This issue of the ROD Update presents a vari-
ety of Inforn tJon related to the conduct of
treatablilty studies and the activities of
OSWER’s new Technology Innovation Office.
Enclosed in this issue of the ROD Update Is
the first in a series of five fact sheets on inno-
vative technologies.
Treatabifity Studies
INTRODUCTION
This article is excerpted from Treatability
Studies Under CERCLA. An Overview,
OSWER Directive No. 9380 3-O2FS, De-
cember 1989
Treatability studies are laboratory or field
tests designed to provide critical data
needed to evaluate and, ultimately, to
implement one or more treatment
technologies. These studies generally in-
volve characterizing untreated waste
and evaluating the performance of the
technology under different operating con-
ditions. These results may be qualitative
or quantitative, depending on the level of
treatability testing Factors that influence
the type or level of testing needed in-
clude: phase of the project [ e.g., remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) or
remedial design/remedial action (RD/
RA)],technology-spectficfactors, and site-
specific factors.
There are three levels or tiers of treatabil-
ity studies: laboratory screening, bench-
scale testing, and pilot-scale testing. Some
or all of the levels may be needed, on a
case-by-case basis. The need for, and
the level of, treatability testing are man-
agement decisions in which the time and
cost necessary to perform the testing are
balanced against the risks inherent in the
decision (e g., selection of a treatment
alternative) These decisions are based
on the quantity and quality of data avail-
able and on other factors (e.g., state and
community acceptance of the remedy,
and new site data).
Laboratory screening isthe first level
of testing. It is used to establish the
validity of a technology to treat a
waste. These studies are generally
low cost (e.g., $1OK-50K) and are
usually completed within hours or
days. They yield data that can be
used as indicators of a technology’s
potential to meet performance goals
and can identify operating standards
for investigation during bench- or pi-
lot-scale testing. They generate little,
if any, design or cost data and gener-
ally are not used as the sole basis for
the selection of a remedy.
Bench-scale testing is the second
level of testing. It is used to identify
the technology’s performance on a
waste-specific basis for an operable
unit. These studies generally are of
moderate cost (e.g., $50K-250K) and
may require days or weeks to com-
plete. They yield data that verify that
the technology can meet expected
cleanup goals and can provide
information in support of the detailed
analysis of the alternative (i e., the
nine criteria evaluation).
Pilot-scale testIng is the third level
of testing. It is used to provide quan-
titative performance, cost, and de-
sign information for remediating an
operable unit. This level of testing
also can produce the data required
to optimize performance. These stud-
iesareofmoderate-to-highcost(e g,
$250K-1,000K) and may require
weeks or months to complete. They
yield data that better verify perform-
ance than the bench-scale testing
and provide detailed information
for design. They are most often per-
formed during the remedy im-
plementation phase of a site
cleanup, although this level may be
appropriate to support the remedy
evaluation of innovative technolo-
gies.
Technologies generally are evaluated first
at the laboratory screening level and
progress through the bench-scale to the
pilot-scale testing level. However, a
technology may be tested at whatever
level is appropriate depending on the
available data concerning the technol-
ogy and site-specific factors. For example,
a technology that has been studied ex-
tensively may not warrant laboratory
screening to determine whether it has
the potential to work. Rather, it may go
directly to bench-scale testing for verifi-
cation that performance standards can
be met.
SUPERFUND...
TIMING OF TRF.ATABIZZ’lY
STUD S
Treatability studies should be planned
and implemented as soon as it is evident
that insufficient information of a promis-
ing technology is available in the litera-
ture to support the decision necessary
for remedy selection or implementation.
Treatability testing of technologies may
begin during the scoping phase or the
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
9EPA
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-2161
Superfund
Records of Decision
April 1990
Update
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS - 220
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 5 Number 4
National
Contingency Plan
The National Contingency Plan
(NCP) was signed by the Adminis-
trator on February 2, 1990. PublI-
cation occurred on March 8, 1990,
and it will be effective AprIl 9,1990.
