-------
-------
Each of the affected groups sees some risk tied to an effort
to "push on the envelope" of technology application. However,
these risks are directly related to potential benefits — both
short-term at a particular site and long-term benefits which will
accrue from knowledge gained by our experiences. Only if some of
us are willing to work constructively with our uncertainty is there
reason to expect significant progress toward more applications of
technologies that are truly innovative.
I understand innovation requires a sense of creativity and may
be accompanied by false starts, second attempts, intensively re-
engineered solutions, and (despite best efforts) some equipment
failures. I recognize that while most will agree with the need
for new and better approaches, the inherent risks associated with
early technology use serve as very serious impediments. The
extensive review and criticism of our programs from both outside
and inside the Agency may have tended to make us averse to
unnecessary risks. It should be recognized that however well-
designed and carefully planned our efforts may be, they may not
meet contract specifications on many first attempts and may need
refinement before routine application can be expected. Indeed,
information gained from a first-time application that fails to
perform as designed may be viewed as a form of success.
In addition, this definition of innovation needs to be
recognized by EPA regional and headquarters managers. Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) must have
support from their managers if an innovative technology does not
work as expected. The program should recognize and assume the
risks inherent in using new technologies. The challenges these
projects present will usually require great efforts from our most
competent and experienced RPMs and OSCs. They should view these
challenges as career opportunities rather than as career risks.
Innovative treatment technologies should be routinely
considered as an option in engineering studies where treatment is
appropriate. They should not be eliminated from consideration
solely because of uncertainties in their performance and cost.
These technologies may be found to be cost-effective, despite the
fact the their costs are greater than conventional options, after
consideration of potential benefits which could include increased
protection, superior performance, and greater community acceptance.
In addition, future sites will benefit by information gained from
the field experience.
The attached directive is designed to increase field
applications of innovative technologies for cleaning up
contaminated sites. It also encourages expanded application of
existing OSWER policies and emphasizes the value of existing
support activities in this area. It is intended to sharpen the
focus and level of attention by EPA staff and managers on their
mission to provide technological leadership by implementing
existing authorities under the Superfund, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), Underground Storage Tank (UST), and Oil
ii
-------
Pollution Act programs. Furthermore, this guidance is intended to
integrate the continual search for improved remedies with the use
of new technologies and to make this objective a permanent feature
of EPA's clean-up programs. It is intended to create ^an atmosphere
which recognizes that reasonable risk-taking, which is protective
of human health and the environment, is necessary to achieve this
end.
The statement consists of seven major initiatives. The first
four initiatives concern the Superfund program. The first one
addresses some impediments to the full-scale use of new equipment
and encourages expedited funding of remedial design and
construction projects. This initiative also provides contract
flexibility in the start-up phase of selected remedial and removal
actions to assist vendors in establishing a pattern of reliable
operation in order to satisfy contract performance standards. The
second initiative is intended to ensure that innovative
alternatives are thoroughly evaluated for PRP-lead sites that are
early in the planning process. This provision encourages EPA
regions to fund treatability studies and engineering analyses for
promising treatment technologies that might otherwise be considered
unproven by the PRPs and too early in the development process. The
third initiative provides a capability to rapidly evaluate the
efficacy of a PRP-proposed innovative remedy that is offered in
addition to the primary one approved in the Record of Decision
(ROD). This provision entails direct technical support to evaluate
innovative remedies, while moving the remediation process forward.
The fourth initiative seeks to utilize the potential of the removal
program for expanding our experience with the field application of
new technologies. The directive clarifies OSWER's position that
the removal program is an important and viable means for furthering
the use of these treatment alternatives.
Another provision in the guidance is designed to encourage
studies on the potential use of new technologies for RCRA
corrective action. Regions should consider promoting the pilot
testing of promising innovative technologies at a limited number of
sites. In the past, land ban considerations have sometimes
discouraged owners/operators or regions from pursuing such
approaches. This guidance encourages the use of soil and debris
treatability variances, where necessary, to allow innovative
technology studies to proceed. This authority was recently
delegated to the regions.
The sixth initiative recognizes unique opportunities presented
by Federal facilities. We are exploring the potential use of these
facilities for developing and applying new technologies, and
regional offices are encouraged to work with Federal facility
managers to further this objective.
