UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 29 1996
MEMORANDUM
of F ice o-
SCl'D .VASTE ANC;V-:~;J
RESPOND
OSWER DIRECTIVE
9380.0-25
SUBJECT: Initiatives to Promote^Innovative Technology in Waste
Management Prog
Elliott P. Law
Assistant Admini
!// /
Superfund, RCRA, UST and~~CEPP National Policy Managers
Federal Facilities Leadership Council
Brownfields Coordinators
FROM:
TO:
Environmental technology development and commercialization
are a top national priority for this Administration. I want to
add my personal commitment to this goal, and stress its
importance for the long-term hazardous waste remediation
challenge that lies ahead. This directive describes several
initiatives to facilitate the testing, demonstration, and use of
innovative cleanup and field measurement technologies.
While we are in a time of uncertainty regarding ultimate
changes to the Superfund law, all parties share an urgent need to
improve the performance as well as lower the cost of site
cleanup. In addition, cleanups continue (and are increasing in
pace) in our other programs as well as the many emerging
voluntary state and local programs.
We have made considerable progress using new technologies in
the Superfund, RCRA, and Underground Storage Tank programs. In
the Superfund program better than half of the recent remedial
cleanup decisions for source control call for technologies which
were not available when the law was reauthorized in 1986. The
UST program has seen tremendous growth in the application of
alternatives to pump and treat or landfilling of petroleum
contaminated media. Tens of thousands of UST sites are employing
approaches such as bioremediation, soil vapor extraction, air
sparging and natural attenuation either in combination with
traditional technologies or as the sole method of cleanup. The
large remaining cleanup needs in EPA programs, as well as the
formidable future requirements for state and other federal
agencies, provide a continuing impetus to find less expensive and
more effective solutions.
Recycled/Recyclable
Primed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper thai
~J eonUIn* it le»t 50% recycled titter
-------
These initiatives recognize that the state of remediation
science today requires us to take experimental approaches. They
are based on cooperation with other government and private
entities that share our interest in developing the next
generation of remediation technologies. They envision
partnerships with agencies, states, and the private sector to
jointly develop and apply solutions which will allow us to
protect public health and the environment more efficiently. While
these initiatives are directed primarily to programs we
implement, many states are actively pursuing innovative
approaches and may find these initiatives to be of value.
I look forward to your proposals and efforts to promote the
development and implementation of these potentially high payoff
solutions.
The following initiatives apply, as appropriate, to UST
cleanups, RCRA Corrective Action, Superfund Fund lead,
Responsible Party Lead, and Federal Facility Lead removal and
remedial sites.
ATTACHMENT
-------
Promotion of Innovative Technologies in
Waste Management Programs
Place a Higher Priority on Innovative Treatment and Characterization
Technologies
1. Routinely Consider Innovative Treatment Technologies Where
Treatment Is Appropriate
OSWER encourages reasonable risk-taking in selecting
innovative technologies for treating contaminated soils, sludges,
and groundwater. EPA regional and headquarters managers should
support Remedial Project Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, and
other remedial action decision-makers in using new technologies.
A recent analysis of Superfund Feasibility Studies found
cases where innovative technologies were eliminated from
consideration because they required testing to determine their
applicability at a particular site. Promising new technologies
should not be eliminated from consideration solely because of
uncertainties in their performance and cost, particularly when a
timely treatability study could resolve those uncertainties.
There is potential tension between our commitment to site
cleanup targets and advancing innovative technology. When an
innovative technology has potential site-specific and/or program-
wide benefits, do not be risk averse toward adopting it despite
possible impacts on the schedule for project completion. TIO is
prepared to assist Regions in evaluation of the potential
programmatic benefits of innovative approaches and adjustment, as
appropriate, of regional commitments. Regions may wish to
consider using performance management and award.systems to foster
risk taking by project managers. . -
Headquarters will ensure that Presumptive Remedy revisions
incorporate new technologies in a timely fashion. Furthermore,
we will expand interagency efforts to gather cost and performance
information for completed full-scale innovative cleanups.
In the RCRA context, EPA has revised its Treatability Study
Sample Exclusion regulations (40 CFR 261.4(e)-(f))to allow
treatability studies on up to 10,000 kg. of media (soil, debris,
sediment and ground water) contaminated with non-acute hazardous
waste without the requirement for permitting and manifesting.
This revision should help make treatability studies easier to
implement.
-------
For actions under RCRA, regulatory staff will be in a
position of reviewing proposals from owner/operators, and
possibly discussing options with their state counterparts.