Copies have ben mailed to the
Regions. The Public may obtain
copies from the Sup.rfund Docket
(202) 382-3048.
Continued on p. 2

-------
R.g n U
Bog Creek Fwvn. NJ
Rsg n N
Me Pe dde
DUmpSIFekWay. NC
Wamthem. SC
R.g n V
Ninth Avenue Dump. IN
Region VI
Bile Rething , IX
Pesaee chem TX
Send Spilngs
chea COn OK
S den D
SeMcee, TX
Region VOl
Libby Ground Water
Con1w k.a1bi , MT
R.glon I X
Fairthid Semloonduetor
San Jose, CA
Met e 5 Streel.
. 42
SUMMARY OF TREATABUITY STUDIES CONDUCTED PRIOR TO ROD SIGNATURE
(FY82 THROUGH THIRD-QUARTER FY89)
ROO SIGN DATE TECHNOLOGY
Bench
Sca I .1,1-TCA, I.1-D E;
M ne th ilde .
PCE; TCE. Totuene.
Trans-I .2-OCE.
V yIchk.de
Sod PCS.VOC
Segment 0. VOCC
Pdet SIu e
Sod
P Stu e
Soil
Laboratory S luc o
Sod
Pilet SIudgo
Bench
Benzene;
Ethylbenzene; Phenol.
Toluene
VOC
PAI l, TCA. VOC
VOC
PAIl, TCA. VOC
Codmlum, Nidiel
Cadmlum; NIdml
Metals; PAIl. PCE;
TCE
Benzene; B; Toluen.
PCB, Phenol
Soil 2.3.7.8-TCOD;
Naphth a lene;
Phenardhrene;
Pyi-eno; PAHa
Soil DCE, Freon 113, Isopropyl
Alcohol; PCE; TCA
Xylenea
Soil TCA
Remona
FTS 264-8216
Albson I4ftner
FTS 353-6417
Lou Barlnka
FTS 255-6735
Earl Hendridi
FTS 256-6715
Jude B th
FTS 2564735
R h
FTS 2554735
He IioNin
FTS 484-1890
HIla y Lauer
FTh 484-19%
‘Net ii ooiat4usn that a Ilutad may have been bivcMd ls the a.atabI y uWetss ccn&jetad at each .4.
continued from p.1
Initial phases of she characterization and
technology screening, and continue
through the RUFS and into the RD/RA to
support remedy implementation. Mdl-
tional treatability studies of alternate
technologies ortreatmenttrains may also
be needed later in the RI’FS process as
other promising remedial alternatives are
identified.
TRF. ITAR1Lr1Y STUDY
REPORT
The Agency has initiated an effort to
ensure the consistency of treatability study
reports and to provide a central reposi-
tory of treatability studies to facilitate In-
formation dissemination. The Guide for
Conducting Treatability Studies under
CERCLA (EPA 540/2-89)058, Decem-
ber 1989) contaIns a standard report
format that is to be followed for all treats-
bility study reports. All work assignments
and consent decrees are to contain a
statement requiring that documents be
developed in accordance with Agency
pohcy.
Further, all Fund-lead and enforcement-
lead oversight treatability work assign-
ments are to include a provision requiring
that a camera-ready master copy of the
treatability study report be sent to the
following address:
Aftn: Ken Dostal
U.S. Environmental Protethon Agency
Superfund Treatability Data B e
ORD/RRE I.
