vvEPA
              United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
            Office of
            Solid Waste and
            Emergency Response
 DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9355.0-26

 TITLE:
Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for Superfund Remedies


 APPROVAL DATE:  2/21/89
 EFFECTIVE DATE:

 ORIGINATING OFFICE:

 0 FINAL
                              HSCD
                              -*— • ~ *" — ' --^
               D DRAFT

                STATUS:
          [  ] A- Pending OMB approval
          {  j B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
          [  ] C- For review &/or connnent
          [  ] D- .In development or circulating

                       headquarters
               REFERENCE (other documents):
  OSWER      OSWER      OSWER
fE    DIRECTIVE    DIRECTIVE   Di

-------
<*EnH OSWER Directive initiation Request
2. Qriolnator Information
Name ol Contact Person , Man Cooe ^""c*trcrr\
David Cooper ' OS-220 HSCD
9355.0-26
IT

T«epnore Coce
382-5755
3. Title
Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies for Superfund Remedies
4. Summary ol Directive (mouae onei statement ol purpose)
Affirms the use of treatment technologies at Superfund sites and summarizes
guidance documents and activities that encourage and support .the use of
innovative treatment technologies.
S.K«yworos SUp«rfunS,CERCIA.SARA
6a. Does This Directive Supersea* Previous Ctfecnvetsi? i ] i i
	 No . 	 Ye* What direct** (numeer. tm«)
b. Does It Supplement Previous Oirectivefs)? 1 I 1 I
| No | Y*« What direct** (numoar. «!*>
'^nitl** 	 	
| A- Signed oyAA/OAA f j 8 - Signed oy Office Oinwor | [ C - Por Hev»ew A Comment [ | 0
- In Development
          8. Document to b« distributed to States by Headquarters? I3061YM
     D
No
     TMt Requeat M«t» OSWgfl Olregttvef Sy«em Format Standtraa.
     9. Sio/wture ot Uead Office Qirecuves Cooronator

       Betti VanEpps
Oat*
    2/21/89
     10. Name and Title of Approving Official

       Henry L. Longest, Director, OERR & Bruce Diamond, Dirctor
Oat*
    2/21/89
     £PA Porm 1315-17 (Rev. 5-47) Previous editions are oosoi«tr
  OS WES         OSWER             OSWER            O
VE    DIRECTIVE        DIRECTIVE       DIRECTIVE

-------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
                             21
                                                       office of
                                              SOLID WASTE .IIMO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                     OSWER Directive No.  9355.0-26
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT;
FROM:
TO:
     Advancing  the  Use  of  Treatment
     Superfund  Remedies

     Henry  L. Longest,  Director
     Office of  Emergency and
     Bruce  Diamond,  Director
     Office of Waste Programs

     Addressees
Technologies for
                                            Response
                                      forcement
Purpose

     To reaffirm  the  use  of  treatment  technologies at Superfund
sites and summarize guidance documents and  activities that
encourage and support the use of  innovative treatment
technologies.

Background

     The CERCLA amendments emphasize achieving  protection that
will endure over  long periods of  time  by  mandating the use  of
permanent solutions to the maximum  extent practicable.
Fundamental to achieving  this goal  is  the aggressive  use of
treatment technologies that  reduce  the intrinsic  threats posed  by
hazardous waste.  To  assist  in determining  the  appropriate  extent
to which treatment should be used,  the proposed National
Contingency Plan  lays out the following expectations  which  should
be used when developing and  evaluating site alternatives, and  in
remedy selection:
1.
3.
         T&e objective is  to  select  remedies  that  provide
         reliable, effective  response  over  the  long  term  (i.e.
         permanent remedies) .

         Although protection  of human  health  and the environment
         may be fulfilled  through a  variety of  means,  the  range of
         alternatives should  demonstrate a  strong  preference  to
         use treatment to  address the  principal threats posed by  a
         site, wherever practicable.

         The highest priority for treatment will be  given  to
         liquids, other hi^nly mobile  materials, and highly
         concentrated toxic compounds.

-------
                                     Directive No.  9355.0-26

      4.   Treatment  is  less  likely  to be appropriate for low-
          concentrations of  immobile wastes wnich pose a relatively
          low  long-term threat.  Engineering measures that control
          exposure",  such as  containment, may be more appropriate
          for  these  sites.