Program managers should encourage owner/operators to consider
innovative approaches and, where appropriate, direct parties to
sources of assistance and information.
2. Encourage Evaluation and Use of New Field Measurement/
Monitoring Methods
Traditional approaches to on-site sampling and reliance on
off-site analysis have been time consuming and expensive. This
has had an adverse effect on site characterization and remedy
implementation efforts. New field sampling and analytical
approaches offer the potential for considerable time and cost
savings compared to conventional monitoring and measurement
procedures.
I would like to recognize and accelerate the trend toward
greater use of appropriate field methods. EPA's Brownfields
Initiative - with the objective of encouraging productive reuse
of the land - provides a new and unique opportunity to try
approaches that make sense from a practical engineering
perspective. EPA technical assistance resources can be made
available to assist Brownfield site managers who wish to consider
innovative approaches to site characterization and monitoring.
EPA should support the use of new site assessment methods
where they are appropriate as either a complement or alternative
to conventional sampling and off-site analysis techniques in
Superfund, RCRA and UST actions. The ultimate objective is to
provide a flexible investigative posture involving a mix of field
screening and analytical approaches combined with traditional
sampling and off-site laboratory analysis, where appropriate and
necessary.
A number of these new approaches appear able to consistently
provide data of known quality and thus may be able to meet
established Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). Nevertheless, in
specific cases, re-examination of DQOs may be appropriate so that
we do not unnecessarily exclude cost-effective methods because of
overly stringent requirements.
-------
OSWER headquarters and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) have begun several supporting efforts:
A new data base of on-site methods - Vendor FACTS - is
now available.
The Consortium for Site Characterization Technology, a
cooperative public-private venture, is conducting
consensus performance evaluations of field screening
technologies. Region III and X managers represent EPA
users' interests on the Board of Advisors of this
venture.
In cooperation with OERR and ORD, TIO is preparing a
status report on successful field screening usage by
EPA and other federal agencies to serve as a reference
and referral guide.
A number of State UST programs are actively promoting
field sampling and analysis to characterize leaking UST
sites, in at least one case requiring that field
analytical methods be used if the responsible parties
expect reimbursement from the state Fund. OUST is
developing a new manual to help regulators oversee
expedited site characterization.
We have significantly shortened the time frame for
including new methods in SW-846. Furthermore, a number
of new immune-assay and other cost saving techniques
for qualitative site characterization will be included
in the forthcoming update of SW-846.
3. Support the Use of Innovative Approaches for Groundwater
Remediation
We have made substantial progress in implementing innovative
technologies for source control. However, we are not making the
same progress with groundwater remediation technologies. Most
existing groundwater remedies involve pumping water to the
surface, where it is treated by conventional methods ("pump and
treat"). In the Superfund program, fewer than six percent of
selected groundwater remedies involve in situ methods. The longer
lead-time for results from groundwater projects causes additional
delays in bringing new approaches into widespread use.
Regions should be mindful of the potential of new in-situ
processes such as permeable barrier treatment walls and dual-
phase extraction wells to speed cleanups and provide cost
savings. The number of opportunities provided for responsible
evaluation of new approaches is an appropriate measure of program
-------
success. Sites which are currently stabilized - i.e., by
providing plume control through pump and treat - are excellent
candidate "test beds' for promising alternatives. Cooperation
with other federal agencies, states, and private interests to
jointly demonstrate and evaluate promising in-situ groundwater
technologies is encouraged.
Some states may have restrictions on the re-injection of
treated ground water as well as the injection of amendments to
enhance degradation or flushing. Regions should look for
opportunities to work with states for at least limited variances
to allow the demonstration and use of promising new technologies.
"Pump and Treat1 is no longer the dominant remediation
method for leaking UST sites with contaminated groundwater(It is
now used at 29% of UST groundwater sites.). Natural Attenuation
has been deemed acceptable at 47% of the groundwater sites,
followed by air sparging, bioremediation, and dual phase
extraction.
To help coordinate work in this area, we have established a
Ground Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC)at
the National Environmental Technologies Applications Center
(NETAC)in association with the University of Pittsburgh. The
Center will collect and distribute information on trends in
research, development and application activities; perform
technology transfer; and conduct meetings with stakeholders to
foster technology improvement. The Center will serve as a
technical resource complementary to the ORD laboratories.
GWRTAC's toll free number is 800-373-1973, and the World-Wide
Web home page is http://www.chmr.gwrtac.
