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)
------- |