is concerned with the long term stability of constituents in stabilized matrices, the bioavailability of constituents under different conditions, and the development of models for exposure pathways that are nottypical of waste manage- ment scenarios. This work is being conducted byOSWand its contractors. Monitoring Continuous emission monitors - In coopera- tion with the Department of Energy, OSW is researching and evaluating the long-term ruggedness of CEMs for mercury and other organics. These monitors, while used in Europe, have not been installed extensively in the United States. This effort involves researching the long-term performance and stability of these state-of-the-art monitors. Formation of products of incomplete combustion (PIC) - Field sampling efforts have been underway over the last several years to evaluate the nature and extent of organic hazardous constituents that form as a result of incomplete combustion. In cooperation with cement producers, OSW has conducted a series of field studies to assess PICs in cement kilns. Accelerated microwave extraction - In conjunction with Environment Canada, OSW is developing a microwave extraction method for organic compounds. OSWis continu- ing to develop the method and will conduct a round-robin study in order to evaluate and improve the performance of this method. Fate and Transport Model Development Groundwater contaminant movement modeling - Although ORD makes significant contributions to this area, OSW, with its special- ized contractors and other academic experts, conducts development work to improve EPA's Composite Model for Transformation Products. OSW is presently working to restructure the Monte Carlo framework in the model so that we can separate model uncertainty from data variability. In addition, in conjunction with several industries, academic experts and the ORD, OSW will be reevaluating available subsurface biodegradation data. Multimedia and indirect fate and transport modeling - In close coordination with ORD, as outlined in the draft Multi- media Science Plan, OSWis taking the lead on a number of areas; examples include the development of additional human health and ecological endpoints for new chemicals, refinement of the waste management units which describe the source of contaminants, revisions to several submodels including the overland flow model, and additional evaluation of loss processes. Environmental Benefits Analysis Contingent valuation of groundwater - OSW is restarting an effort to evaluate the nonuse economic benefits of avoiding groundwater con- tamination. This effort, being conducted in conjunction with OSWs specialized contractors, will use the controversial method of contingent valuation. Prior SAB review and additional peer review input has led to a strategy that requires some experimental testing of responses to validate the valuation information that OSW us acquiring. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) MARSSIM (ORIA - lead): MARSSIM is a 750- page guid- ance document that addresses issues related to the pro- posed rule, "EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Regulation," such as how to set background levels and risk/method/decision confidence levels. MARLAP (ORIA-lead): MARLAP is a document concerning analytical methods, especially measurement issues re- lated to the Radiation Site Cleanup proposed rule. Fact Sheets for Ground water/Modeling (and future poten- tial EPA/DOE/NRC Interagency Modeling Working Group) (ORIA-lead): Four reports promoting modeling of hazard- ous and radioactive waste sites were completed and pub- lished by ORIA. Four fact sheets were prepared summariz- ing the reports: - Environmental Characteristics of EPA, NRC, and DOE Sites Contaminated with Radioactive Sub- stances. - Computer Models Used to Support Cleanup Decision- Making at Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes Sites. - Environmental Pathways Models - Groundwater Mod- eling in Support of Remedial Decision Making at Sites Contaminated with Radioactive Material. - A Technical Guide to Groundwater Model Selection at Sites Contaminated with Radioactive Substances. Groundwater/Modeling Document Review (and future po- tential EPA/DOE/NRC Interagency Modeling Working Group) ORIA-lead): Two documents on modeling were prepared: - An Evaluation of Three Representative Multimedia Models Used to Support Cleanup Decision-Making at Hazardous, Mixed and Radioactive Waste Sites. - A Recommended Guide to Documenting Groundwater Modeling Results at Sites Contaminated with Radioac- tive Substances. 