Reduce Impediments to Innovative Technology Development and Use
Regulatory Impediments
4. Streamline RCRA Permits and Orders for Innovative Treatment
Technology Development and Use
Regions are encouraged to use the flexibility already
provided by existing statutes and regulations to bring promising
new technologies into the field. We need to work more as team
members, rather than traditional regulators, to coordinate with
EPA laboratories, other federal agencies, states and the private
sector in pursuit of our common interest of furthering new
processes. We need to identify opportunities for streamlining
our requirements while still fulfilling our responsibility to
protect public health and the environment. Additionally, we need
to set our technical priorities so limited resources can be
directed to projects with the greatest potential benefits.
-------
a. Consider Alternatives to Conventional Permits
While issues related to RCRA permitting may be addressed in
the future (through the Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule(HWIR), the Permit Improvements Team, and RCRA
reauthorization), Regions should consider the application of
existing alternatives to conventional RCRA Corrective Action,
Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D), and Subpart X
permits for pilot and full-scale applications of new technology.
As you know, RCRA permits are not required at petroleum UST
and Superfund sites. At CERCLA sites and RCRA interim status
facilities, enforcement orders may be used to enable testing and
use of new technologies. At permitted facilities, Regions should
encourage authorized states to consider using the flexibility
provided in temporary authorizations of the permit modifications
rule and the flexible standards for temporary units. For non-
Superfund, non-RCRA, and non-UST sites, it is possible that state
orders may be used in lieu of permit requirements.
b. Avoid Unnecessary Regulatory Control
When considering new technology applications, we need to ask
ourselves whether prior assurance that cleanup standards will be
met is necessary. For treatability studies and demonstration
projects, seeking assurance of success as a precondition to
testing makes little sense since this is the purpose of the
investigation itself.
For full-scale remediation, ex-situ processes are often
required to demonstrate compliance as part of start-up
activities. Furthermore, responsible parties and owners/
operators remain ultimately responsible for site cleanup and
adherence to standards.
. For RCRA corrective action, the ability to attain media
cleanup standards is one-of four General Standards for Remedies.
Since owner/operators continue to be responsible for meeting
cleanup standards, it is appropriate that proposed remedies be
evaluated on the basis of reasonable likelihood, subject as
appropriate to verification testing and performance monitoring.
To the extent possible, we should avoid being overly prescriptive
regarding technical design and operation when we consider new
technology applications.
Risks of cross-media transfer and worker exposure depend on
site specific conditions in addition to the technology under
consideration. For some contaminants, technologies such as
bioremediation and soil washing present particularly minor risk,
and an appropriate level of regulatory control should be applied.
-------
c. Recognise the Special Needs of In-situ Processes
Although the recently-revised treatability study rule will
help to ease many of the testing restrictions currently
inhibiting new technology development, there will still be
situations where testing on larger quantities of waste may be
needed, particularly for in-situ approaches. While there may be
specific exceptions, in-situ testing generally poses minimal
exposure risk. Concerns about spreading contamination should be
viewed in light of the scale of the project and weighed against
the benefits which will accrue from the field experience and
associated lessons learned. Sites with existing containment
systems, such as slurry walls, may provide locations which are
particularly well-suited for testing new processes.
As previously mentioned, the development of new in-situ
groundwater technologies is a particular OSWER priority. Due to
the lead times required to get results, we should work to get
these projects into the field as soon as possible.
5. Encourage state Adoption of and streamline EPA Authorization
to Administer the Treatability Study Sample Exclusion Rule
As mentioned earlier, we recently amended regulations that
facilitate the development and evaluation of hazardous waste
remediation technologies by increasing the quantity of
contaminated material that may undergo treatability testing while
remaining conditionally exempt from regulation under RCRA (e.g.,
manifesting and permitting). The regulation allows treatability
studies on up to 10,000 kg of media (soil, debris, sediment and
groundwater) contaminated with non-acute hazardous waste and
allows up to two years studies involving bioremediation.
While lessening regulatory impediments, the rule retains
notification, record-keeping, and reporting requirements. Since
the rule is an optional provision, full effectiveness depends on
adoption by states with delegated RCRA programs.
EPA is currently evaluating changes to its regulations that
will expedite the revision of authorized state programs. During
the time this regulatory effort is moving forward, EPA strongly
encourages Regions to act promptly on requests for authorization
for the revised Treatability Study Sample Exclusion Rule. 40 CFR
270.21 provides considerable flexibility in the amount of
information EPA requires for state program revision.
