problems (Sands, personal communication, 1996). Further,
ATSDR (1996) also reported:

Exposure assessment studies conducted by ATSDR
during this reporting period show that some heavy
metals, volatile organic compounds, and other specific
substances occur at levels of health concern in the
bodies of exposed people. Compounds such as lead,
arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and
bromides are found at significant levels in people
near some hazardous waste sites. Taking these
health findings in the aggregate, ATSDR concludes
that uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and
unplanned releases of hazardous substances that
constitute emergency events are a major
environmental threat to human health. Although there
remain significant gaps in the scientific database on
the extent of human exposure to hazardous
substances released from sites, and key toxicological
data gaps still exist, progress has been made in
better characterizing both the exposure and toxicity
data bases. The human health finding accrued to
date support the need for interdicting human exposure
and mitigating toxicity of hazardous substances
teleased from hazardous waste sites and similar
sources of exposure.

EPA has defined an acceptable human health risk range for
carcinogens (10+ to 10 excess cancer risk) and a threshold of
concer for non-carcinogens (hazard index of 1) for Superfund
sites. At most Superfund sites, risks exceed acceptable levels,
and action is taken. The cancer risk exceeded EPA's accept-
able range in 80 percent of sites where decisions were made in
1991, andit exceeded 10-* at approximately 25 percent of these
sites. Another recent finding is that non-carcinogenic risk
represents a very significant portion of the risk addressed by the
Superfund program. The hazard index exceeded 1 at 75
percent of the 1991 sites for which decisions were made. Athalf
ofthese sites, the hazard index was above 10, andat 15 percent
of the sites it was above 100. Data from Superfund risk
assessments completed from 1989 to 1995 at 380 Superfund
sites show similar results (Walker, 1995; OERR, 1995).

The costs of assessment and remediation of contaminated sites
arelarge. The average remedial action cost alone ata Superfund
site remediation is about $9 million per site (U.S.EPA, 1996a).
A 1994 report by the National Research Council (1994) on
ground water cleanup reviewed available data on the national
cost of contaminated site remediation:

In part because of the wide variation in contaminated
sites and because the total number of sites is
uncertain, estimating the total national costs of
cleaning up contaminated ground water is extremely
difficult. One recent, widely publicized report
concluded that over the next 30 years, the nation asa
whole will spend $480 billion to $1 trillion, with a “best
guess” of $750 billion, cleaning up . . . sites. With 90
million households in the nation, this represents a
cost of $8,000 per household. Another recent report
concluded that by the year 2000, the nation will be
spending nearly $24 billion per year complying with
requirements for hazardous waste and underground

storage tank cleanup under RCRA and site cleanups
under CERCLA. Some contest the accuracy of such
cost estimates because of the high level of uncertainty
associated with the magnitude of the contamination
problem and the large number of assumptions
underlying the estimates. Nevertheless, the potential
enormity of the costs has fueled the debate about
whether the benefits the nation will receive from
ground water cleanup at hazard waste sites justify
the costs.

Improved site characterization can reduce cleanup costs, by
millions of dollars, by better defining the volumes of soils that
really need to be remediated. Ata site in Missouri, $6 million was
saved because an improved ORD sampling design for the site
more accurately defined the location of significant contamina-
tion. Similarly, millions of dollars can be saved by the application
of innovative remediation technologies. A 1996 analysis of 46
Records of Decision (RODs) that applied innovative technolo-
gies of the type tested in the EPA Superfund Innovative Tech-
nology Evaluation (SITE) program showed an average of $30
million saved per ROD compared to the cost of using conven-
tional cleanup technologies (Gatchett, 1998).

Accidental Releases

In 1995, approximately 17,000 accidental release reports in-
volving chemicals were made to the National Response Center
(NRC, 1996). These accidents occur during the transport of a
chemical, in the manufacturing process, or while the chemical is
being employed as an end product.

As a way of understanding the magnitude of the problem, the
National Environmental Law Center (1995) has calculated “worst
case scenarios” for accidents involving approximately 10,000
U.S. manufacturing companies...-They have concluded that
close to 45 million Americans live in zip codes containing
facilities with vulnerable zones extending outward more than
three miles from the facility. This analysis may underestimate
potential exposure, since it does not address populations vul-
nerable to transportation accidents.

1.3 Waste Research Program Mission,
Goals and Resources

1.3.1 Mission Statement

The mission of the ORD Waste Research Program is to:

© Perform research and development to identify, under-
stand, and solve current and future problems related to
the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and the
characterization and remediation of contaminated waste
sites.

Interpret and integrate scientific information to help
organizations make better decisions about handling and
treating of hazardous wastes.

Provide national leadership in addressing emerging
hazardous waste issues and in advancing the science
and technology of risk assessment and risk management
as they relate to hazardous wastes.



Table 2-6. (Continued).

Research Activity Title Potential Research Focus “Science”| “Science
Ranking | - Plus”
Ranking
Demonstration/Verification of | * Produce technically sound performance, cost and applicability 12 9
Innovative Remediation data for full-scale innovative remediation techniques.
Techniques .
Demonsiration/Verification of | * Produce technically sound performance data for innovative 12 9
Innovative Monitoring soil monitoring and characterization technologies.
Technology
Abiotic Treatment * Develop less expensive cleanup processes for hard-to-treat 9 abl
contaminants and matrices.
Mixtures Toxicology * Develop improved models of the synergistic/antagonistic 10 12
effects of common soil contaminant mixtures.
Oil Spills * Develop more effective ways to remediate spills in an 10 13
environmentally safe manner.

count for cumulative effects are nearly non-existent. Sound
approaches for determining specific waste constituent compli-
ance with proposed exit levels do not existor, at best, have not
been validated.

Uncertainties still exist in the treatment of some hazardous
waste streams. There still remain a number of hard-to-treat
waste streams, such as those containing mercury. As a result,
it is not always possible to obtain the desired cleanup levels
using current treatment technologies. In addition, there have
been advances in existing, inexpensive treatment technologies
{solidification/stabilization) that may make them more broadly
applicable than previously, thus reducing costs of hazardous
waste management.

Also, there is a need to reduce the volume of solid wastes
requiring disposal, and this is not being done as quickly as it
might, partially because of the uncertainty about the applicability
of innovative recycling processes. This uncertainty may be
reduced by improving the availability of technically sound infor-
mation on innovative recycling techniques by having indepen-
dent evaluations done on them cooperatively by government
and private sectors.

To address these uncertainties and associated high priority
research needs, six research activities have been identified
(Table 2-7). These activities were first ranked by a set of
Science criteria and then a set of Science Plus criteria following
a process described earlier in this chapter.

Science Ranking

ORD has determined that a combination of environmental fate,
exposure modeling, risk assessment, and waste management
research is needed in this topic area. All four research areas are
of high priority because each addresses important scientific and
technical issues that can help determine or reduce the risks
posed by active waste’ management facilities and hazardous
waste generators. -

25

Science Plus Ranking

As can be seen from Table 2-7, the Science Plus ranking of
research activities is identical to the Science ranking except that
the activity, “Chemical Toxicity Testing for Human and Ecologi-
cal Effects,” moved to the bottom of the list. With this one
exception, the Science Plus ranking factors had little impact.
These factors included: 1) high-priority across the risk paradigm
in the CENR Strategic Plan and by the Program Office (OSW),
2) HWIR as a high-priority effort under the Administrations
regulatory reform efforts, 3) the identification of waste research
as “an area of high importance” in the ORD Strategic Plan, and
4) SAB and ORD recommendations for research resulting from
their review of OSW's proposed HWIR. ORD considers the
“Chemical Toxicity Testing for Human and Ecological Effects”
research need to be of lower priority since itis essentially routine
testing and is expensive.

The remainder of this section describes the rationale for the
Science Plus relative ranking of the six research areas. This
ranking reflects the application of science and other factors to
determine the relative importance of each research activity.

The first four research areas (Multimedia, Multipathway Ex-
posure Modeling; Environmental Fate and Transport, Physi-
cal Estimation; Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for
Contaminants; and Waste Characterization and Sampling)
are all responsive to the research needs identified by recent
ORD and SAB reviews of the proposed HWIR. Research in all
four areas is needed if a scientifically sound HWIR approach is
to be developed.