54 ------- The Kd Model and Its Use in Containment Transport Mod- eling: A multi-Agency workgroup is developing a guidance document concerning the distribution coefficient for ground- water modeling at sites, including mixed waste sites. Estimation of Water Flux in the Unsaturated Zone-A Survey of the Available Techniques: A multi-Agency workgroup to develop a guidance document for groundwater modeling at sites, including mixed waste sites. International Containment Conference: Technical confer- ence for complex waste sites, including mixed waste sites. Decision Support System: ORIA and OERR are funding delivery of a probabilistic decision tool for all waste sites, including mixed wastes sites. Product developed in con- junction with Sandia National Laboratory. Technology Innovation Office (TIP) Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) The GWRTAC was established in 1995 through a cooperative agreement between TIO and the National Environmental Technology Applications Center (NETAC). NETAC's overall mission is to facilitate the development and use of new groundwater technologies through: improving understanding and deployment of inno- vative groundwater remediation technologies; supporting customer groups requiring access to this technology devel- opers and users. Current activities include assembling information to be included in case study and vendor infor- mation databases, placing the databases on the Internet, preparing technology status reports, and responding to requests for information on groundwater technologies. Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) - The RTDF was established by EPA in 1992 and now includes a consortium of partners from industry, govern- ment agencies, and academia. RTDF's overall mission is to foster public-private partnerships to advance the develop- ment of more permanent-cost-effective technologies forthe remediation of hazardous wastes. The RTDF works to achieve this goal through: identifying priority remediation technology development needs; establishing and oversee- ing action teams to plan and implement collaborative re- search projects to address remediation problems; and addressing scientific, institutional, and regulatory barriersto the use of innovative treatment technologies. Five Action Teams have been formed within the RTDF to address priority research areas: Lasagna Consortium, Bioremediation Consortium, Permeable Barriers Action Team, In-Place Inactivation and Natural Ecological Resto- ration (INERT) Soil-Metals Action Team, and Sediments Remediation Action Team. Participants in each team provide funding or in-kind support for specific research efforts of the team. TIO provide funds forthe staff and contractors needed to support the logistics of running the forum (e.g., organizing meetings and conference calls). The research support currently provided by EPA through its participation on the RTDF teams is provided by ORD. B.3 Research Conducted/Sponsored by Other Agencies and Departments Major waste research programs exist in other agencies and departments. An important consideration for ranking waste research to be performed by EPA/ORD is the extent to which a research issue is being addressed elsewhere. Depending upon the particular research need, a small, sharply focused ORD effort might have significant impact even if another agency has a large research program addressing an apparently similar research issue. In addition, ORD's position as part of the lead environmental regulatory agency puts it in a unique leadership role for the research programs of others. On the other hand, given the nature of the issue and the resources directed towards it by other agencies, ORD might more wisely focus its resources elsewhere. The description of eight other government programs follows. Each gives a brief indication ofthe mission, magnitude, scientific direction and sharpness of focus of other Federal programs to determine the extentto which ORD efforts might be complemen- tary, synergistic, duplicative.orrelativelyinconsequential. Where possible, an Internet address is provided as a pointer to more information about these other programs. The Department of Energy (DOE)'s Office of Health and Environmental Research (OHER) operates an Environ- mental Remediation Research program, which is focused on developing an understanding ofthe fundamental physi- cal, chemical, geological, and biological processes that must be marshaled forthe development and advancement of new, effective, and efficient processes forthe remediation and restoration ofthe nation's nuclearweapons production sites [http://www.er.doe.gov/production/oher/habir/ cover.html]. A primary effort is a comprehensive research program in bioremediation that integrates the full range of fundamental scientific disciplines necessary to advance this emerging technology. DOE-OHER's natural and accel- erated bioremediation research program is designed to promote the use of living organism to reduce or eliminate waste. The microbial genome research program is de- signed to provide genome sequence and mapping data on microorganisms of industrial importance and on those that live under extreme conditions. The environmental technol- ogy partnerships program is intended to encourage univer- sity, national laboratory, and industrial partnerships to ad- dress fundamental bioremediation and integrated assess- ment research that is oriented toward reducing waste pro- duction and energy consumption in manufacturing pro- cesses. The subsurface science program is designed to understand the physical, chemical, and biological processes controlling the fate of complex chemical mixtures released to terrestrial subsurface environments; and research in the deep terrestrial biosphere. DOE's Office of Environmental Management (www.em.doe.gov) is responsible for environmental