      5.   Containment may also be appropriate  for large scale sites
          where  treatment is infeasible or clearly  impracticable.

      6.   Often,  a combination of treatment and containment will be
          the  most appropriate remedy.

      7.   Institutional controls (e.g. deed restrictions,
          prohibitions  of well construction) should  be used to
          supplement engineering controls for  short- and long-term
          management and prevent exposure during the implementation
          of treatment  alternatives such as ground water
          restoration.

      8.   Ground  waters will be restored to their beneficial uses
          within  reasonable  periods of time, wherever practicable.

      These expectations should lead to an aggressive but realistic
use of treatment in the Superfund program.  This memorandum
highlights provisions  of key guidances that address the use of
treatment technologies and  describes a number .of activities
underway  which will promote a greater use of new and innovative
treatment technologies.

Objective                                                      •

      The  objective  of  this  guidance is advancing the use of
treatment technologies to ensure compliance with the mandates in
the CERCLA amendments  and the expectations delineated in the
proposed  National Contingency Plan (NCP).  Also, it is intended to
encourage greater use  of new and innovative technologies.

Imp1ementat i on

      Each Regional  program  should develop a strategy for advancing
the use of treatment technologies and emphasizing new and
innovative technologies.  The plan should take into account the
summary information provided below.


NATIONAL  CONTINGENCY PLAN -  THE I'CP ADVOCATES THE USE OF
                            TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

     The  proposed NCP  emphasizes the use of treatment technologies
in selection of  remedial actions in several ways.  First,  in
deference to the statutory  preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume, the NCP

-------
                                      Directive No.  9355.0-26

 directs  that alternatives  in this  range would vary  from those
 that  remove  or destroy contaminants to the maximum  extent  feasible
 to  those that at  least treat the principal threats  at  a site.
 Second,  by statute  all remedial  actions must  utilize alternative
 treatment technologies to  the maximum extent  practicable.  The NCP
 makes  this statutory mandate a driving factor in  balancing a
 number of other factors such as  long and short-term effectiveness,
 implementability, and cost.   In  this context,  the NCP  gives clear
 expectations for  the role  of treatment in remedy  selection:  it
 will be  used most often for  highly toxic,  highly  mobile waste,
 whereas  containment is generally reserved for low concentrations
 of  toxic materials  or relatively immobile wastes.   The NCP
 encourages development of  alternatives using  technologies  that
 have not yet been proven in  practice in order to  promote the
 development  and use of new treatment methods  for  hazardous
 substances.

     New and innovative technologies fall  into this category and
 the NCP  requires the development of one or more innovative
 technologies. f p.-  further consideration if  the  technol-~^y offers
 potential  for better treatment or  lower cost  for  sir:, .-.r
 performance  than demonstrated treatment technologies.


 DIVERSITY  OF TECHNOLOGIES  -  THE  AGENCY NEEDS  TO PROMOTE USE OF
                             TECHNOLOGIES IN ADDITION TO THERMAL
                             DESTRUCTION AND SOLIDIFICATION

     A review of the FY 87 RODs  indicated  that treatment
 technologies for source control  remedies were  selected 48% of the
 time and of  those technologies selected, thermal  destruction anc'
 solidification  were  selected 63% of the time.   In :TY 88, treatmW;-:
 technologies were selected in 67%  of the RODs  wita  chermal
 treatment  and solidification accounting for 54% of the  treatment
 technologies.   Other technologies  such as  soil aeration, soil
washing, biodegradation, and vacuum extraction were selected less
often with few, if any,  in the chemical treatment category.

     In  the  recent OSWER publication Technology Screening  Guide
 for Treatment of c^pCLA Soils and  Sludge a number of promising
tecnnologies for soil  and sludge treatment are identified.   Those
promising technologies  suitable  for  the waste  in question  should
be considered during the technology screening  and alternative
analysis phases of the  feasibility study.   Examples of  innovative
technologies  that should be  considered include  chemical
extraction,  glycolate  dechlorination,  in-situ  vitrification and
chemical reduction oxidation.  The Superfund program needs to
continuously search  for  new  technologies that  can achieve greater
performance  at  lower  cost.  Innovative  technologies can be
considered as the primary treatment mechanism  for a site or as a
pretreatment unit process in  a more  comprehensive treatment train.