Current exposure and risk models lack the ability to produce true
multimedia, multipathway analyses. Major improvements are
needed to ensure various models are compatible from the
perspectives of computational, pathway, environmental scale,
time scale, error propagation, and mass conservation/balance.
Significant uncertainty still remains in the fate, transformation,
and transport of many of the waste contaminants regulated



Table 2-5. Focus and ranking of research activities for contaminated sites - Ground Water.

Research Activity Title Potential Research Focus “Science”| “Science
Ranking | Plus”
Ranking
Natural Attenuation (NA) * Determine under what conditions NA is applicable. 1 1
° Determine techniques for assessing site-specific applicability
of NA.
Human Dose/Response * Develop biologically based toxicity models. 2 2
Methods for Mixtures * Develop expert systems for determining likelihood of
synergism antagonism or additivity of response.
Subsurface Characterization | © Develop surface based, noninvasive methods to characterize 3 3
the structure and contaminant distributions in the subsurface.
Environmental Fate and * Determine processes affecting contaminant fate of transport, 4 4
Transport Modeling particularly in heterogeneous environments.
* Develop improved models for representing site-specific
ground water fate and transport, and effects of remediation.
Abiotic Treatment * Develop more cost-effective techniques for NAPL remediation. 5 5
* Develop more cost-effective techniques for ground water
remediation.
Field and Screening * Develop field portable and screening analytical methods for 6 6
Analytical Methods rapid analysis of ground water.
* Develop analytical methods to determine ‘he status of and
to monitor the rates of natural attenuation in ground water.
Biotreatment * Determine more cost-effective techniques for ground water 7 7
remediation.
Containment * Develop more cost-effective methods to contain NAPLs and 10 8
contaminated ground water.
* Develop methods for evaluating long-term effectiveness of
containment systems.
Ground Water Exposure * Determine contaminant intake rates from showering, bathing 8 9
Factors/Pathways and use of household appliances (e.g., dishwashers).
* Develop exposure models for vapors released indoors.
Demonstration/Verification of | * Produce technically sound performance, cost and applicability an 10
Innovative Ground Water data for full-scale innovative remediation technologies.
Remediation Technologies
Demonstration/Verification of | * Produce scientifically sound performance data for innovative 13 10
Field Monitoring Technologies ground water monitoring and characterization technologies.
Mixtures Toxicology + Develop improved models of the synergistic/antagonistic 9 12
effects of contaminant mixtures.
Ecosystem Effects + Develop screening tests to determine the effects of 12 13
contaminated ground water on ecosystems.
Ecosystem Risk Assessment | * Develop methods to determine the flux of ground water 14 14
Methods contaminants into sensitive ecosystems such as wetlands.
* Develop ecotoxicity transfer/dilution factors between ground
water and surface water.
. Pevelop ground water ecotoxicity criteria and screening
levels.

a1





Identification of Research Topic Areas and Associated
Research Activities

Four broad research topics were established in two categories
that represent the major waste-related research problems:
Contaminated Sites
1) Ground Water
2) Soils/Vadose Zone
Active Waste Management and Combustion Facilities
3) Active Waste Management Facilities
4) Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities

Thirty-nine (39) research activities were identified to address
the major research needs in the four research topic areas.

Technical Support to OSWER and the Regional Offices, although
not a specific environmental problem, was also identified as a
high priority need and a major activity of ORD. Since it is not
research, it is not discussed in this document.

Ranking of Research Activities

Using the three sets of ranking criteria identified in the ORD
Strategic Plan, ordinal rankings were developed for the research
activities within each research topic area. Research activity
rankings were first developed based on science criteria only.
Uncertainty in risk assessment, efficacy and cost-effectiveness
of risk management technologies, and the broad applicability
of methods and models were the primary criteria in establish-
ing the science ranking. The final rankings (shown in paren-
theses next to each research activity in Table ES-1) also con-
sidered a number of other non-science factors (this final rank-
ing is referred to as the "Science Plus” ranking). Examples of
these other factors include: Administration priorities; CENR re-
search priorities; EPA Program Office priorities; regulatory or
legal mandates; Agency priorities; Congressional directives;
and FY98 area for new funding.

Determination of How to Best Accomplish
Research Activities

Prioritized research activities were considered to determine how
to best accomplish the activity and deliver a product to meet
the associated “need”. Research activities that directly corre-
lated to the expertise, mission and goals of a particular ORD
Laboratory or Center were retained for ranking in step six. Ac-
tivities considered more appropriate for other research programs
within ORD or another Federal Agency were noted for coordi-
nation as appropriate. Activities that were most appropriate for
external grants were likewise noted for coordination into the
overall program.

Detailed development and prioritization of research topic areas
and activities related to epidemiological studies at waste sites
(conducted primarily by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR)) and nuclear, defense- and energy-
related wastes (activities primarily under the Departments of
Energy (DOE) and the Defense of Defense (DoD)) were not
done for this version of the Waste Research Strategy. Coordi-
nation with ATSDR, DOE, and DoD will be included in greater
detail in later revisions to this strategy.

Chapter 3. Conclusions and Issues

Conclusions

There is a large and diverse set of waste research needs that
span the spectrum of the risk paradigm. As a result, well inte-

grated research programs are needed for each of the four re-
search topic areas which have the goal of improving our as-
sessment, characterization and risk management capabilities.
Also, because there are insufficient resources available to meet
all these research needs, the process of ranking research top-
ics and activities is critical.

Four broad research topic areas relating to environmental prob-
lems were identified to-cover the full range of waste-related
research. Priority research activities in each research topic area
are:

* Contaminated ground water: The focus of the research ac-
tivities is on the issues of: improved risk assessment, char-
acterization and remediation of non-aqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs); the application and management of natural and
accelerated process for subsurface remediation; and the
demonstration and verification of innovative characterization
and remediation technologies.

Contaminated soil/vadose zone: The focus of research ac-
tivities is on the issues of improved exposure and risk as-
sessment of soils, the application and management of natu-
ral and accelerated process for remediation, and the demon-
stration and verification of innovative characterization and
remediation technologies in soils and the vadose zone.

Active waste management facilities: The focus of the research
activities proposed for this research topic area is on the sci-
ence needs related to the Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule (HWIR), especially in multimedia, multipathway model-
ing, and the development or estimation of toxicity values.

Emission from waste combustion facilities: The focus of re-
search in this topic areas is on the control and monitoring of
emissions, emissions fate process and transport modeling,
and indirect exposure and risk assessment methods and
models. :

While there is much uncertainty, debate, and controversy about
the health and ecological risks posed by waste sites, there is
consensus that the economic impact of current waste manage-
ment and cleanup practices is clearly large. Within this context,
waste research should be viewed as a relatively small but valu-
able investment to save future expenditures.

Because of the multi-disciplined nature of waste-related re-
search, there are many organizations (across government, in-
dustry, and academia) actively involved in sponsoring research
activities. In order to maximize efficiency of effort and avoid
duplication, special efforts are needed to coordinate and lever-

-age these research programs and activities.

ORD's current research program emphasizes risk management
research. There is a need to increase the relative amount of
risk assessment research in this program.

Issues

Several issues were identified that may require further atten-
tion.

* The lack of risk characterization research

* Future waste strategy development

Funding strategies





Table A-1. Summary of research needs - Hazard Assessment.

Risk
Paradigm
Element

Research Needs Sorted by Major
Research Activities

Source of
Research
Need

Who/Where
Will Need Be
Addressed

a

Hazard
Assessment

IDENTIFICATION OF TOXIC ENDPOINTS

Greater emphasis on noncancer endpoints.

ORD Human Health
Risk Assessment
Research Plan

Improved understanding of the biological basis for toxicity
and biologically-based extrapolation models between
species.

ORD Waste Research
Plan

Effects of short term exposure to contaminants at different
ages.

ORD Human Health
Risk Assessment
Research Plan

Effects of dermal exposure on cancer and noncancer
endpoints.

ORD Waste Research
Plan

Effects of contaminants on ecological receptors.

Ecological Research
Strategy

DOSE-RESPONSE ANALYSES

Biologically based toxicokinetic models.

ORD Waste Research
Plan

ORD Human Health
Risk Assessment
Research Plan

Variation in susceptibilities within and across species.

ORD Human Health
Risk Assessment
Research Plan

Improved understanding of biological mechanisms of
action at the organ, cellular, and subcellar level.

ORD Waste Research
Plan

ORD Human Health
Risk Assessment
Research Plan

Understanding the relationship between exposure and
dose, especially as it relates to bioavailability of
contaminants.