resto- ration, waste management, technology development, and facility transition and management. The Office of Science and Technology (OST) (em-50.em.doe.gov) has the re- sponsibility for developing better, faster, cheaper, and safer technologies for meeting DOE's 30-year goal for environ- 55 ------- mental restoration and waste management, and for manag- ing crosscutting activities. OST administers research in four areas: Tanks (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/tanks/ tanks.html) Subsurface Contaminants (Integration of Plumes and Landfills) (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/scfa/ scfa.html) Decontamination/Decommissioning (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/DD.html) Mixed Waste (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/mw/ mixedwaste.html) It also manages three crosscutting research programs: Characterization, Monitoring and Sensor Technology (CMST) (http://em-50.em.doe.gOV/BEST/FA/ CMST.html) Robotics (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/ robotics.html) Efficient Separations (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/ FA/ES.html) The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) is a multi-agency program created in 1990 through Public Law 101-510, and funded through the DOD [http://www.wes.army.mil/serdp/home/html]. As such it responds to environmental requirements of the DOD and those that the DOD shares with the DOE, EPA, and other government agencies. The program seeks to identify, develop, demonstrate, and transition technology from six areas: cleanup, compliance, conservation, pollution pre- vention, energy conservation/renewable resources, and global environmental change. lnFY96, SERDP wasfunded at about $58 million, of which 30 percent, or about $17 million, was for cleanup research. SERDP cleanup area focuses on conducting R&D to achieve more efficient and effective environmental cleanup of soil, sediment, ground water, surface water and structures al- ready contaminated by past practices with hazardous ma- terials (including unexploded ordnance), radioactive (low- level or mixed wastes) and toxic substances. The principal focus of this area is more cost-effective cleanup/remediation techniques and technologies, monitoring and characteriza- tion methods and technologies, and assessment methods. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) manages a large basic research program directed towards Superfund issues [http://www.niehs.nih.gov/sbrp/ home.htm]. The program is mandated in CERCLA(Section 209), which establishes a "basic university research and education program" in NIEHS, and further reinforced in SARA (Title III, Section 311), where the program "may include" the following: epidemiologic and ecologic studies, advanced techniques for detection, assessment and evalu- ation of effects on human health of hazardous substances; methods to assess the risks to human health presented by hazardous substances; and 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. NIEHS grants in this program are generally for a five-year period, so new Requests for Application (RFAs) are only developed once every five years or in the event significant new resources are appropriated in a particular fiscal year. Annual funding has been averaging about $35 million/year. Projects supported include analytical chemistry, biomarkers, bioremediation, combustion engineering, ecology, epide- miology, exposure assessment, fate and transport, human health effects, and non-biological remediation. The most recent RFA was issued in FY94. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (http://at.sdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/atsd rhome.html) was created by CERCLA with broad mandates including: Superfund site public health assessments, health investiga- tions, surveillance and registries, applied research, emer- gency response, health education, and toxicological data- base development. ATSDR is required to prepare toxico- logical profiles of agents found commonly at Superfund sites, including identifying data gaps and research needs. ATSDR is further directed to ensure the development of an applied research programto address data gaps identified in the toxicological profiles. In FY96, ATSDR directed approxi- mately $16 million to addressing its "substance-specific mandates," including identification of priority hazardous substances, development of toxicological profiles on those substances, and research to answer major unknown ques- tions about health effects. ATSDR applied research serves two major functions: (a) to respond to the public's concern, has human exposure to hazardous substances occurred and resulted in adverse health effects; and (b) to provide EPA with critical health- based information so that cleanup decisions that are effec- tive and protective of public health can be made. ATSDR's in-house research capability resides primarily in the area of human studies in communities at and around waste sites. ATSDR supports the Association of Minority Health Profes- sions Schools, as directed by the Congress, to fill some data gaps identified in its toxicological profiles. Other data gaps ATSDR hopes will be filled