The final provision encourages expanded use of the Federal
Technology Transfer Act as an opportunity for joint technology
assessments with industry. PRPs and owners/operators may sign
cooperative agreements with EPA for services to support innovative
iii
-------
technology treatability or pilot studies. This procedure offers
the prospect of non-adversarial engagement, outside the regulatory
context, to allow the development of third-party data on
remediation technologies.
I know there is a tension created by the desire to promote new
technology developments within existing management tracking systems
and program commitments and goals. I recognize that these goals
may also be statutory in origin. Issues are certain to arise
concerning the selection and use of new treatment technologies
because of the rapid pace of development in this area. These
issues cannot be resolved by this guidance and must be addressed
through common sense and judgement on a case-by-case basis. There
may be circumstances where program goals and commitments must be
adjusted in order to achieve better clean-up solutions.
Although not specifically discussed in the attached guidance,
EPA is also strongly committed to using innovative technologies in
cleaning up oil spills under the Oil Pollution Act. We have
embarked on an aggressive research program with other Federal
agencies and the private sector to examine clean-up technologies
and remediation techniques. We anticipate this work will lead to
new and improved technologies in this area as well.
This directive is a call for your attention to exploring and
exploiting opportunities for using innovative remediation
technologies. It reflects my personal commitment and belief that
we must invest the necessary resources and take the risks now to
develop the technologies necessary to fulfill the long-term needs
of our hazardous waste clean-up programs.
IV
-------
OSWER Directive
9380.0-17
GUIDANCE
FOR INCREASING THE APPLICATION OF
INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND GROUND WATER
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is
seeking to further the use of innovative treatment technologies in
order to (1) better pursue its statutory and regulatory mandates to
promote treatment to the maximum extent practicable, (2) speed the
availability of performance data regarding newly developed
treatment technologies to many constituencies facing mandates to
clean contaminated sites, (3) broaden the inventory of accepted
treatment-based solutions, and (4) increase the likelihood that
remediation costs can be lowered in the near term through the
demonstration of a larger number of engineering options to solve
site remediation problems.
Both SARA and HSWA give us the framework to consider treatment
as an essential element in our clean-up decisionmaking. Our record
of accomplishment since SARA in selecting treatment technologies
for Superfund remedial and removal projects is very good. However,
our experience in implementing remedies is limited, and we face a
large future obligation to cleanup sites in the RCRA and UST
programs. For example, the large number of cleanups expected under
the RCRA corrective action program may encompass up to 4,000
facilities and 64,000 waste management units.
Section 121(b) of CERCLA requires EPA to select remedies that
"utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in which treatment
"permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants as
a principal element." This objective of permanent treatment-based
remedies should be applied to RCRA and UST cleanups, within their
respective legislative contexts. To achieve this goal, EPA must
encourage new or innovative treatment technologies that are capable
of treating contaminated soils/sludges and ground water more
effectively, less expensively, and in a manner more acceptable to
the public than existing conventional methods.
Innovative treatment technologies are newly developed
technologies whose lack of sufficient full-scale application blocks
routine consideration for site remediation. They may be new
technologies, or may be available and in use for various industrial
applications other than hazardous waste remediation. As such,
innovative technologies are not part of standard engineering
-------
practice or the competitive market process where available
alternatives are routinely presented to the government and private
sector. In functional terms, we define as "innovative" those
treatment technologies for source control other than incineration
and solidification/stabilization and pumping with conventional
treatment for ground water. Innovative technologies inherently
require extra effort to gather information and analyze options and
extra engineering and financial risk in adapting them for specific
site applications. In addition, there is extra uncertainty for
people developing such solutions who work in organizations focused
on performance outcomes with high levels of certainty and known
costs.
Existing directives and guidance contain a number of
references that encourage the consideration of innovative
technologies. Policy for the Superfund program was originally
outlined in a February 21, 1989 memorandum on "Advancing the Use of
Treatment Technologies for Superfund Remedies." This memorandum
reaffirmed the use of treatment technologies and summarized
guidance documents and activities that supported the use of
innovative technologies. It cited the need to search for new
technologies that can improve performance and reduce cost. The
importance of innovative technologies was further emphasized in the
Superfund Management Review (90-Day Study) which primarily
contained recommendations concerning technical support and
research. More recently, the National Contingency Plan expects
that treatment will be used for highly toxic and highly mobile
waste and encourages the consideration of innovative methods.