ORD Waste Research
Plan

Improved understanding of the effects of complex
mixtures.

ORD Waste Research
Plan

Development of predictive models of population dynamics
for selected ecological or societal species of interest.

Ecological Research
Strategy



risk characterization: The description of the nature of adverse
effects that can be attributed to chemical contaminants, estima-
tion of their likelihood in various exposed populations, and
evaluation of the strength of the evidence and the uncertainty
associated with the risks estimates.

risk management: The process of identifying, evaluating,
selecting, and implementing actions to reduce risk to human
health and to ecosystems.

risk paradigm: A theoretical framework describing the
components of risk assessment and risk management pro-
cesses, and the interconnection of these components. Also,
termed the “risk assessment/risk management paradigm.”

soil horizon: A layer of soil approximately parallel to the
fand surface that differs from adjacent layers in physical, chemi-
cal, and biological properties or characteristics such as color,
structure, or texture. :

soll vapor extraction: The use of vapor extraction wells with
blowers or vacuum pumps to remove contaminants from soils
and the subsurface.

solidification: Encapsulating the waste in a monolithic solid
of high structural integrity.

solid waste management unit: A facility used for the treat-
ment, storage or disposal of solid waste, including hazardous
wastes.

stabilization: Converting contaminants into less soluble,
mobile or toxic form.

stakeholders: Persons and organization who have an interest
in an activity because they are involved in or affected by it.

thermal desorption: The use of elevated temperatures to
remove contaminants from soils by causing them to vaporize.

toxicokinetic data: Information describing the adsorption
distribution metabolism and elimination of a chemical in an
organism.

vadose zone: The subsurface zone that extends between the
ground surface and the ground water table.

vertical geomembrane curtain wall barrier: A vertical wall
consisting of a thin, low permeability man-made material
inserted in the ground to contain or divert ground water.



Table A-4. Summary of waste research needs - Control.

Risk
Paradigm
Element

Research Needs Sorted by Major
Research Activities

Control

WASTE COMBUSTION

Source of
Research
Need

Who/Where
Will Need Be
Addressed

- Characterization of dioxin/furan emissions from boilers,
especially boiler tubes and boilers of various types; and
from halogen acid furnaces.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Full scale PIC testing to better understand formation
dynamics; particularly post-combustion PICs.

ORD Waste Research Plan
(related bench studies)

Determine good combustion practices (design and
operation) which will minimize emissions of priority
pollutants, especially for small combustors.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Develop control techniques for mercury emissions.
Improved mercury speciation.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Characterize emissions of high priority semnivolatiles and
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Waste combustion and
develop effective control techniques.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Identification of organic and PIC surrogates for non-dioxin
organics.

ORD Waste Research Plan

WASTE TECHNOLOGY

- Research the chemical dynamics and long term efficacy
of emerging waste solidification and stabilization
technologies.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Evaluate treatment alternatives for wastes that contain
mercury, particularly in light of air emissions and elemental
mercury.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Evaluate the cross media transfer of contaminants during
treatment.

(Part of ORD tech. devel.
activities)

Evaluation of ground water/surface water interactions.

ORD Eco. Protection Plan

Municipal Innovative Technology Evaluation (MITE)
Program.

Guidelines: Life Cycle Management Evaluation of Waste
Management.

P2 Research Plan

POLLUTION PREVENTION & RECYCLING

+ Source Reduction/Recycling Options for High Priority
Processes.

P2 Research Plan

Technologies to Reduce Barriers to Recycling.

P2 Research Plan

Source Reduction Opportunities for Combusted Wastes.

Criteria to Delay MACT Implementation Dates.

National P2 Roundtable RCRA Priorities Support.

P2 Research Plan



Table A-6. Summary of waste research needs - Monitoring.

Risk Research Needs Sorted by Major Source of Who/Where
Paradigm Research Activities Research Will Need Be
Element Need Addressed

Monitoring FIELD SAMPLING METHODS

- Innovative site characterization (especially and related ORD Waste Research Plan
to VOCs, metals, and natural attenuation).

FIELD AND SCREENING ANALYTICAL METHODS
- Speciation of arsenic and selenium. osw ORD Waste Research Plan

- Evaluation of pesticide screening by GC/AED. osw ORD Waste Research Plan

- Direct determination of PAHs by capillary electrophoresis | OSW ORD Waste Research Plan
with laser-induced fluorescence detection.

Lower analytical detection limits for bioaccumulative OERR ORD Waste Research Plan
chemicals.

Develop a wider spectrum of immunoassay tools and Regions | ORD Waste Research Plan
methods for soil screening.

Improve data on contaminant levels and release rates CENR ORD Waste Research Plan
from sites, especially field analytical methods. OERR ORD Drinking Water
Research Program (in part)
ORD Air Toxics Research
Program (in part)

- Improve TCLP, especially for oily wastes. Regions

- Develop corrosivity and ignitability tests for solids. Regions

CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING (CEMs) METHODS

- Analytical methods for chloro- and bromo- dioxins and osw ORD Waste Research Plan
furans. Air, soils, waste residue, continuous emission
monitors (CEMs) for combustion sources.

Develop guidance or improve analytical methods for better | OSW ORD Waste Research Plan
speciation of organics (PICs).

CEMs for mercury and mercury species. Osw ORD Waste Research Plan

Improved surrogates for emissions of PIC HAPs and Oosw ORD Waste Research Plan
associated CEMs.

Lower detection limits of VOST methods for PICs. OSW ORD Waste Research Plan

Improved discrimination of coeluting PIC peaks. osw ORD Waste Research Plan

Inex, P nsive monitors for good combustion conditions for | OAQPS ORD Waste Research Plan
small units.

- Improvement to the Total Organic Emissions Test (TOE). | Regions | ORD Waste Research Plan

DEMONSTRATION & VERIFICATION OF FIELD MONITORING AND
CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES

- Demonstration of innovative monitoring and site OERR ORD Waste Research Plan
characterization technologies. TIO



Office of Solid Waste. 1995c. Addendum to the Assessment of
the Potential Costs and Benefits of the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule for Industrial Process Wastes, as Pro-
posed. Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

Office of Solid Waste. 1996a. List of Solid Waste Landfills.
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ~

Office of Solid Waste. 1996b. Second Addendum to the
Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Hazardous
Waste Combustion MACT Standards - Draft. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Russell, M., E.W. Coglazier, and R. R. English. 1991. Hazard-
ous Waste Remediation: The Task Ahead. Knoxville, Univer-
sity of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Educa-
tion Institute.

Ryti, R.T., et al., 1992. Superfund Soil Cleanup. Environmental
Testing and Analysis. Jan - Feb.

Ryti, R.T., etal., 1993. Superfund Soil Cleanup: Developing the
Piazza Road ... Design. J. Air Waste Management Associa-
tion 43:197-202.

Sands, C. 1996. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. November.

Science Advisory Board. 1995. Human Exposure Assessment,
A Guide to Risk Ranking, Risk Reduction, and Research.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Council of Environmental Quality. 1993. Improving Federal
Facilities Cleanup: A Report of the Federal Facilities Group.
Washington, DC: Office of the President.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund, Volume | - Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part A. EPA540-1-89-002. Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment.
EPA/630/R-92-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

U.S. EPA. 1993a. Cleaning Up the Nation's Waste Sites: Mar-
kets and Technology Trends. EPA542-R-82-013. Washing-
ton, DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

U.S, EPA. 1993b. A Review of Federal Authorities for Hazard-
ous Materials Accident Safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, EPA 550/R-93/002. Decem-
ber.

U.S, EPA. 1996a. Cleaning Up the Nation’s Waste Sites: Mar-
kets and Technology Trends. 1996 Edition, EPA542-R-96-
005. Washington, DC, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.

U.S. EPA. 1996b. Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment. Federal Register. 61(79): April 23.

U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment
Program. 1995. A Preliminary Assessment of the Occurrence
and Possible sources of MTBE in Ground water in the United
States, 1993 - 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the
Interior.

Williams, R. and J. Lybarger. ATSDR 1996 Program Review.
Crystal City, Virginia, July.





under RCRA. These uncertainties include metal and organic
compound speciation and the effects and rates of reductive and
biological fate processes.