26W. Maitin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Information contained In these reports
will be available through the Alternative
Treatment Technology Information Cen-
ter (ATTIC). For more information on
ATTIC please call FTS 382-5747 or
202/382-5747.
continued on p.3
SITE NA , STATE
Region I
Grovelond WaIl IM
Oltall & Goes. NH
ZARDOUS
ONOT NT
RE ONAL
CONTACT
Bob Loper
FIS 833-1734
eve Caider
FTS 833-0626
Kay Crane
FTS 257.7791
Al Cherry
FIS 257.7791
Bench Soil Pesticides
Pilet Soil 1 .2,4-Tr ldu io robensene;
12 -D lcttiorobenzene;
I .4 -Dlchl .b ’niene;
2 ,4-Dlchloroto luene.
one; Benzene,
Naphthaiene; Xytene
Bench Soil Benzene
Bench Uq ddB
09130190 Vaejwn E,draetlon
OIFIO/87 Aeration
0&30 Umlon
06130 Aeration (therrnaQ
06130189 Thermal Treatment
03131188 Blodegindalion
ane r a t l cn
12i I88 Stabdlzatlon
00126187 SolIdiScotion
12P29 1 88 Blodegroda l lon
12130188 Blodegrodallon
3.20/89 Vapor Extreotlon
00130 188 Vapor E,draetlon
Pdot
Jude Vatsogilo
FTS 556-6432
2

-------
continued from p.2
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
AND ASSISTANCE
It is recommended that a technical advi-
sory committee (TAC) be used. This
committee may include experts on the
technology(ies) to support the scoping
phase of the treatability study through
data evaluation. Members of the TAG
may also include representatives from
EPA (Region and/orORD), other Federal
agencies, states, and consulting firms.
Technical assistance may be obtained
from the following:
The Office of Research and Devel-
opment (ORD), which provides tech-
nical assistance on site remediation
and treatability studies. The Super-
fund Technical Assistance Response
Team (START) provides long-term.
site-specific support from the scop-
ing phase through remedial design
for sites identified and selected by
Regional management. The Techni-
cal Support Project (TSP) provides
short-term support of a similar na-
ture. ORD assistance in the plan-
ning. performance, and/or review of
treatability studies can be accessed
through either mechanism. ORD also
has the Treatability Assistance Pro-
gram (TAP), which is developing
technology-specific treatability study
protocols, bulletins, and acomputer-
ized database. For further informa-
tion on treatability study support or
the TAP please contact Ben Blaney
(ORD) at FTS 684-7406 or 513/569-
7406, Rich Steimle (OSWER) at FTS
382-7914 or 202/382-7914, or your
Regional Forum member.
The Bureau of Mines (BOM) has
technical expertise and experience
In the development of technologies
to remove metals and other inor-
ganic chemicals from solids and liq-
uids. Contact William Schmidt at FTS
634-1210 or 202/634-1210 for Infor-
mation.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) may perform or oversee
treatability studies required for Al/
FS or AD/RA. For information, con-
tact Joe Grasso (COE) at 402/691-
4532.
In addition to the above, site managers
will find the following guidance docu-
ments useful for information on treatabil-
ity studies:
• Guide for Conducfing Treatability
SrdiesunderCERCLA Interim Final
(EPA 540/2-89/058, December
1989).
This document lays out an overall
framework for conducting treatabil-
ity studies. A step-by-step protocol
is used for planning, implementing,
and reporting treatabi lily studies per-
formed for purposes of remedy
selection. The information in this
document may also have a use in
remedy implementation.
AvailabIlIty: Copies may be ob-
tained from the Center for Environ-
mental Research Information (CERI),
FTS 684-7562 or (513) 569-7562.
Contact: Jon Herrman (CAD) FTS
684-7839 or 513-569-7839, Robin
Anderson (HSCD) FIS 382-2448 or
(202) 382-2446.
For additional information, see
the memorandum from Henry
L. Longest (Director, OERR) and
Alfred Undsey (Pcting Director, ORD/
OEET) to the Regions entitled
TreatabilityStt ies UnderCERCLA,
(OSWER Directive No. 9380.3-02,
December 28, 1989).
• Inventorj’ of Treatability Study Ven-
dors, Draft Interim Final (Pro-Publi-
cation December 1989).
This document is a list of vendors
interested in performing treatability
studies. The listing is not a pro-quali-
fication of contractors. The inventory
is organized in two separate vol-
umes. Volume I lists vendors by
technology and contaminant group.