As a result of SARA and this guidance, the selection of
innovative technologies in the remedial program has increased
dramatically. For the last three fiscal years, almost half of the
selected treatment technologies for source control have been
innovative. However, few full-scale innovative remedies have
actually been implemented. As a result, we are not benefiting from
actual clean-up experience or developing the equipment necessary to
fulfill long-term program needs. This directive seeks to preserve
our momentum with the selection of these technologies, to expedite
their use in remedial actions,to expand the application of new
technologies to other OSWER programs, and to realize the potential
for development and technology application at Federal facilities.
This directive sets forth several initiatives and new
procedures that will help provide incentives for broader use of
innovative technology. Some of these initiatives are directed
toward potential responsible parties and owners/operators, since
they will be assuming a larger share of the remedial projects in
the future. Other new initiatives are intended to remove
impediments to the first-time use of new equipment. The directive
also encourages wider application of available resources and tools.
In addition, Attachment A highlights some important ongoing program
efforts that deserve mentioning.
-------
STATEMENT OF INTENT
Innovative treatment technologies are ' to be routinely
considered as an option in feasibility studies for remedial sites
and engineering evaluations for removals in the Superfund program,
where treatment is appropriate commensurate with the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) expectations. In addition, innovative
treatment-based remedies should be pursued to the extent
practicable for cleanup of RCRA and UST units that pose significant
health and environmental threats similar to those at Superfund
sites. EPA should exercise leadership with state UST programs to
encourage similar approaches for underground tanks. Innovative
technologies considered in the remedy selection process for
Superfund, RCRA, and UST should not be eliminated solely on the
grounds that an absence of full-scale experience or treatability
study data makes their operational performance and cost less
certain than other forms of remediation.
When assessing innovative technologies, it is important to
fully account for their benefits. Despite the fact that their
costs may be greater than conventional options, innovative
technologies may be found to be cost-effective, after accounting
for such factors as increased protection, superior performance, and
greater community acceptance. In addition, experience gained from
the application of these solutions will help realize their
potential benefits at other sites with similar contaminants.
NEW INITIATIVES
This directive prescribes six new initiatives affecting
Superfund and RCRA programs to encourage and further enable the
field application of innovative technologies and their evaluation
for potential further use. It also affirms the use of a relatively
little-used opportunity for joint EPA work with PRPs and
owners/operators to evaluate new technologies.
1. Superfund Innovative Technology Start-Up Initiative.
Designed for Fund-lead projects, this initiative consists
of two efforts to assist the early application of new
technology. First, we need to encourage the expedited funding
of remedial design and construction projects that involve
innovative treatment technologies. OERR will be revising its
Remedial Action funding priority-setting procedures to give
more consideration to innovative technologies. Earlier
funding of these projects will help achieve the technology
development goals of the Superfund program and will provide
EPA with significant data to support future Records of
Decisions (RODs).
-------
Second, this initiative provides contract flexibility in
the start-up phase of selected remedial and removal actions to
assist vendors in establishing a pattern of reliable operation
that satisfies performance standards. This is intended to
address some of the impediments to the use of new full-scale
equipment; it will support initial start-up and shake-down
costs and modifications necessary to effectively evaluate
whether the selected technology can perform to specifications
prior to beginning actual remediation. In the remedial
program, the Corps of Engineers (COE) will provide separate
contract provisions that will aid in the commencement of
operations of a unit process or integrated set of processes
and will be available only for some proportion of the whole
site remedy (e.g., processing the first 1,000 cu. yds. of a
30,000 cu. yd. site). Funds are not targeted at making the
technology work at any cost, but to aid in clearly
establishing the likely performance adequacy of the technology
prior to the onset of the contracted clean-up effort.
Contracting strategies are being considered to compensate
vendors, regardless of whether they successfully achieve
performance limits. Further implementation guidance for the
remedial and removal programs will be issued later this year.
2. Dual Track RI/FS Initiative (Superfund)
This initiative is designed for PRP-lead sites that are
early in the planning process where there is an opportunity to
conduct engineering evaluations of remedies through the RI/FS
process. This initiative is intended to ensure that
innovative technologies are thoroughly evaluated and that
needed treatability studies are conducted for potential
remedies. This provision should help encourage EPA to take
risks (when faced with reluctant PRPs) that it would not
otherwise take by encouraging a comprehensive evaluation of
technologies. EPA regions may fund additional treatability
studies and engineering analyses for promising treatment
technologies that would otherwise be considered unproven and
too early in the development process. The purpose of this
initiative is to encourage treatability studies to ensure that
alternative remedies that the government believes may have
merit are thoroughly evaluated and considered in the ROD.