Until test-based toxicity values become available, provisional
values will have to be estimated from the literature, from struc-
ture activity relationships, or from physical/chemical properties
of the constituent. Much uncertainty remains in these current
estimation methods, especially related to mixtures, bioavailability,
and pharmacokinetics. As is the case for toxicity values,
analytical methods are inadequate (as a result of poor sensitivity
or specificity) or nonexistent for 210 of the 400 constituents. For
wastes and waste constituents to “exit” regulatory control under
RCRA, they must be present at concentrations /ess than the
proposed “exit level” values developed through the multimedia,
multipathway risk assessment approach proposed in HWIR.
Great uncertainty exists, however, in how this is determined.
OSWER has estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars per
year can be savedasa result of this regulatory approach, but the
research is needed to ensure the science is available to support
acreditable HWIR (OSW, 1995c).

‘The Waste Management research area ranks fifth out of six
areas. It is relatively less- important since it is a much more
mature research area for ORD and significant resources have
been committed to this area in the past. Most RCRA wastes and
waste streams have established BDATs. However, there are
still a number of “hard to treat” wastes where research could
provide new or less-expensive technological solutions.

Chemical Toxicity Testing for Human and Ecological End-
points ranks last because it is the routine application of stan-

dard toxicity testing protocols and is very expensive, thus, nota
suitable use of limited research resources.

2.3.2.2 Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities

There are 307 municipal waste combustion facilities with a
current capacity of 104,000 tons per day. About 30 million
people in 35 states and 900 communities are served by munici-
pal waste combustion facilities. This accounts for approximately
16 percent of the waste generated annually. These facilities are
known to emit toxic contaminants such as dioxin, furans, cad-
mium, lead, and mercury. In addition to large municipal waste
combustion facilities, there are thousands of small incinerators
such as those used to dispose of medical wastes. Recent
studies indicate that medical waste incinerators are a major
source of mercury emissions. There are also over 300 facilities
burning hazardous wastes. These facilities include waste
combustors (e.g., incinerators, cement kilns), industrial boilers
and thermal desorption units. All of these units are burning
complex mixtures of toxic contaminants, often in high concen-
trations, and therefore can contribute significant emissions ona
site-specific basis if improperly designed or operated. Public
acceptance of waste combustion and thermal treatment as a
viable disposal technology is very low because of our inability to
answer questions concerning the safety of this waste manage-
ment option.

The risks associated with combustion facilities are potentially
very high because (1) the number of combustion facilities is
high, (2) the facilities have the potential to emit very toxic
contaminants such as dioxin, furans, mercury, lead, and cad-
mium, (3) these emissions become dispersed over large geo-

Table 2-7, Focus and ranking of research activities for active waste management facilities.

Research Activity Title

Potential Research Focus

“Science
Plus”
Ranking

“Science”
Ranking

Multimedia, Multipathway
Exposure Modeling

Develop true multimedia, multipathway exposure and risk
models that support HWIR.

4

Developing Provisional Toxicity
Values for Contaminants

Review animal toxicologic studies, human epidemiologic
studies, structure activity relationships, and then conduct
dose-response assessments to derive Reference Doses,
Reference Concentrations and/or cancer slope factors.

Environmental Fate and
Transport; Physical Estimation

Provide the science and environmental data needed to
understand the fate, transport and transformation of RCRA
constituents.

Waste Characterization and
ampling

Develop the sampling methods, techniques and designs
necessary to determine compliance with proposed RCRA
exit level values.

Develop analytical methods with the necessary specificity
and sensitivity to support exit level determination and
compliance monitoring.

Waste Management

Develop more cost-effective treatment options for hard-to-
treat wastes.

Determine the applicability of innovative treatment options
to hazardous wastes.

Chemical Toxicity Testing for
Human and Ecological
Endpoints

Perform toxicity testing for high priority contaminants
constituents of hazardous waste streams.



Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)  (http://
www.acq.osd.mil/ens/estcp/main.html). ESTCP’s goalisto
demonstrate and validate promising, innovative technolo-
gies that target DOD’s most urgent environmental needs.
These technologies provide a return on investment through
cost savings and improved efficiency.

The current cost of remediation and compliance in DOD is
significant. Innovative technology offers the opportunity to
teduce costs and environmental risks. ESTCP’s strategy is
to select lab-proven technologies with broad DOD and
market application. These projects are aggressively moved
to the field. for rigorous trials that document their cost,
performance, and market potential.

ESTCP Demonstrations - Successful demonstration leads
to acceptance of innovative technologies by DOD end-
users and the regulatory community. To ensure that the
demonstrated technologies have a real impact, ESTCP
incorporates these players in the development and execu-
tion of each technology. ESTCP demonstrations —

* Address real DOD environmental needs.

Significantly reduce costs and risks and expedite

implementation.

* Document and validate the cost and performance of
new technologies for DOD end-users and the
regulatory community.

The Rapid Commercialization Initiative (RCI) (http://
rci.gnet.org/) is a federal/state/private cooperative effort to
expedite the application of new environmental technolo-
gies. The participating federal agencies include the Depart-
ment of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of
Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency; partici-
pating states and state organizations include the State of
California Environmental Protection Agency, Southern States
Energy Board, and the Western Governors Association.
The program makes use of cooperative demonstration
Projects to identify barriers to the acceptance and use of
new technologies; once identified, these barriers will be
removed, where possible. The program consists of 10
projects, each of which will be demonstrating a different
environmental technology. The main goals of the program
are to identify and reduce the barriers that impede market
entry of new technologies. It is the opinion of many technol-
ogy developers and users, environmental groups, prospec-
tive investors, and states, that environmental technologies
face a set of unique barriers stretching from initial demon-
stration to final market entry that make commercialization
specially difficult.

he Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation
Working Group (ITRC) (http:/www.gnet.org/gnet/gow/stgov/
itrcindex.htm) was established in December, 1994 by the
Develop On-Site Innovative Technology Committee, re-
ferred to as the DOIT Coordinating Group of the Western
Governors Association. The Mission of the ITRC is to
facilitate cooperation among states in the common effort to
test, demonstrate, evaluate, verify and deploy innovative
environmental technology, particularly technology related
towaste management, site characterization and site cleanup.
Western states participating include Arizona, California,

57

Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. Other
states that have joined or have sent observers include
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachu-
setts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennes-
see, and Wisconsin, and the Southern States Energy Board
has actively participated in the deliberations of the ITRC. In
addition to the state members there are some representa-
tives from stakeholder groups and tribal representation.
Federal advisors have participated in ITRC meetings from
a number of Agencies including EPA (Technology Innova-
tion Office), DOD, DOE and some of the armed services
organizations.

ITRC is organized into three task forces and technology
specific task groups. Task forces have been established for
Electronic Communication Development, Case Studies,
and Protocols and Regulatory Requirements. The Proto-
cols and Regulatory Requirements Task Force has estab-
lished task groups to address specific technologies in the
areas of in situ bioremediation, Low- Temperature Thermal
Desorption, Plasma Hearth Technology, and Real-time
Field Measurement (site characterization and penetrom-
eter system).



Foreword

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation’s land, air and water resources. Under a mandate of na-
tional environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement ac-
tions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s
Office of Research and Development (ORD) is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowl-
edge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand
how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in
the future.

The 1997 Update to ORD’s Strategic Plan sets forth ORD’s vision, mission,
and long-term research goals. As part of this strategic process, ORD used the
tisk paradigm to identify EPA's top research priorities for the next several years.
The ORD Strategic Plan thus serves as the foundation for the research strate-
gies and research plans that ORD has developed, or is in the process of devel-
oping, to identify and describe individual high-priority research topics. Waste
research, particularly for contaminated sites, was identified by the ORD Strate-
gic Plan as an area of high importance that will continue to be a major part of
the ORD’s research program.

This publication describes ORD’s strategy for conducting a waste research
program. The strategy identifies broad waste research topic areas that need to
be addressed, and prioritizes the research activities associated with each. The
strategy is an important planning tool because it makes clear the rationale for
selection and prioritization of these research activities. This research strategy
is also an important accountability tool, enabling EPA to clearly track progress
toward achieving its research goals, as required by the 1993 Government Per-
formance and Results Act.

Norine E. Noonan, Ph.D.,
Assistant Administrator,
Office of Research and Development

iii



significant tisk assessment uncertainties for both WCFs and
contaminated sites (especially soils).