-------
                                     Directive No. 9355.0-26

RI/FS GUIDANCE  - THE  GUIDANCE CONTAINS PROVISIONS
                 THAT EMPHASIZE SELECTION OF
                 INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.

     The  interim final RI/FS guidance indicates that innovative
technologies would be carried through the technology screening
phase if  there  is potential that the innovative technology would
offer significant advantages including better treatment or ^wer
cost.  The new  or innovative technology would be evaluated  .;ainst
the nine  evaluation criteria taking into account its potential.
The advantages  in performance or cost as compared with more
demonstrated technologies should be discussed in the comparative
analysis  step.  This  evaluation would be documented in the
Proposed  Plan and ROD together with any uncertainties associated
with the  technology.


TREATABILITY STUDIES  - TREATABILITY STUDIES SHOULD BE
                       UNDERTAKEN DURING THE RI/FS,
                       AND RI/FS COST/SCHEDULE GOALS ARE
                       NOT A DETERRENT.

     Treatability studies and where appropriate, pilot-scale
testing of a technology should be conducted during the RI/FS.
This is especially true for new and innovative technologies in
order to  better understand the expected advantages and to assist
with the  nine criteria evaluation.  It should be noted that the
cost for  these  studies and the timing for completing them are over
and beyond the  target RI/FS cost of S750K and 18 month schedule.
However,  these  program management goals should not be viewed as a
deterrent to the evaluation and use of new technologies.   Sources
of funds  for treatability studies include the RI/FS budget and
savings based on PRP  settlements.  Large scale pilot studies might
necessitate possible  reprogramming from the RA budget.
      f»

ROD GUIDANCE -  BOTH INNOVATIVE AND PROVEN TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
                CAN BE SELECTED IN A RECORD OF DECISION

     The  draft ROD guidance has been revised to taJce into account
the unique circumstances surrounding the selection of innovative
technologies.  The guidance states that an innovative treatment
technology may be selected even though it has not achieved
remedial  objectives in practice at an^ other facility or site.
The innovative  technology should provide advantages similar to
those provided by other technologies evaluated, with respect to
the nine  evaluation criteria.  Where there are uncertainties
associated with a technology and a pilot scale test is proposed
during design, a proven treatment technology could be included in
the Proposed Plan and ROD as a contingent remedy.   If two
different innovative  technologies appear to be equivalent with
respect to the  evaluation criteria, these comparable treatment

-------
                                      Directive No.  9355.0-26

 technologies  may be included as  a  selected  remedy and a
 contingent  remedy,  respectively, in  the  Proposed Plan and ROD.
 Information contemplated by the  ROD  but  developed after  it may
 prompt  the  lead  Agency to select the contingent remedy.


 ENFORCEMENT - NEGOTIATIONS AND COST  RECOVERY ARE IMPACTED BY
              INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY  RODS

     Innovative  technology RODS may  facilitate the Agency's
 negotiating position when the PRPs have  agreed to the approach,
 and make negotiation difficult when  they do not.  Difficult
 negotiations  are most likely where innovative technologies are
 proposed for  sites  where containment remedies are consistent with
 CERCLA  mandates.  PRP concerns generally focus on continued
 liability in  the event of remedy failure, implementability
 problems, and cost.   If a treatment  remedy  fails or if costs are
 relatively  high  compared to other arguably  effective remedies,
 PRPs will attempt to argue that the  U.S.EPA is not entitled to
 full cost recovery.   For the smooth  operation of the program, it
 is important  to  conduct treatability studies during the RI/FS.

     Contingent  RODS can improve or  detract from the Agency's
 negotiating position,  depending on the contingencies involved.
 The conditions for  implementation of the remedy may have a greater
 effect  than the  contingent remedies  selected.  The expected
 performance levels  for the innovative technology must be clearly
 stated  in the ROD,  or negotiation delays will result.