Data from EPA treatability studies and the evaluation of
additional innovative technologies have intrinsic value to the
Agency. Therefore, even if, in a particular case, there may
be some doubt as to EPA's ability to cost recover for these
additional studies (although, in general, the Agency would
expect such costs to be subject to cost recovery) , these
studies should be pursued based on their value to the overall
program.
-------
3. Tandem ROD Evaluation Initiative (Superfund)
As in the previous initiative, this provision is
primarily designed for PRP-lead sites, although it may also be
applicable for some Fund-financed situations. This program
will provide a capability to rapidly evaluate the efficacy of
a PRP-proposed innovative remedy that is offered in tandem
with the primary one approved in the ROD. Both of the
remedies would be part of the proposed plan. Typically, such
an alternate solution would be approved on a contingent basis
in the ROD based on acceptable treatability studies, but it
would need further development and pilot testing during the
design period for the primary technology. Tandem RODs (or
contingent RODS based on formal evaluation) are a decision
vehicle designed to move the process of cleanup toward
expeditious closure, while leaving room for PRPs with a
decided interest in innovative technologies to pursue
additional pilot tests to demonstrate an alternate approach
that is both innovative and potentially cost-effective. This
program is based on direct technical support for regional
project management teams to help resolve technical issues
posed by alternate approaches; it is designed to lift the
burden from the regional project manager of bearing the risks
of evaluating and trying something "new."
Technical support will be provided for focused evaluation
of the PRP work so as to support expedient regional decisions
about the acceptability of the alternate technology. The work
will be carried out with and through the appropriate OSWER/ORD
Technical Support Centers or the SITE demonstration program
and will be conducted as a mini-evaluation of the proposed
alternative so that the data will be available for future
applications. When considering whether to proceed with a
tandem ROD, regions should first consult with ORD concerning
the scope of effort required for the evaluation.
In the case in which the secondary innovative technology
is chosen for implementation (after the completion of pilot
testing) but significant delays to the original schedule have
occurred, the region may consider the engineering problems of
making the full-scale unit operational in assessing stipulated
penalties. That is, in limited cases, stipulated penalties
should not be imposed if the delays are the unavoidable result
of being innovative.
4. Removal Program Initiative (Superfund)
The removal program represents an important and viable
means for expediting the field application of innovative
technologies. The relatively small volumes frequently
requiring response and streamlined contracting procedures
provide an opportunity to complete clean-up projects and
-------
provide documentation on lessons learned relatively quickly.
Smaller waste volumes at some sites may also allow the use of
pilot-scale technologies under some circumstances.
Although there have been more innovative projects
actually constructed through the removal program than the
remedial program, its potential has not been fully realized.
This is because time constraints often favor excavation and
off-site disposal or treatment and also because of the absence
of clear legislated goals regarding the use of new technology.
This subject was one of the issues addressed in a 1988 audit
report by the Inspector General of Region IV removal sites.
The report has had the undesirable effect of discouraging OSCs
from using these technologies.
This directive is meant to clarify EPA's position on this
issue. It is OSWER policy to further the use of innovative
technologies through the removal program. This includes all
actions, including time-critical actions, where feasible.
These projects are expected to fulfill an important role in
adding to our knowledge base on promising new technologies.
Further guidance will be included in an upcoming document,
"Administrative Guidance for Removal Program Use of
Alternatives to Land Disposal" (OSWER Directive 9380.2-1),
which provides guidelines promoting the use of alternatives to
land disposal.
5. RCRA Corrective Action and Closure Innovative Technology
Initiative
We are currently engaged in efforts to develop best
demonstrated available technology (BOAT) treatment standards
for contaminated soil and debris at CERCLA and RCRA corrective
action and closure sites. These sites present unique treatment
problems that were not generally considered in developing the
current BOAT standards, which were based on data from the
treatment of industrial process wastes. There is general
agreement that wide scale use of incineration is not
appropriate for soil and debris, and there is a need to
explore alternative approaches. The current schedule is to
promulgate a rule for debris in May 1992 and soil in April
1993. Prior to publication of these final rules, a site-
specific treatability variance process (40 CFR 268.44 (hM is
available for contaminated soil and debris to establish an
alternative standard for specified waste at individual sites.
The variance process, along with applicable guidance treatment
levels, is described in Superfund LDR Guide #6A (OSWER
Directive: 9347.3-06FS, July 1989), and is intended to be used
as an interim approach until final standards are established.