Taking these trade offs and similarities in account, research on
emissions from WCFs was ranked below research on contami-
nated sites because a) there are far fewer WCF sites (<3,000),
than numerous contaminated sites and therefore the national
tisk from incinerators is believed to be lower, and b) the cost of
remediation is In the tens of billions of dollars, while that for
combustion is believed to be only a few billion.

Research related to environmental problems arising from non-
combustion, active waste management units (AWMFs) was
ranked lowest for two reasons. First, the risks associated with
these sites are estimated to be low after years of developing
improved management and disposal techniques. Second, and
for the same reasons, the costs of waste treatment is generally
tow and treatment is adequately effective for most hazardous
and solid wastes. However, there are uncertainties in predicting
health and ecological effects on these facilities. Hence, there is
need for HWIR research in order to predict effects from these
facilities on a national basis.

Step 3 - Science Ranking of All Wastes RAs

The objective of this step was obtain a single rank-ordered list
of all 39 RAs within the waste program The 4 lists of Science-
ranked RAs from Step 1 were “merged” taking into account the
Science criteria (Table 2-1) and the results of Step 2. There was
nochange in ranking of RAs within an RTA relative to each other,
but RAs from different RTAs were interspersed amongst each
other on the resulting list.

Placement of a given RA on the list was determined by reaching
consensus in the group. The result was the list of 39 rank-
ordered RAs shown in Table C-1. In cases where a distinction
in priority could not be made, both RAs were given the same
ranking.

Step 4- Science Plus Ranking of All Waste RAs

Following the ORD strategic planning process, the rank-ordered
list of RAs from Step 3 was then reviewed and the ordering
revised based on Science Plus criteria. This was intended to
insure that ORD priorities reflect the views of outside stakehold-
ers for ORDs research programs, such as Congress, the Admin-
istration, and EPA Program and Regional Offices. Science Plus
factors which could increase the ranking of a RA were:

Congressional directive

Court directive

Administration priority

EPA Priority

EPA Program or Regional Office priority
Area of new ORD funding in FY98
CENR research priority

The whole Waste RCT, including representatives of OSWER
and a Regional Office, participated in the Science Plus ranking
process.

Carrying out the Science Plus ranking resulted in adjusting the
placement of RAs relative to their place in the Science rank-
order (Table C-1). This ranking process was done through

consensus to the extent possible. When necessary, votes were
taken with one vote given to ORD, OSWER and the Regions.

The Science Plus rank ordering of RAs is shown in Table 2-4
(minus several RAs, as discussed in Section 2.2.5).



Appendix C. Research Ranking Process

This appendix describes the process for identifying andranking +

of research areas (RAs) by Science and Science Plus criteria
(Section 2.2.3).

ORD members of the Waste Research Coordinating Team
(RCT) representing ORD’s laboratories and centers, the Office

of Science Policy and the Office of Resource Management and

Administration participated in a ranking process which con-
sisted of the following steps:

1. identify and rank the RAs within each of the four research
topic area (RTAs) using Science criteria.

2. Rank the four RTAs using Science criteria.

3. Produces a single Science ranking for the whole waste
program by merging and ranking all the research activi-
ties in the four RTAs.

4, Revise the waste program Science ranking based on
Science Plus criteria.

Representatives from OSWER and EPA Regional Offices were
involved in the Science Plus ranking (Step 4). All four steps are
described in more detail below.

Step 1 - Ranking RAs Within Each RTA

The first step in the process was to produce a “menu” of potential
research activities that could be conducted under each research
topic area. Potential research activities were described for each
area of ORD risk assessment paradigm (effects, exposure, risk
assessment and risk management). In identifying these activi-
ties, members of the group described the type of research most
needed to address the environmental problems in each RTA —
they did not restrict themselves to activities currently being
conducted. The RCT critiqued these proposed lists to insure
that they were complete and that all listed RAs were important.

The group then rank ordered all the RAs within a given RTA,
based on the criteria in Table 2-1. All applicable criteria were
given equal weight. A multivoting procedure was used. Each
member was given ten votes and allowed to use at most 4 onan
RA. If only the highest RAs were ranked under this process, a
second voting was conducted to rank the lower priority RAs. In
cases where a distinction in priority could not be made, RAs
were given the same ranking.

The result of Step 1 was the ranking of RAs within each of the
RTAs, as shown in Table 2-3.

Step 2 - Science Ranking of RTAs

The team conducted a qualitative relative ranking of the four
research topic areas to help with ranking of research activities
across the waste program in Step 3. The criteria used for
determining relative importance among the four research topic
areas were:

Magnitude of risk
Cost of available risk management options

.

59

Uncertainty of risk, exposure/measurements, and risk
management.

All three criteria were nominally given equal weight in this
qualitative ranking. The relative significance of each criterion
was ranked high, medium or low.

Based on these qualitative comparisons of each of the four
research topic areas, the team determined the relative rankings
indicated in the left hand column of Table 2-4. (As indicated
below, the two Contaminated Sites Research Topic Areas were
tanked very close to each other). An explanation of the rationale
for the rankings follows.

Contaminated Sites-Ground Water (GW) and Soils/Vadose
Zone (S/VZ) were ranked close to each other in relative impor-
tance because there were a number of complex factors to
consider which made distinguishing the relative importance of
the two RTAs difficult. These factors included:

The cost of characterization and cleanup is high for both;
Both occur at most contaminated sites;

Both have significant unknowns and uncertainties in site
characterization;

Both have significant uncertainties in risk assessment, but
those for soils are greater due to multiple pathways of
exposure, bioavailability, issues etc.;

Both media are heterogeneous and complex and more
difficult to access than air or surface water;

The potential health impacts of GW is believed to be higher
than for S/VZ, but the potential ecological impacts for S/VZ
are higher.

Contaminated Sites - Ground Water was ranked somewhat
higher than soils for
following reasons:

Once ground water is contaminated it is usually more
difficult to remediate than soils;

Once ground water is contaminated the risks are more
persistent and it is generally harder to characterize the
contamination;

There are currently few effective remediation techniques
for contaminated ground water, while there are adequate (if
expensive) techniques available for many more soil/va-
dose zone remediation problems;

The potential of contaminated sites adversely affecting
drinking water supplies is growing as US demand on
ground water increases. On a site-specific basis, the
potential health risks to humans is usually higher from
ground water contamination than from soil contamination if
the contaminated aquifer is used for drinking water.

There were also tradeoffs in the relative ranking of different
ranking criteria between waste combustion facilities (WCFs)
and contaminated sites. There are more contaminated sites, but
the exposure from air emissions at WCFs usually covers a larger
area than exposure from most contaminated sites. There are





2.3 Ranking Research Activities within
Research Topic Areas

The following sections briefly describe each of the RTAs, the
scientific and technical uncertainties associated with them, and
the rationale for the relative rankings of the research activities
within each topic area.

2.3.1 Ranking Research on Contaminated Sites
2.3.1.1 Ground Water

Ground water has been contaminated by a large number of
releases to the environment. In 1994, the National Research
Council (NRC) estimated that the number of hazardous waste
sites that are likely to have ground water contamination ranges
from 300,000 to 400,000. The majority of this contamination is
caused by leaking USTs, but a recent OSWER white paper
indicates that up to 40,000 sites are potential candidates for the
federal Superfund program and historically about 80 percent of
Superfund sites have ground water contamination. The NRC
assessment includes estimates of ground water contamination
at RCRA facilities (1,500-5,000 sites), federal facilities (10,000-
12,000 management units) and 20,000-40,000 state sites.

In the past, concerns about contaminated ground water have
been associated predominantly with its risks to human health.
Three hundred and fifty thousand people have been provided
with alternative sources of drinking water at Superfund sites
alone, and as the percentage of the Nation’s population that
relies on ground water expands past'50 percent, the number of
people at potential risk will increase. Concern is growing about
the extent to which ground water is impacting ecosystems,
particularly through ground water transfer of contaminants to
sediments and to surface water, which can be significant in
some watersheds during periods of low flow.

Due tothe complex nature of the contaminants at many sites and
the complex subsurface hydrogeology encountered at most
sites, there are many uncertainties associated with the assess-
ment and management of ground water contamination and the
cost of these activities is high. These are summarized below.