     An example  of  a positive impact  is  when a ROD specifies two
 innovative  technologies as the selected  and contingent remedies.
 respectively.  The  PRPs may find more incentive to perform the
 RD/RA since there is an opportunity  to generate design-specific
 data related  to  the performance of these technologies prior to
 final specification of the technology that will be implemented.
 This may allow them to achieve performance requirements without
 necessarily being required to implement  the most expensive remedy.
An example  of a negative impact is when  costs associated with the
 innovative  technology tested, but not selected, are challenged in
 a cost  recovery action.


REMOVAL PROGRAM  - USE OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES IS
                  STRONGLY ENCOURAGED IN THE REMOVAL
                  PROGRAM               ~
                                         't
     The removal  program's draft guidance on.treatment technology
encourages  its use  even where the cost exceeds that of land
disposal.   On-Scene Coordinators may  use the guidance to
determine,  justify,  and document the  selection of an alternative
to land disposal, and plan procurement of the selected
alternative.  The guidance is limited to those procedures for

-------
                                     Directive No. 9355.0-26

classic  emergencies where  immediate response is needed, and other
time-critical  actions  where  response must be initiated within six
months of the  determination  that a removal is appropriate.
Included are guidelines  for  categorizing waste, classifying
technologies according to  their developmental status, and
analyzing and  selecting  treatment technologies.


COMMUNITY RELATIONS -  COMMUNITIES MUST BE INVOLVED EARLY
                       IF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ARE BEING
                       CONSIDERED

     The interim  final RI/FS guidance indicates that emphasis must
be placed on ensuring  that the community is informed of,the
alternatives including new and innovative technologies and given
reasonable opportunity to  provide input during the detailed
analysis step.  Community  input specifically as it relates to new
technologies should not  be put off until the formal public comment
period,  since  more time  may  be needed to understand the advantages
of the technolcji.  Additionally, any uncertainties ar-1 rhort-term
impacts  including mitigating measures should be press:'. .3J to the
community.  On-site, pilot scale treatability studies should be
coordinated "with  the community prior to initiating the work.
Also, as time  permits  given  the exigencies of the circumstances,
the communities should be  involved early when selecting treatment
technologies for  removal .actions.


SITE PROGRAM - SITE PROGRAM  ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND
               INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE

     The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
has completed  seven field  demonstrations for. new treatment
technologies,  including  infrared incineration, solidification, in-
situ vacuum extraction,  oxygen-enhanced incineration and solvent
extraction.  The  SITE  program has developed an information
clearinghouse  to  collect,  synthesize, and disseminate technology
performance data.  The clearinghouse includes a hotline,
electronic bulletin board  and a collection of reports in the
Agency Library's  Hazardous Waste Collection.   This information
should be used when developing the initial list of technologies
and during the selection of  remedy evaluations.  Further
information can be obtained  from John Kingscott at (FTS) 382-4362.


INFORMATION TRANSFER - OERR  INFORMATION TRANSFER PROGRAM
                       FY  89

     OERR is continuing  its  information transfer program and has
scheduled a number of  conferences and meetings to present
information on technologies, policy, and guidance documents to the
Regions, States,  ARCS/REM  contractors, and hazardous waste

-------
                                     Directive No.  9355.0-26

consulting  firms.   The following  is  a  list of planned meetings
and conferences:

  o  ARCS/REM/TES  Technical  Information Forum, Feb  22-23, 1989,
     Wash.,DC

  o  EPA/HWAC  Policy  Seminar, June 7-8, 1989, St. Louis

  o  Forum  on  Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment  Technologies:
     Domestic  and  International Conference, June 19-21, 1989,
     Atlanta
FURTHER GUIDANCE

     This memorandum only highlights some of the key guidance
provisions that strengthen the use of new and innovative
technologies in the removal, remedial and enforcement programs.
Additional guidance will be developed which focuses specifically
on selection of new and innovative technologies.  The goal of this
initiative is to develop a diversity of technologies that will
meet the CERCLA expectations and result in more cost-effective
remedies.
ADDRESSEES

             Regional Administrators, Regions I - X

             Director, Waste Management Division
               Regions I, IV, V, VII, VIII
             Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
               Region II
             Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
      *"        Regions III, VI
             Director, Toxic and Waste Management Division
               Region IX
             Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X

             Regional Superfund Branch Chiefs
             Regions I - X

cc:  Betti Van Epps (OERR Directives Coordinator)

-------