Because this rule is not complex and is less stringent than
the current provisions, a minimum amount of information can be
required. States should apply for authorization for this rule by
-------
simply sending a letter to the appropriate Regional office,
certifying that equivalent provisions have been adopted. The
state should also submit a copy of its final regulations or other
authorities.
6. Utilize Federal Facilities as Sites for Conducting
Technology Development and Demonstrations
An EPA Policy for Innovative Environmental Technologies at
Federal Facilities, signed by Administrator Browner in August
1994, documents EPA's commitment to promote the use of Federal
facilities as demonstration and testing centers for innovative
environmental technologies. Federal facilities offer unique
opportunities for the development and application of both field
site characterization and cleanup technologies. Regions are
encouraged to work with states, as co-regulators to ensure
acceptance, and with other federal agencies to promote testing
and use of new approaches. Cooperative efforts are needed to
develop permit conditions which do not unreasonably restrict
technology demonstrations at Federal facilities.
The policy "encourages the incorporation of innovative
technology conditions in appropriate EPA/Federal agency cleanup
and compliance agreements..." As appropriate, Regions should be
flexible in setting cleanup milestones and make adjustments where
appropriate.
OECA's Federal Facilities Enforcement Office will implement
a pilot program through the Environmental Technology Initiative.
The pilot will seek opportunities to utilize the flexibility that
enforcement mechanisms may offer.
Informational Impediments
7. Build ah Institutional Knowledge Base of Remediation -
Technology Experience
We are finally reaching the point where a meaningful number
of cleanups involving innovative technologies are being
completed. It is important that the often hard-won experience
from these early applications be readily available to assist
other remedial action decision makers. In cooperation with other
federal agencies through the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable, OSWER has developed a Guide to Documenting Cost and
Performance for Remediation Projects (EPA-542-B-95-002/Mar 95).
TIO has taken the lead in working with Regions and the
Departments of Defense and Energy to prepare an initial set of
-------
project reports and is working on a second round. Thirty-seven
reports are currently available in three volumes and will be
available on the World Wide Web in 1996. This work is an
important follow-on to technology demonstration reports prepared
by the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)program.
It is time to transition to a posture of preparing completed
project reports as a normal part of the site remediation effort.
OERR recently issued guidance regarding tasking our contractors
to prepare reports in a specified format. TIO will continue to
provide assistance in completing these reports and will develop
additional means of ensuring widest possible dissemination of
this valuable information.
Since approximately 70% of Superfund sites are Responsible
Party lead, cooperation with the private sector is an important
component of obtaining remedy implementation information. We
will work with OECA and Regions to develop mechanisms to elicit
remedy cost and performance information from RPs at selected RP
lead cleanups.
Region 1 has volunteered to work with headquarters staff and
states in Region 1 on a short pilot effort to refine the
mechanics of implementing this initiative.
Share Risk of Using Innovative Treatment Technologies
8. EPA Will share the Risk of Implementing Innovative
Technology With Responsible Parties at Superfund Sites
The prospect of paying twice if a remedy fails discourages
innovation. As a Superfund reform initiative, EPA has agreed to
share the risk for a limited number of approved projects by
"underwriting" the use of certain promising innovative
approaches. If the innovative remedy fails to perform as
required, EPA will contribute up to 50% of the cost of the failed
remedy if additional remedial action is required, up to a
specified maximum amount.
This initiative will encourage PRPs to assume a more active
role in technology development. Projects will include leading-
edge environmental technologies and early application of units
with significant potential for lowering costs or improving
performance.
Guidelines to implement this program, announced in concept
as a Superfund Reform, are being revised based on regional
comments. To date, one project has been approved. We plan to
approve a limited number of pilot projects this fiscal year.
-------
9. Indemnify Innovative Technology Response Action contractors
The Superfund Response Action Contractor Indemnification
Final Guidelines, published on January 25, 1993, provide that EPA
may offer indemnification to Innovative Technology (IT)
subcontractors. Prime contractors have informed EPA that the
prospect of being responsible and accountable for the actions of
the IT subcontractor and not being indemnified has inhibited
prime contractors from fully utilizing innovative technologies.
To encourage prime contractors to use innovative
technologies, EPA will provide indemnification to both the prime
contractor and to its IT subcontractor. The indemnification
agreements with the prime contractor and the IT subcontractor
will have identical deductibles, limits and terms.
I would also like to clarify that prime contractors are not
required to solicit IT subcontracts using the competition factor
outlined in the Final Guidelines for new response action contract
solicitations. Prime contractors should request permission to
include indemnification provisions from the EPA Administrative
Contracting Officer prior to releasing the solicitation.
------- |