on an "volunteer" basis by industry, or by EPA (through TSCA and FIFRA authority), NIH and the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The United States Geological Survey (USGS). as described in a recent National Research Council review (Hazardous Materials in the Hydrologic Environment: the Role of Re- search by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Academy Press, 1996) has a number of programs in which studies are conducted to aid in resolving problems related to the contamination of surface and ground waters by hazardous materials. The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (http:/ /wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nrp/proj.bib/wood.html) is one such program. Areas of research focus on the fate and transport of contaminants and bioremediation and natural attenua- tion of contaminants, especially for petroleum sources. USGS has worked with ORD researchers at some Superfund sites. The Department of Defense's Office of Environmental Se- curity (DOD-OES) sponsors the Environmental Security 56 ------- Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) (http:// www.acq.osd.mil/ens/estcp/main.html). ESTCP'sgoalisto demonstrate and validate promising, innovative technolo- gies that target DOD's most urgent environmental needs. These technologies provide a return on investmentthrough cost savings and improved efficiency. The current cost of remediation and compliance in DOD is significant. Innovative technology offers the opportunity to reduce costs and environmental risks. ESTCP's strategy is to select lab-proven technologies with broad DOD and market application. These projects are aggressively moved to the field for rigorous trials that document their cost, performance, and market potential. ESTCP Demonstrations - Successful demonstration leads to acceptance of innovative technologies by DOD end- users and the regulatory community. To ensure that the demonstrated technologies have a real impact, ESTCP incorporates these players in the development and execu- tion of each technology. ESTCP demonstrations Address real DOD environmental needs. Significantly reduce costs and risks and expedite implementation. Document and validate the cost and performance of new technologies for DOD end-users and the regulatory community. The Rapid Commercialization Initiative (RCI) (http:// rci.gnet.org/) is a federal/state/private cooperative effort to expedite the application of new environmental technolo- gies. The participating federal agencies include the Depart- ment of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency; partici- pating states and state organizations include the State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Southern States Energy Board, and the Western Governors Association. The program makes use of cooperative demonstration projects to identify barriers to the acceptance and use of new technologies; once identified, these barriers will be removed, where possible. The program consists of 10 projects, each of which will be demonstrating a different environmental technology. The main goals of the program are to identify and reduce the barriers that impede market entry of new technologies. It is the opinion of many technol- ogy developers and users, environmental groups, prospec- tive investors, and states, that environmental technologies face a set of unique barriers stretching from initial demon- stration to final market entry that make commercialization specially difficult. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Working Group (ITRC) (http://www.gnet.org/gnet/gov/stgov/ itrcindex.htm) was established in December, 1994 by the Develop On-Site Innovative Technology Committee, re- ferred to as the DOIT Coordinating Group of the Western Governors Association. The Mission of the ITRC is to facilitate cooperation among states in the common effort to test, demonstrate, evaluate, verify and deploy innovative environmental technology, particularly technology related to waste management, site characterization and site cleanup. Western states participating include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. Other states that have joined or have sent observers include Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachu- setts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennes- see, and Wisconsin, and the Southern States Energy Board has actively participated in the deliberations of the ITRC. In addition to the state members there are some representa- tives from stakeholder groups and tribal representation. Federal advisors have participated in ITRC meetings from a number of Agencies including EPA (Technology Innova- tion Office), DOD, DOE and some of the armed services organizations. ITRC is organized into three task forces and technology specific task groups. Task forces have been established for Electronic Communication Development, Case Studies, and Protocols and Regulatory Requirements. The Proto- cols and Regulatory Requirements Task Force has estab- lished task groups to address specific technologies in the areas of in situ bioremediation, Low- Temperature Thermal Desorption, Plasma Hearth Technology, and Real-time Field Measurement (site characterization and penetrom- eter system). 