This initiative encourages the regions to use
treatability variances at corrective action and closure sites
-------
to conduct treatability or technology demonstration studies to
gain additional information on the use of innovative treatment
for contaminated soil and debris. The regions should select
appropriate pilot-scale projects with cooperative
owners/operators that can provide data on the capability of
technologies and the treatability of different wastes. The
information from this work should help to expedite corrective
action and closures after the final BOAT rule is published for
soils. It is also possible that early data from this effort
could be available for consideration in the final rule.
Projects should be carefully selected to maximize the
utility of data and likelihood of success. Regional
corrective action staff and regional Superfund staff should
communicate regarding the history of use of treatability
variances in the Superfund program to identify site factors
that require consideration when selecting an appropriate site.
Authority for issuing site-specific variances for
contaminated soil and debris has recently been delegated to
the regions (Decision Memorandum: "Delegation of Authority to
Grant Treatability Variances," from Charles L. Grizzle to the
Administrator, April 12, 1991). The facility and EPA, in
collaboration with the state, can implement variances for on-
site demonstrations through two mechanisms: temporary
authorization under the Permit Modification Rule, or 3008(h)
orders for interim-status facilities.
6. Demonstration Projects at Federal Facilities (Superfund, RCRA,
and UST)
Federal facilities offer unique opportunities for both
developing and applying innovative approaches to hazardous
waste remediation. Desirable attributes include their often
sizable areas and isolated locations, controlled access,
numerous contamination problems, and increasingly active
environmental restoration programs.
EPA headquarters is exploring the use of Federal
facilities for both site-specific technology demonstrations
and as test locations for evaluation of more widely applicable
technologies. Equally important is the establishment of
mechanisms to ensure timely sharing of information. Regions
are encouraged to suggest innovative approaches and to be
receptive to proposals for innovation from Federal facility
managers, e.g., by building timing and performance flexibility
into compliance agreements in acknowledgment of current
uncertainties associated with innovation.
The Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) will
work with the regions to identify locations for sponsoring
potential test and evaluation activities. With assistance
-------
from the Technology Innovation Office, OFFE will develop
necessary policies and guidance to ensure that support for
innovation is congruent with other program and environmental
objectives.
7. Joint Technology Assessment Opportunities with Industry under
the Federal Technology Transfer Act
During the clean-up planning and implementation process,
PRPs or owners/operators should be reminded of the opportunity
to engage EPA in evaluation studies and other arrangements at
their expense to determine whether innovative technology
concepts would be operative in the situation they are facing
or other similar situations. Under the Federal Technology
Transfer Act (FTTA) of 1986 and Executive Order 12591,
cooperative agreements related to research, development, and
technology transfer can be expeditiously executed (i.e., in
less than 60 days) between industry and government. In this
case, such arrangements would allow the PRP to reimburse EPA
for facilities, support services, and staff time spent in
joint evaluation of early technology treatability or pilot
studies. As projects progress into the later planning stages,
careful judgement needs to be exercised to avoid new work that
will result in unproductive delay, while remaining sensitive
to important new technology developments.
Since this program is conducted in the research and
development arena, it offers the prospects of non-adversarial
engagement, outside the regulatory context, to allow the joint
development of credible data about remediation technologies.
This opportunity should be especially advantageous to (1) PRPs
and owners/operators capable of early planning for technology
options at a few sites and desirous of early EPA input, as
well as (2) PRPs and owners/operators faced with a number of
similar waste sites in the future—under Superfund, RCRA
Corrective Action, and the UST program—who want to develop
more uniform, cost-effective technology proposals for such
sites. Basic information about the FTTA is described further
in Attachment B.
IMPLEMENTATION
The first six initiatives involve field testing new
technologies that may benefit by technical assistance from the
Office of Research and Development (ORD). ORD represents an
objective third party that can be easily accessed through the
existing OSWER/ORD support structure. This structure consists of
five laboratories, which constitute the Technical Support Centers
(both for Superfund and newly established for RCRA), the Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team (START) program, the
Bioremediation Field Initiative, and the Superfund Innovative
8
-------
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. Several of these programs
are discussed later in this memorandum, and Regional offices are
encouraged to use them. OSWER has asked ORD to give priority to
requests for technical assistance under this directive, and we will
use our existing priority-setting systems to accommodate needs
articulated pursuant to this directive.