Volume II is an alphabetical listing.
by vendor, of all Information pro-
vided by respondents including
experience to date. Users of this
document should send a copy of the
procurement notices to all vendors
identified as having the potential to
perform the treatabllity study
planned.
Availability: Pro-publication cop-
ies have been provided to Regional
Division Directors. The document
should be available from CERI in
mid-FY 1990 (FTS 684-7562 or [ 513]
569-7562).
Contact: Joan Colson (CAD) FTS
684-7501 or (513)684-7501.
For additional information, see
the memorandum from Henry 1.
i 7 ongest (Director, CERA) and Alfred
Lindsey (Acting Director, ORD/
OEET) to the Regions entitled, In-
ventory of Treatability Study Ven-
dors, (OSWER Directive No.
9380.3—04, December 28, 1989).
FOR FURTHER IlIFORMA T ION
In addition to the above contacts, your
Regional Coordinator in the Hazardous
Site Control DMsion Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response or the CERCIA
Enforcement Division,Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement should be con-
tacted for more information or assistance.
Technology Innovation
Office
INTRODUCTION
The Superfund Management Review (90-
Day Study”) recommended that a senior
program manager in the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
(OS WE R) serve as a “Technologies Czar”
responsible for working with other offices
to develop and implement actions neces-
sary to remove barriers to the use of
treatment technologies. Walt Kovalidc is
the Director of the new Technology Inno-
vation Office that will provide policies,
guidance, information and other tools to
implement innovative technology goals
in the Regions.
The Technology Innovation Office will
continue the following ongoing functions:
Woridorce Management (training and the
OSC/RPM support program); CAD Re-
search Committee Support; management
of CAD Technical Support Centers; and
oversight and assistance to ORD with the
Superfund (SITE) program.
New programs In the office include the
Technology and Markets Program and
the Federal Technology Users Program
described below.
TECHNOLOGY AND MARKETS
PROGRAM
(Contact John Klngscott
PTS 3824382)
The Technology and Markets Program
will consist of several projects/programs.
The Remed tat Ion Contractor Outreach
Project will identify principal constituents
of the architecture/engineenng (A E) com-
munity and the mechanisms to reach
them with technology information. In
addition, this outreach mechanism will
indude thedevelopmentof projects, train-
ing, and other concepts for delivery to the
A/E community.
continued on p.4
3

-------
continued from p.3
The purpose of the Remedlatlon Market
Assessment Project is to identify ven-
dor and financial market information
needs and provide analyses of waste
types and volumes that will stimulate
development and application of innova-
tive technologies.
The Technology identificatIon and As-
sistance Program will define minimum
data that vendors should provide to EPA
and its contractors for understanding of
innovative technologies.
The establishment of a Technology
Evaluation Network among non-profit
facilities to assist developers of inno-
vative technologies will define the
relations ps and uses of independent
t sting and evaluation facilities (such as
universities) to foster technology devel-
opment.
Another project will be to maintain a
technology review and evaluation
capabilIty. This effort will look at the
lessons that have been learned. For ex-
ample, what technologies have been
selected for certain situations and why?
Which technologies have succeeded,
which have failed, and why?
Finally, the OSWER Guidance and
Regulatory Analysis Project will iden-
tify specific regulatory impediments to
technology innovation as well as poten-
tial solutions. In addition, it will identify
initiatives to reduce/eliminate these bar-
riers.
FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY
USERS PROGRAM
(Contact Rich Stelmle
ITS 3824477)
The Federal Technology Users Program
is the second major program in the Tech-
nology Innovation Office. This program
encompasses the following projects.
A Federal Remedlatlon Technology
Roundtable will be established This
roundtable will convene regularly (twice
in FY 1990. later three times a year) for
information exchange with other federal
agencies, such as the Department of
Defense and the Department of Energy.
The roundtable will identify technology
and cost information. Also, Federal part-
ners and sites will be identified for joint
innovative technology demonstrations.