57 ------- 58 ------- Appendix C. Research Ranking Process This appendix describes the process for identifying and ranking of research areas (RAs) by Science and Science Plus criteria (Section 2.2.3). ORD members of the Waste Research Coordinating Team (RCT) representing ORD's laboratories and centers, the Office of Science Policy and the Office of Resource Management and Administration participated in a ranking process which con- sisted of the following steps: 1. Identify and rankthe RAs within each ofthefour research topic area (RTAs) using Science criteria. 2. Rankthe four RTAs using Science criteria. 3. Produces a single Science ranking for the whole waste program by merging and ranking all the research activi- ties in the four RTAs. 4. Revise the waste program Science ranking based on Science Plus criteria. Representatives from OSWER and EPA Regional Offices were involved in the Science Plus ranking (Step 4). All four steps are described in more detail below. Step 1 - Ranking RAs Within Each RTA The first step in the process was to produce a" menu" of potential research activities that could be conducted undereach research topic area. Potential research activities were described for each area of ORD risk assessment paradigm (effects, exposure, risk assessment and risk management). In identifying these activi- ties, members of the group described the type of research most needed to address the environmental problems in each RTA they did not restrict themselves to activities currently being conducted. The RCT critiqued these proposed lists to insure that they were complete and that all listed RAs were important. The group then rank ordered all the RAs within a given RTA, based on the criteria in Table 2-1. All applicable criteria were given equal weight. A multivoting procedure was used. Each member was given ten votes and allowed to use at most 4 on an RA. If only the highest RAs were ranked under this process, a second voting was conducted to rank the lower priority RAs. In cases where a distinction in priority could not be made, RAs were given the same ranking. The result of Step 1 was the ranking of RAs within each of the RTAs, as shown in Table 2-3. Step 2 - Science Ranking of RTAs The team conducted a qualitative relative ranking of the four research topic areas to help with ranking of research activities across the waste program in Step 3. The criteria used for determining relative importance among the four research topic areas were: Magnitude of risk Cost of available risk management options Uncertainty of risk, exposure/measurements, and risk management. All three criteria were nominally given equal weight in this qualitative ranking. The relative significance of each criterion was ranked high, medium or low. Based on these qualitative comparisons of each of the four research topic areas, the team determined the relative rankings indicated in the left hand column of Table 2-4. (As indicated below, the two Contaminated Sites Research Topic Areas were ranked very close to each other). An explanation of the rationale for the rankings follows. Contaminated Sites-Ground Water (GW) and Soils/Vadose Zone (S/VZ) were ranked close to each other in relative impor- tance because there were a number of complex factors to consider which made distinguishing the relative importance of the two RTAs difficult. These factors included: The cost of characterization and cleanup is high for both; Both occur at most contaminated sites; Both have significant unknowns and uncertainties in site characterization; Both have significant uncertainties in risk assessment, but those for soils are greater due to multiple pathways of exposure, bioavailability, issues etc.; Both media are heterogeneous and complex and more difficult to access than air or surface water; The potential health impacts of GW is believed to be higher than for S/VZ, but the potential ecological impacts for S/VZ are higher. Contaminated Sites - Ground Water was ranked somewhat higher than soils for following reasons: Once ground water is contaminated it is usually more difficult to remediate than soils; Once ground water is contaminated the risks are more persistent and it is generally harder to characterize the contamination; There are currently few effective remediation techniques for contaminated ground water, while there are adequate (if expensive) techniques available for many more soil/va- dose zone remediation problems; The potential of contaminated sites adversely affecting drinking water supplies is growing as US demand on ground water increases. On a site-specific basis, the potential health risks to humans is usually higher from ground water contamination than from soil contamination if the contaminated aquifer is used for drinking water. There were also tradeoffs in the relative ranking of different ranking criteria between waste combustion facilities (WCFs) and contaminated sites. There are more contaminated sites, but the exposure from air emissions at WCFs usually covers a larger area than exposure from most contaminated sites. There are 59 ------- significant risk assessment uncertainties for both WCFs and contaminated sites (especially soils). Taking these trade offs and similarities in account, research on emissions from WCFs was ranked below research on contami- nated sites because a) there are far fewer WCF sites (<3,000), than numerous contaminated sites and therefore the national risk from incinerators is believed to be lower, and b) the cost of remediation is in the tens of billions of dollars, while that for combustion is believed to be only a few billion. Research related to environmental problems arising from non- combustion, active waste management units (AWMFs) was ranked lowest for two reasons. First, the risks associated with these sites are estimated to be low after years of developing improved management and disposal techniques. Second, and forthe same reasons, the costs of waste treatment is generally low and treatment is adequately effective for most hazardous and solid wastes. However, there are uncertainties in predicting health and ecological effects on these facilities. Hence, there is need for HWIR research in order to predict effects from these facilities on a national basis. Step 3 - Science Ranking of All Wastes RAs The objective of this step was obtain a single rank-ordered list of all 39 RAs within the waste program The 4 lists of Science- ranked RAs from Step 1 were "merged" taking into account the Science criteria (Table 2-1) and the results of Step 2. There was no change in ranking of RAs within an RTA relative to each other, but RAs from different RTAs were interspersed amongst each other on the resulting list. Placement of a given RA on the list was determined by reaching consensus in the group. The result was the list of 39 rank- ordered RAs shown in Table C-1. In cases where a distinction in priority could not be made, both RAs were given the same ranking. Step 4 - Science Plus Ranking of All Waste RAs Following the ORD strategic planning process, the rank-ordered list of RAs from Step 3 was then reviewed and the ordering revised based on Science Plus criteria. This was intended to insure thatORD priorities reflect the views of outside stakehold- ers forORDs research programs, such as Congress, the Admin- istration, and EPA Program and Regional Offices. Science Plus factors which could increase the ranking of a RA were: 1. Congressional directive 2. Court directive 3. Administration priority 4. EPA Priority 5. EPA Program or Regional Office priority 6. Area of new ORD funding in FY98 7. CENR research priority The whole Waste RCT, including representatives of OSWER and a Regional Office, participated in the Science Plus ranking process. Carrying out the Science Plus ranking resulted in adjusting the placement of RAs relative to their place in the Science rank- order (Table C-1). This ranking process was done through consensus to the extent possible. When necessary, votes were taken with one vote given to ORD, OSWER and the Regions. The Science Plus rank ordering of RAs is shown in Table 2-4 (minus several RAs, as discussed in Section 2.2.5). 60 ------- Table C-1. Waste RCT ordinal science rankings (February 1997). 1. Estimating Human Exposure and Delivered Dose (CS) 2. Natural Attenuation (GW) 3. Biotreatment (CS) 3. Human Dose-Response Models for Mixtures (GW) 3. Estimating Soil Intake and Dose-Wildlife Species (CS) 6. Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment Methods (CF) 7. Subsurface Characterization (GW) 8. Emissions Prevention and Control (CF) 8. Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling (GW) 10. Indirect Exposure Characterization and Modeling (CF) 10. Field Sampling Methods (CS) 12. Abiotic Treatment (GW) 12. Field and Screening Analytical Methods (CS) 12. Multimedia, Multipathway Exposure Modeling (AF) 15. Field and Screening Analytical Methods (GW) 16. Biotreatment (GW) 16. Containment (CS) 16. Screen Tests to Measure the Effectiveness of Treatment (CS) 16. Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for Contaminants (AF) 20. Ground Water Exposure Factors and Pathways (GW) 20. Sampling Design (CS) 20. Dose-Response of Contaminants (CF) 20. Physical Estimation of Environmental Fate and Transport (AF) 24. Mixtures Toxicology (GW) 25. Abiotic Treatment (CS) 26. Containment (GW) 27. Waste Characterization and Sampling (AF) 28. Demonstration/Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (GW) 28. Movement of Bioaccumulative Metals in the Food Web (CF) 30. Continuous Emission Monitors (CF) 30 Ecosystems Effects (GW) 30. Mixtures Toxicology (CS) 33. Oil Spills (CS) 33. Demonstration/Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (GW) 33. Waste Management (AF) 36 Demonstration/Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (CS) 37. Chemical Toxicity Testing (AF) 37. Ecological Risk Assessment Methods (GW) 37. Demonstration/Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (CS) AF - active waste management facilities CF - combustion facilities CS - contaminated soils GW- contaminated ground water 61 ------- m TI o5 o o CD 00 cn o m Q. ?T Q) < -* DD o o m =; 0 - 13 < ~ i J§ ft o 3 - ~> 0 oS1^ I < 9L -N 3' TI cn 2 ^ ^ i 2- CD 3 (o oo 0 o 13 E± ^§ 73 > 0 (Q to 0 0 13 Q) O 0 Q. I ^ Q) m 3 73 "° rn rn > w (j) -D > O 5 Q H 1 m m ^ »o D 5 s ^ 0 S3 I CD TI D co > > 01 D § ------- |