For risk assessment, the major uncertainties are:
* transport and fate mechanisms, particularly in complex
strata

predicting human toxicity of complex mixtures
predicting risk to ecosystems

For site characterization, major uncertainties are:
* delineating ground water contaminants, particularly non-
aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs)

speciation of contaminants, particularly metals

sampling and detecting contaminants at low concentra-
tions

achieving quick, low-cost ground water and NAPL charac-
terization

For remediation, major uncertainties are:
* achieving cleanup goals of NAPLs and contaminated
ground water

.

assessing and optimizing long-term effectiveness of in
situ ground water treatment and containment techniques
achieving rapid, low cost cleanup

To address these uncertainties and associated high-priority
research needs, 14 contaminated ground water research activi- ~
ties have been identified (Table 2-5). These activities were first
ranked by a set of Science criteria and then a set of “Science
Plus” criteria following a process described earlier in this chap-
ter. These rankings are shown in Table 2-5 and the rationale for
them is described in what follows.

Science Ranking

ORD has determined that the most significant problems to be
addressed by contaminated ground water research are: 1)
understanding the effectiveness and applicability of natural
attenuation; and 2) the characterization and remediation NAPLs
—a major source of ground water contamination. Assessment
and remediation of ground water contaminated by dissolved
pollutants is an important, but somewhat lower priority. These
conclusions are based on several considerations. Natural
attenuation (NA) has the potential for being a relatively inexpen-
sive means of remediating sites. It appears, for example, that it
is an effective technique for the remediation of fuel contamina-
tion under certain conditions. There is, however, very limited
understanding on how to assess whether natural attenuation is
working ata site. This includestocating the plume and determin-
ing the rate of contaminant disappearance. Proper site charac-
terization and monitoring to show that NA is effective and
protective may increase its costs substantially.

NAPL research is also a high priority. NAPLs are a persistent
source of ground water contamination, and the resultant loss of
the ground water resource and threat to human health and the
environment may last for tens of decades. Without the removal
or control of these major sources, treatment of contaminated
ground water must go on indefinitely. Research results that will
enable locating and chemically characterizing NAPLs will aid in
the development of new, cost-effective risk management op-
tions, as will continued development of innovative NAPL extrac-
tion and destruction options.

Research on the assessment and remediation of contaminated
ground water remains important. Techniques for cleaning up
many sources of ground water contamination do not exist now
and therefore improved, cost-effective plume remediation or
containment techniques are needed to minimize risks from
contaminated ground water. Similarly, improved techniques to
characterize and assess the risks of ground water contamina-
tion are needed to set realistic. cleanup goals and reduce
cleanup and monitoring costs.

Research on ecosystem impacts of ground water was ranked
low because health concerns are still of highest priority. Also,
the impacts of ground water on ecosystems are limited, being
mainly through contamination of riparian zones (e.g., sediments
and surface waters); since during low flow periods ground water
can contribute significantly to base stream flow. Also, since
many contaminated sites lie beside or near surface waters,
direct runoff from the sites is believed to be of greaterimportance



1.3.2 Waste Research Goals

The five scientific and technological goals of this research plan

are:

* To advance the science of risk assessment to support
hazardous waste management and remediation of con-
taminated sites, including:

- Understanding the effects of exposures to hazardous
wastes on human health and ecological systems.

- Developing processes for predicting and measuring
exposure to humans and ecological systems, and
uncovering the processes leading to those exposures.

- _ Estimating risk and characterizing and communicating
those estimates.

* To develop, demonstrate, and evaluate more cost-effec-
tive, innovative technologies for controlling of hazardous
wastes, site characterization, and remediation.

* To advance the science of monitoring and predicting envi-
ronmental concentrations and effects and the fate and
transport of toxic material.

* To provide technical assistance to ensure that innovative
approaches to site assessment, characterization, and
remediation are applied in a consistent and effective man-
ner.

* To lead in areas of ORD capability by providing, develop-
ing, and maintaining a highly respected research program
that reflects the concerns of stakeholders.

1.3.3 Relationship to Agency Goals

Recently Congress passed the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) requiring each agency to submit an annual
performance plan covering each program activity set forth in the
agency's budget. In response to GPRA, EPA developed pro-
grammatic goals, objectives and subobjectives. OSWER has
developed a “Safe Waste Management” goal that has two
objectives (contaminated waste sites and waste management)
for which ORD has developed subobjectives:

* ORD Safe Waste Subobjective 1.6 - Contaminated Sites.

* ORD Safe Waste Subobjective 2.6 - Active Waste Man-
agement Facilities.

The research topic areas described in Chapter 2 of this research
strategy are divided between these two subobjectives.

1.3.4 Relationship to ORD’s Strategic Plan

ORD has developed a strategic process for planning research
that follows the risk assessment paradigm (Figure 1-1) and sets
research priorities (ORD, 1997a). Figure 1-2 shows the steps
recommended to translate the strategic guidance of ORD's
Strategic Plan into ORD research activities. The first step is the
development of research science plans (or research strategies).
Each such plan or strategy deals with a selected research topic,
such as waste, and is expected to:

* Describe the major research components and directions
ORD will pursue over the next few years.

Identification of Future Problem,
Initiating Event, or Public Policy Mandate

Risk Management

Assessment
Risk Assessment 7 \

Hazard Risk
identification Characterization|

Develop Compliance

Formulate the Problem
a

Define Risk Management
Objectives

Identify and Evaluate
Risk Management ‘Options

Risk Management * Public Health
Decision Considerations
+ Statutory and Legal
Consideration

+ Social Factors

Assurance Models and Methods. Implement Option(s) + Economic Factors
\ + Political
euiemewet
Wironmental an y
Public Health Monitor
Improvement —~* Environmental
and Public Health Reduced Environmental
Improvement

and/or
Public Health Risk

Figure 1-1. A risk paradigm used by the Office of Research and Development (Source:

ORD, 1997).



Needs Input >)
OSWER, ORD, Identify Research
Regions, CENR: leeds

Strategy, & Others \ J)
Scope ORD’s Research

Strategy & Identify
Research Topic Areas

)

—

Identify
Research

OL

& Rank
Activities

a,

Determine How to
Accomplish
Research Activities

{  Prioritized Internal

ORD Research
Activities for

Resource Allocation

Figure 2-2. ORD waste research ranking scheme.

ties. All of these RTAs are discussed in detail later in this
chapter. For each RTA, ORD identified a set of “research

* activities” that needed to be carried out to address uncertainties
associated with the particular environmental problem. These
research activities were evaluated and ranked within each RTA
using the same three sets of criteria identified in Table 2.1.
These criteria were considered when ranking the research
activities and formed the basis of the “science” ranking criteria
(see Section 2.2.3).

Throughout this process, research needs and research activi-
ties were organized using a slight modification of the risk
paradigm organizing principles from the CENR strategy. Six of
the CENR categories were used: three were risk assessment
categories: hazard assessment, exposure assessment, and
risk characterization and the other three were risk management
categories: control/management, remediation, and monitoring,
Pollution Prevention and Social and Economic Aspects of Risk
Management were not used since they are outside the scope of
this research plan.

2.2 Application of the Waste Ranking
Scheme

The purpose of this section is to describe what research needs
were identified, how the research priorities were developed, and
what the resulting priorities were. The multi-step approach to
waste ranking is outlined in Figure 2-2 and discussed below.

2.2.1 Identify Research Needs

Research needs were identified from three sources: 1) those
identified by the CENR that were relevant to the EPA’s mission;
2) those identified by the individual Program and Regional
Offices; and 3) those identified by ORD. The majority of research
needs are based on material provided by OSWER at the Waste
Research Program Review in December 1996. Additional
information on research needs from all three sources is provided
in Appendix A.

The OSWER and Regional research needs are summarized in
Table 2-2. Generally, OSW identified hazardous waste com-
bustion, multimedia science, waste technology, and pollution
prevention/derived waste products as their four highest priority
areas. They also identified human health sciences, ecological
tisk, socioeconomic, methods, and technical assistance for
corrective action as high priority. OERR’s highest priorities for
support and research have been consistently site-specific tech-
nical support, risk assessment support, innovative site charac-
terization technologies, and site remediation/cleanup technolo-
gies. Research priorities from OUST are focused on corrective
action. The Technology Innovation Office (TIO) identified priori-
ties related to continuation of the Superfund Innovative Technol-
ogy Evaluation (SITE) Program and research in the areas of
bioavailability and natural attenuation. The Chemical Emer-
gency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) has iden-
tified research related to the accidental large-scale release of
gases and liquids and support of the DOE spills facility in
Nevada. The Regional Offices have identified needs related to
indirect exposure from waste combustion, natural attenuation,
development of measurement and risk assessment tools, site-
specific technical support and training courses and seminars as
their highest priorities.