The Federal Technology Users Program
will formalize OSWER remediation
technology policIes and Information
exchange. The office will accomplish
these goals by acting as a policy catalyst
for Superfund and RCRA corrective
action use of innovative technologies.
Also, on-going information exchange and
coordination with ORD, OERR, OWPE,
and OSW will be conducted. interna-
tional applications and conferences of
remediation technology will be sup-
ported and a newsletter will be provided
consisting of technology topics for RCRA
permit writers and OSCs and RPMs with
distribution to Regions, ARCS, and TES
contractors, and states.
Finally, the Federal Technology Users
Program will establish an Innovative
technology problem assessment
capabilIty. This project will analyze
solved and unsolved problems within
RCRA and Superfund remedies as they
relate to technology selection. For ex-
ample, the technology factors necessi-
tating capping as a remedy would be
evaluated.
For additional information, please
contact Waft Kovalick or Meg Kelly at
FTS 382-7953.
Twenty-Fhst Remedy
Delegation Report
The Twenty-First Remedy DeIegat n
Report memorandum to delegate selec-
tion of remedy selection authority for all
RODs scheduled for signature dunng FY
1990 was signed on January29, 1990, by
the OSWER Assistant Administrator Don
R. Clay. Copies of the memorandum and
CERCLIS list have been sent to the
Regions.
To streamline the process and facilitate
planning this year, all First and Sub-
sequent RODs listed in CERCLIS and
targeted (including alternates) for com-
pletion are delegated for signature. Some
RODs, however, may require consulta-
tion with Headquarters If a Region has
revisions to CERCLIS dunng the year, a
memorandum to Headquarters request-
ing delegation of additional RODs will be
required. RODsde legated informeryears
may still be signed by Regions but must
adhere to the consultation requirements.
Formal Regional consultation with a
Headquarters’ Division Director in either
OERR (Fund-lead), OWPE (Enforce-
ment-lead), or respective Office Director
orthe Assistant Administrator (determined
on a case-specific basis) is required for
the following situations where the pro-
posed remedy:
• Exceeds $30 million
• Utilizes a fund-balancing waiver
• Involves real property acquisition for
a fund-financed response
• Involves a ROD amendment result-
ing from PRP settlement/negotia-
tions
• Involves nationally precedent-setting
issues, e.g., remediation of dioxin
wastes, complex area-wide contami-
nation, etc.
Consultation should occur before issu-
ance of the Proposed Plan or amended
Proposed Plan In addition, Regions
must consult with the appropriate Head-
quarters Branch Chiefs for those sites
where an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) is planned and should
consult on unresolved issues relating to
state concurrence, ARAR compliance or
use of waivers, PAP settlement/nego-
tiations, multi-source groundwater con-
tam ination, risk assessment, permanent
relocation,orothersignificant issues. For
further information, contact Carol
Jacobson FTS 475-9834, Hazardous Site
Control Division, or Joe Tieger FTS 475-
8372, CEI CLA Enforcement Division.
For ideas, submissions, o
Division at FTS 475-9754.
r questions concerning the ROD Update, please contact Sharon Frey, Hazardous Site Control
Members of the public may obtain copies by phoning or writing EPA’s Public Information Cen-
ter (PM-21 1 B), 401 M St.,
S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Phone (202) 382-2080.
ROD A
0: What is the point of oompffsnce for
ground-Water cleanup?
A: The point of compliance for con
tamlnstedground water that is to be re-
stored Is an area of attainment.”
Remedlatlon ievels should genel’sfly
be attained throughout tire contami-
nated plume or at and beyond the
edge of the waste management area,
when the waste Is lift In place. There
may be oectaln cfrCumstanCea where a
plume of ground water contamInation
Is caused by releases from several
distinct sources that are In dose geo-
graphical proximity. In these cases,
the probl.m may be addressed as a
whole, rather than source by source,
and to draw th. point of compUance to
encompass the sources of release
(see NCP Preamble, page 8753).

-------