BROADER APPLICATION OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND TOOLS
In addition to these new initiatives, the application of other
important existing policies and efforts should be broadened.
o Furthering Innovative Remediation at Leaking UST Sites
State and local UST programs have identified 100,000
confirmed leaks, and this number may triple in the next
several years. The majority of sites currently undergoing
corrective action are being remediated through pumping and
treating ground water and excavation and off-site disposal of
contaminated soil. The national UST program has established
corrective action streamlining as one of its top priorities.
The program's strategy includes promoting the use of improved
technologies that will produce better and faster cleanups at
lower cost than traditional methods.
The UST/LUST program has worked closely with the Office
of Research and Development and private companies to foster
the development of innovative site assessment and cleanup
technologies, such as field measurement techniques, soil vapor
surveying, vacuum-enhanced free-product recovery, active and
passive bioremediation, and vacuum extraction. These
technologies now must be moved from demonstrations to routine
use in the field. Regional offices should increase their
efforts to make state and local managers and staff, as well as
cleanup consultants and contractors, more familiar with these
non-traditional but proven technologies. Headquarters will
continue fostering the development of even newer tools and
techniques and should increase its support of regional efforts
to achieve broader use of improved technologies.
o Further Enabling State Innovative Technology Leadership
First, the CERCLA core funding program provides an
opportunity to assist states in establishing innovative
technology advocates. Core program cooperative agreements
help support state response programs to ensure involvement in
CERCLA implementation activities. This may be a vehicle for
promoting new technologies where the state and region agree it
is appropriate. This approach is currently being utilized
with success in Minnesota. The advocates can serve an
important role of promoting the development and use of
-------
innovative technologies in the state CERCLA programs, with
obvious spinoff benefits for their RCRA and UST programs. Some
states have shown a strong interest in new technologies, and
we should do everything possible to support their efforts and
encourage initiatives at the state level.
Second, last year's RCRA Implementation Study highlighted
the opportunity to empower a few states interested in
furthering technology development. Regions should be open and
encouraging of state applications for authority for RCRA R&D
permitting, permit modification, treatability exclusion, and
Subpart X permitting. States not authorized for RD&D
permitting may consider a cooperative effort with the region
for issuing these permits. The RD&D activities could involve
treatability studies for a site or activities to help develop
and commercialize a technology. This package of authorities
will allow new technology developers and users to flourish in
selected states.
In addition to the Federal Facilities Initiative above,
states may want to work directly with Federal facilities in
developing pilot sites for innovative technology. These
activities do not have to be limited to final remedies, but
may also include treatability tests, site stabilization, and
demonstrations. Federal facilities under both CERCLA and RCRA
authority may be particularly well suited for integrating
clean-up activities with innovative treatment technologies.
o Model RI/FS Work Plan and PRP Notice Letter Demand for
Innovative Options
Some regions have issued special notices containing a
Statement of Work and administrative order language requiring
the responsible party to evaluate the use of innovative
technologies at a particular site. This procedure should
receive broader use at Superfund sites where alternatives for
remediation are being considered for analysis in the RI/FS and
where prerequisite treatability studies are required. This
requirement in the special or general notice letters will help
facilitate the development and use of innovative treatment
technologies by the private sector. Specific language for
this approach could be developed from OWPE's guidance document
titled "Model Statement of Work for RI/FSs conducted by PRPs"
(OSWER Directive 9835.8).
o Advocacy and Funding of Treatability Studies
Superfund program policy (Directive 9380.3-02FS,
Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview, December
1989) requires that treatability studies should be conducted
to generate data needed to support the implementation of
treatment technologies. For sites where an innovative
10
-------
technology is being considered, these studies will help
provide performance information that should assist in the
engineering evaluations. Funds are budgeted annually in the
SCAP based on expected need for conducting treatability
studies. Data and reports from these studies should be
forwarded to Glen Shaul at ORD's Risk Reduction Engineering
Lab. The appropriate protocol and format for these reports
can be found in the "Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA" (EPA/540/2-89/058). Information contained in
these reports will be available through the Alternative
Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC).
Every effort should be made to conduct or, as
appropriate, to evaluate the PRP's treatability study. In
planning for this activity, oversight funding should be
requested through the SCAP budget process. Oversight of PRP-
lead treatability studies may be funded through the
enforcement budget. In situations where PRPs recommend use of
innovative treatment technologies at a site, but where
treatability study data are insufficient, EPA policy allows
the Agency to fund and conduct technology-specific
treatability studies. The costs associated with the conduct
of these treatability studies are recoverable under Section
107 of CERCLA.