2.2.2 Scope ORD’s Research Strategy and Identify Re-
search Topic Areas

In determining the scope of research to be addressed in this
strategy, ORD limited itself to waste streams and related envi-
ronmental problems that are of significant priority to the Agency,
particularly OSWER and the Regions. This decision recognizes
that there are numerous high priority waste-related environmen-
tal problems which the Agency has to address and ORD has only
limited resources to conduct related research. As a result, the
research needs addressed by this strategy fall into two broad
categories of environmental problems: contaminated sites and
active waste management facilities.

For contaminated sites the principal emphasis is on those within
the Federal Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and UST
Programs. Environmental problems from oil spills are also
considered. Sites in these Federal programs are usually the
most contaminated in the nation, and results of research on
them should have wide applicability to other sites, such as those



(CENR). This group published A National R&D Strategy for
Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Solid Waste (CENR,
1995). This is the first consensus Federal “framework” for
research in this area.

The CENR strategy has adopted “risk” as the organizing theme.
Consequently, the three sections of that strategy are: Risk
Assessment; Managing Risks from Toxic Substance and Wastes;
and, Social and Economic Aspects of Risk Management. Each
of these is further divided as shown below:

Risk Assessment
Hazard Assessment
Exposure Assessment
Risk Characterization
Risk Management
Pollution Prevention
Control
Remediation
Monitoring
Social and Economic Aspects of Risk Management

For each of the three major sections, the CENR strategy
discusses a conceptual framework, the current state of under-
standing, research priorities, and a set of milestones for 1995
through 1999.

The ORD Waste Research Strategy uses the CENR structure to
organize research needs and proposed research activities.
(The CENR “Hazard Assessment” research category incorpo-
rates both hazard identification and dose-response assessment
activities in ORD’s risk paradigm.) Also, the CENR reportis one
source of research needs addressed by this Waste Research
Strategy. Adopting the CENR framework and considering
priority CENR research needs, helps to insure consistency of
Waste Research Strategy with other Federal waste research
programs.

ORD Strategic Issue Plans

During the early 1990s, ORD conducted research planning by
developing topical “issue plans.” The four issue plans most
relevant to the current waste research planning activity are the
Hazardous Waste Issue Plan (ORD, 1993a), the Surface
Cleanup Issue Plan (ORD, 1993b), the Bioremediation Issue
Plan (ORD, 1993c), and the Ground Water Issue Plan (ORD,
1993d). These issue plans summarize much of the ORD
perspective on waste research priorities at the beginning of the
development of this document.

1.3.6 Research Program Funding Resources

In Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98) ORD had a total of $23.2 million
available to its Waste Research Program to conduct risk assess-
ment and risk management research on contaminated sites and
active waste management facilities. These funds were avail-
able for: a) .the conduct of waste research by EPA staff
(excluding salaries, travel, etc.); and, b) extramural grants
programs directly administered by the EPA. Of this total,
contaminated sites research was funded at $21.7 million with
approximately 80 percent of the funds being applied to risk
management research and 20 percent of the funds being
applied to risk research. Active waste management facilities

research was funded at $1.5 million, with an approximately 15/
85 split of funds between risk management and risk assessment
research.



than transport through ground water. However, many uncer-
tainties about these ecosystems impacts exist, and therefore
research in this area needs to be done if adequate funds exist.

Science Plus Ranking

As can be seen from Table 2-5, the Science Plus ranking of
research activities differs from the Science ranking for research
activities ranked in the lower half of the list, but the changes in
ranking are not large. First, containment research was elevated
in ranking because it is of high priority to OSWER. Second, the
ranking of the two demonstration/verification activities was
increased 1 to 3 places reflecting ORD’s recognition that Con-
gress has indicated that these activities are a priority through its
explicit authorization of the SITE Program, its mandate for 10
SITE demonstrations, and its guidance that SITE be fully funded
in FY97. Also, the SITE program recently received a very
favorable SAB review. As a result of these three increases in
ranking, mixtures toxicology human health effects research fell
to a lower priority.

With the exception of these four changes, the ranking of re-
search activities changed little from Science to Science Plus.
This reflects the fact that with one exception, all the Science Plus
ranking factors were equally applicable to all research activities
in this topic area. These factors were: 1) high priority for
research across the risk paradigm in the CENR reportand by the
Program Office, and 2) high Congressional priority (reflected by
the annual Superfund appropriation of about $1.5 billion [22
percentof the Agency's budget), high Administration priority (as
teflected by the President's initiative to cleanup two-thirds of the
Superfund sites by 2000, and by the tight, 8-10 year schedules
for DOD and DOE site cleanups).

The Natural Attenuation research activity was ranked high for
reasons described above. This particular research activity is
focused on remediation issues and is supported by subsurface
characterization and field analytical methods research.

Human Dose-Response Models for Mixtures was ranked
high because there are currently very large uncertainties about
the health risks from complex mixtures of ground-water con-
taminants. The presence of multiple contaminants may resultin
enhanced toxicity (synergism), decreased toxicity (antagonism),
ora simple summation of the toxicities of the individual contami-
nants (additivity). Current practice is to generally assume
additivity, which can result in either an under- or overestimation
ofthe actual risk. Researchin this area will use existing scientific
toxicologic studies and mechanistic data to develop dose-
tesponse models and toxicity values for common mixtures of
contaminants. Mixtures Toxicology was ranked lower be-
cause hazard identification was judged less urgent a need than
developing dose-response models or factors. Existing studies
of individual contaminants should be used first to develop dose-
tesponse models before initiating toxicologic studies of mix-
tures, Once dose-response models have been developed with
the existing data base, then toxicologic studies would be initi-
ated on actual mixtures.

The Subsurface Characterization research activity was ranked
high because of the inherent complexity of the subsurface and
the contribution of the research activity to resolving both NA and
NAPL characterization problems.

Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling is a high priority
because it is basic to our understanding of the various natural
and contaminant-induced processes that occur in an aquifer.
Ground water modeling allows us to understand how these
various processes, along with remediation activities, impact
contaminant fate and transport. Such an understanding is
important scientifically, as well as to make sitespecific assess-
ment and cleanup decisions.

Abiotic Treatment was ranked high because of its focus on
NAPLs remediation. In addition, it involves studying in situ
abiotic treatment options such as permeable reactive barriers,
which are a more cost-effective option than pump-and-treat for
major classes of contaminants in ground water.

Field and Screening Analytical Methods were ranked high
because of the need for improved methods to characterize and
monitor sites for natural attenuation, and quicker, less-expen-
sive characterization and monitoring methods. This research
would also lead to more thorough characterizations because
more samples could be analyzedin the field and the results used
immediate.

Biotreatmentand Containment research activities were ranked
lowerbecause they deal primarily with the controland remediation
of contaminated ground water, a lower priority than NA and
NAPLs cleanup. Biotreatment remains important to consider
along with abiotic treatment because the two are likely to
complement each other in terms of the contaminants they can
address. Also, biotreatment may have application to residuals
from NAPLs extraction. Under the Science ranking, contain-
ment was ranked lower than biotreatment because ORD be-
lieves that remediation of contaminants is at least as important
as containment in terms of risk management, and because
pump-and-treat can be used as a containment technique at
many sites. The ranking for containment was increased be-
cause OSWER féels that it is an option of equal importance to
treatment with significant implementation uncertainties. Con-
tainment research is particularly important for minimizing NAPL
transport, for confining plumes to allow NA to occur, and for
determining the long-term effectiveness of containment sys-
tems.

Ground Water Exposures Factors / Pathways was ranked in
the middle because current research has been successful in
identifying and quantifying key exposure factors such as drink-
ing-water intake rates for various activities. There are still
significant uncertainties associated with estimates of contami-
nants from non-ingestion routes of exposure, such as showering
and use of appliances.

The two research activities dealing with Demonstration / Veri-
fication of Innovative Technologies were moved up in the
Science Plus ranking because of the high priority allotted to
them by Congress. While these two research activities do not
develop new technologies, they are an important ORD activity
for contaminated ground water (and soils), because they allow
ORD to evaluate technologies developed outside the Agency.
These “independent” evaluations provide credible reports on
the applicability, performance, and cost of these technologies to
site managers and other decision makers. Evaluation of inno-
vative ground water remediation technologies is particularly
important, because there are no effective technologies. currently

20



* Subtitle C, which establishes a program for managing
hazardous waste from generation to ultimate disposal.

