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 USEPA—The 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  §

-------