Tracking and Expediting SITE Demonstrations
A recent Inspector General audit of the SITE program
focused on delays in ' matching Superfund sites with
technologies. This has contributed to overall delays in
completing demonstration projects and technology assessments.
In response, OSWER is encouraging greater participation in the
SITE program and will begin tracking regional site nominations
as a reporting measure in STARS (see "Implementation of an
OSWER Recommendation from the Office of Inspector General
Audit Report on the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program"—memorandum dated January 2, 1991). OSWER
will support the designation of additional regional FTE for
support of SITE program demonstrations and recognizes the
potential for time delays in RI/FSs at sites with
demonstration projects. ORD management has also agreed that
SITE demonstration projects must be more responsive to
regional needs for treatability data.
Recently, ORD completed an internal management review of
the SITE program. The purpose of the review was to evaluate
the program's impact on Superfund remediation activities and
to identify any changes needed to improve the program.
Several changes already adopted are directed at making the
program a more integral component of regional office Superfund
site activities. The SITE program will make the design of
technology evaluations sufficiently flexible to meet the
11
-------
regional offices' needs for treatability studies before remedy
selection is made. SITE demonstration data will be presented
to the RPM or OSC on a fast turnaround basis so that the data
are available to be factored into the remedy selection
decision. The SITE program will take advantage of ongoing
remediation activities as a source of technology evaluations
and technology transfer where possible. In addition, the
program will use sites that are being evaluated under the
START program and projects that are identified pursuant to
this directive, as potential test locations for SITE
evaluations.
12
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Existing Program Efforts to Further Innovative Technologies
OSWER has several other ongoing efforts directed toward
furthering the application of innovative alternatives through the
acquisition and efficient use of data, reduction of technical
uncertainties, and elimination of contracting impediments. These
programs represent important resources that should continue to be
used. The first two resources, that are of interest to the UST,
RCRA, and Superfund Programs, concern the collection and use of
data:
o Technical Support and Information Management
Readily accessible information on innovative technologies
is a major priority of the Superfund program. This objective
is being met through the utilization of on-line computer
systems, direct expert technical assistance, and support for
field activities to evaluate the performance of a given
technology. Currently, EPA maintains several computer
databases that may be accessed for information on treatment
technologies. These databases include the Alternative
Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC), the OSWER
Bulletin Board (CLU-IN), the ROD Database, the Hazardous Waste
Collection Database, and the Computerized On-line Information
System (COLIS). These systems include information on the
application of innovative technologies and may be used to aid
networking among OSCs and RPMs. Due to the general shortage
of cost and performance data on new technologies, use of these
databases is important to provide the most current information
available.
Technical assistance is available to Superfund and RCRA
staff through ORD's Technical Support Centers and the
Environmental Response Branch, OERR. Part of this effort
involves networking among project managers through the
engineering and ground water forums. In addition, as part of
an initiative to provide direct technical support to OSCs and
RPMs, the Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team(START)
has been established to help evaluate the potential use of
technologies. Currently, technical experts from EPA's Office
of Research and Development are providing long-term
consultation and support at 35 sites with complex treatment
technologies issues. In addition, ORD is assisting the
Superfund program in developing protocols for conducting
treatability studies, so technologies can be evaluated using
standardized parameters. ORD is also providing a staff person
in each Regional office to serve as a liaison with their
engineers and scientists.
13
-------
Bioremediation Field Initiative
Begun in the 4th quarter of FY 90, this program is
intended to provide more real-time information on the field
application of biotechnology for treating hazardous waste.
Currently, over 131 CERCLA, RCRA, and UST sites have been
identified as considering, planning, or operating full-scale
biotreatment systems. The major focus of this initiative is
to furnish direct support in evaluating full-scale cleanup
operations and technical assistance for conducting
treatability and pilot-scale studies. Several sites have
already been selected for participation in the program.
Performance, cost, and reliability information generated from
these bioremediation studies will be used to further develop
a treatability study database that will be made available to
regional staff.
Procurements for Innovative Technologies
Over the past several months, OSWER has been working with
the Procurement and Contracts Management Division (PCMD) to
address particular issues associated with the procurement of
innovative technologies. As these issues are resolved,
regions are encouraged to use the new provisions to the extent
possible. The first issue concerns the contracting for
treatability studies. Under the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR), firms are restricted from performing both
the design and construction of a project. EPA has determined
that this prohibition applies only to the prime contractor
responsible for the overall design, and not to subcontractors
performing treatability studies. The EPA Acquisition
Regulations are being amended to clarify this point and to
allow possible exceptions for contractors to work on both
design and construction on a case-by-case basis.
A second issue concerns constraints on contractors
working for both EPA and later working for a potentially
responsible party (PRP) at the same site. This constraint was
originally imposed on contractors to avoid conflicts of
interest. Innovative technology is a special exception within
these general guidelines. Rather than automatically assuming
a contractor should first be precluded from working for a PRP
after working for EPA, it is EPA's intent and commitment to
first permit contractors and/or subcontractors performing
evaluations of innovative technologies for the Agency to later
work for the PRPs in as many instances as possible. Only in
rare instances would EPA envision not permitting such work to
be performed for the PRP. EPA and PRPs often work together in
the spirit of cooperation and site work may be divided
accordingly. The Agency has therefore determined not to
preclude PRPs from using EPA contractors to perform such work
as treatability studies. In addition, we want to ensure that
14
-------
vendors who perform treatability studies for EPA may also
remain eligible to support PRP-lead design or construction
work. This position is reflected in the final conflict of
interest provisions for Superfund contracts which are
currently being prepared and were initially published in the
Federal Register as a proposed rule.
15
-------
ATTACHMENT B
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/600/9-90/050
November 1990
Opportunities for Cooperative R&D with
EPA: The Federal Technology Transfer Act
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and private industry seek new, cost-effective technologies to
prevent and control pollution. In the past, however, legal and
institutional barriers have prevented government and
industry from collaborating in developing and marketing
these technologies. Also, the efforts of many companies to
develop new technologies have been stymied by a lack of
resources, such as scientific experts in particular fields or
highly specialized equipment. The Federal Technology
" Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA) removes some of these barriers
to the development of commercial pollution control tech-
nologies.
The FTTA makes possible cooperative research and
development agreements (CRDAs) between federal laborato-
ries, industry, and academic institutions. CRDAs set forth the
terms of government/industry collaboration to develop and
commercialize new technologies. According to the Act, these
agreements will foster the technological and industrial
innovation that is "central to the economic, environmental,
and social well-being of citizens of the United States."
What Can Industry Gain from Signing a CRDA
with EPA?
Access to High-Quality Science
EPA's 12 research laboratories employ over 600
scientists and engineers. Many of these laboratories combine
world-class expertise with state-of-the-art equipment and .
fully permitted testing facilities. Certain types of environ-
mental research, such as development of innovative tech-
nologies for treating hazardous wastes, require the collabora-
tion of experts in many different fields. This type of interac-
tion is easily adapted at EPA laboratories, because they are
inter-disciplinary in nature.
Expanded Communication Channels Between
Government and the Private Sector
CRDAs build working relationships between the
government and the private teeter. All parties benefit from
the different perspectives that government and private sector
scientists bring to an R&D project.
Exclusive Agreements for Developing New
Technologies
Until recently, industry had little incentive to cooperate
with federal laboratories because any technologies developed
during joint research remained in the public domain for all to
use. Now, under some CRDAs, companies are given
exclusive rights to market and commercialize new technolo-
gies that result from the collaboration.
Licensing and Research Agreements:
How Do They Work?
The procedure for setting up a cooperative R&D or
licensing agreement under the FTTA is designed to encour-
age collaboration between industry and EPA laboratories.
For industry, the key advantage of the process is the speed
and ease with which the agreements can be negotiated and
signed. CRDAs are not subject to federal contracting or grant
requirements. In addition, each laboratory director has the
authority to establish CRDAs for that particular lab, and this
decentralization of the decision-malting process reduces the
administrative procedures involved.
Another important advantage is that CRDAs are flexible
enough to fit the goals of many different sizes and types of
companies. For example, under the FTTA, a company can
support applied research at an EPA laboratory while reserv-
ing first rights to involvement in any technology that results.
Or, if the scientific mechanism that makes a company's
product work is unknown, the company can cooperate with
an EPA laboratory to identify this mechanism. A company
can also share space and equipment with EPA in a combined
effort to develop an innovative technology.
Interested?
Several companies already have CRDAs with EPA,
including Exxon. Shell Oil, Ford Motor Company, Dow-
Coming, Hewlett-Packard, and CH,M Hill, as well as several
small businesses.
For further information about this program please write
to:
Mr. Larry Fradkin, FTTA Coordinator
Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268.
------- |