* Subtitle D, which establishes a program for managing
solid (primarily nonhazardous) waste, such as household
waste.

* Subtitle |, which regulates toxic substances and petro-
leum products stored in underground tanks.

Hazardous Waste Facilities

A total of 400,000 facilities have reported generating RCRA
hazardous waste in the United States (OSW, 1993a). These
waste are regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. About 200 million
tons of hazardous waste are generated each year by the largest
generators (OSW, 1993b). While far fewer are active today,
historically more than 5,000 facilities have been involved in the
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. These
facilities, with approximately 100,000 solid waste management
units, are potentially subject to RCRA’s cleanup program. One
study estimates that 2,200 of these facilities will have releases
to the environment which are likely to require corrective action
(OSW, 1993c). The study indicates that cleanup is driven by
ground water and soil contamination, and cancer or non-cancer
tisks of concern are estimated to occur at between 1,900 and
2,200 hazardous waste management facilities. Roughly 500 of
these sites are estimated to have onsite ground water plumes
that are over 10 acres in area. Roughly 1,700 of these facil
are projected to have significant contamination. Of the facilities
needing cleanup, 350 are estimated to have over 1 million cubic
feet of contaminated soil. EPA currently is addressing roughly
1,500 facilities under the RCRA corrective action program
(OSW, 1993c).

Solid Waste Management

Some waste streams not managed under RCRA Subtitle C
contain constituents that require safe management to protect
human health and the environment. Certain large-volume
categories of primarily non-hazardous waste include constitu-
ents, such as hazardous metals, that may pose serious risks to
exposed populations and cause extensive environmental dam-
age. Large-volume wastes include oil and gas industry waste,
mining wastes, waste created from fossil fuel combustion, and
cementkiln dust. Overall, approximately 6.1 billion tons of these
“special” wastes (as defined by the Bevel amendment to HSWA)
are generated annually (Laws, 1996).

Further, about 72,000 facilities generate about 7.6 billion tons of
otherindustrial wastes each year (OSW, 1993a). These wastes
are managed In 3,300 industrial landfills and at other on- and
offsite managementunits. Information about many manufactur-
ing wastes, which include toxic organic and inorganic constitu-
ents, is limited in many cases.

Finally, the evidence from National Priorities List (NPL) shows
that even municipal landfills must be managed carefully to
prevent risks, since a number of them appear on the NPL.
Approximately 209 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW)
are generated annually (OSW, 1995a); 127 million tons are
managed in 3,600 MSW landfills in the United States, and the
remainder is burned and recycled (OSW, 1996a).

Waste Combustion Facil

fies

In 1995, the United States incinerated approximately 48 million
metric tons of municipal, pathological, and hazardous wastes.
There were 211 municipal incinerators, 2,400 medical incinera-
tors, 160 hazardous waste incinerators, 136 industrial furnaces,
and 44 cement kilns burning waste materials in various U.S.
locations.

Concerns have been raised about emissions from waste com-
bustion facilities for a number of reasons: (1) these facilities can
emit significant amounts of toxic contaminants, such as dioxin,
furans, mercury, lead, cadmium, and products of incomplete
combustion; (2) these emissions become dispersed over large
geographic areas that often include large populations or impor-
tant food products (crops, animal, and dairy products); (3)
exposure occurs over several pathways and routes; and (4) high
levels of contaminants emitted from waste combustion facilities
(e.g., mercury) have been measured in soil and water adjacent
to waste combustion facilities.

While there is much scientific uncertainty about the actual risks
from contaminants emitted from waste combustion facilities, the
factors listed above are enough to influence public perception
and the press that these risks are very high and unacceptable.
Community protests at facilities such as Waste Technologies
Incorporated (WTI) in East Liverpool, Ohio, and at many
Superfund sites such as New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts,
and Bloomington, Indiana are examples.

Waste Management Costs

Waste management costs faced by the Nation are significant. It
is estimated to cost between $140 and $187 million per year for
hazardous waste combustion facilities to comply with proposed
Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT) regula-
tions. (OSW, 1995b &1996b) The potential cost savings from
implementing the proposed Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule (HWIR) for Industrial Process Wastes, which could exempt
some low-hazard wastes from Subtitle C requirements, are
estimated at over $100 million annually (OSW, 1995c).

Oil Spills and Leaking Storage Tanks

Spills and leaks of petroleum, petroleum products, and non-
petroleum oils are a serious problem affecting nearly every
community in the United States. Oil releases threaten public
health and safety through contamination of drinking water and
through fire and explosions, diminish air and water quality,
compromise agriculture, destroy recreational areas, waste non-
renewable resources, and cost the economy millions of dollars.
Oil spills harm the environment by killing fish, birds, wildlife, and
biota; they destroy habitat and food and produce toxic effects in
organisms and ecosystems (Laws, 1996).

Particular hazardous constituents of petroleum products have
received attention because of their toxicity. They include
benzene, MTBE (methyl-tertiary-butyl ether, a fuel additive
intended to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from automo-
biles), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Benzene
is volatile and is a carcinogen. MTBE is considered a potential
human carcinogen, is highly water soluble, and may not readily
biodegrade. Several of the PAHs found in heavier petroleum



Table C-1. Waste RCT ordinal science rankings (February 1997).

Estimating Human Exposure and Delivered Dose (CS)
Natural Attenuation (GW)
Biotreatment (CS)
Human Dose-Response Models for Mixtures (GW)
Estimating Soil Intake and Dose-Wildlife Species (CS)
Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment Methods (CF)
Subsurface Characterization (GW)
Emissions Prevention and Control (CF)
Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling (GW)
). Indirect Exposure Characterization and Modeling (CF)
). Field Sampling Methods (CS)
. Abiotic Treatment (GW)
. Field and Screening Analytical Methods (CS)
. Multimedia, Multipathway Exposure Modeling (AF)
. Field and Screening Analytical Methods (GW)
16. Biotreatment (GW)
16. Containment (CS)
16. Screen Tests to Measure the Effectiveness of Treatment (CS)
16. Developing Provisional Toxicity Values for Contaminants (AF)
20. Ground Water Exposure Factors and Pathways (GW)
20. Sampling Design (CS)
20. Dose-Response of Contaminants (CF)
20. Physical Estimation of Environmental Fate and Transport (AF)
24, Mixtures Toxicology (GW)
25. Abiotic Treatment (CS)
26. Containment (GW)
27. Waste Characterization and Sampling (AF)
28. Demonstration/Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (GW)
28. Movement of Bioaccumulative Metals in the Food Web (CF)
30. Continuous Emission Monitors (CF)
30 Ecosystems Effects (GW)
30. Mixtures Toxicology (CS)
33. Oil Spills (CS)
33. Demonstration/Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (GW)
33. Waste Management (AF)
36 Demonstration/Verification of Field Monitoring Technologies (CS)
37. Chemical Toxicity Testing (AF)
37. Ecological Risk Assessment Methods (GW)
37. Demonstration/Verification of Innovative Remediation Technologies (CS)

sz> rt WOOND OW on =
SEPPNM HOON:

aAaVynnp

AF - active waste management facilities CF - combustion facilities
CS - contaminated soils GW - contaminated ground water

61



Table A-5. (Continued).

Risk
Paradigm
Element

Research Needs Sorted by Major
Research Activities

Source of
Research
Need

Who/Where
Will Need Be
Addressed

Remediation

SOIL/VADOSE ZONE REMEDIATION (cont.)

- Conduct research on NA of fuels in soils and vadose zone.

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Develop understanding of microbial and abiotic processes
contributing to contaminant degradation in the subsurface.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Develop improved methods of remediating soil using
vegetation planted and grown in the contaminated area.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Investigate the basic natural biological, chemical, and
physical mechanisms that affect the toxicity or mobility of
contaminants in soils to identify and optimize remediation
processes.

ORD Waste Research Plan

Determine the long-term effectiveness and costs of
containment systems, the proper means of monitoring
them and ways to fix them effectively.

OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan

Evaluate treatment technologies for contaminated
sediments.

Regions

ORD Contaminated
Sediments Work Pian

LANDFILLS

- Develop, demonstrate, and evaluate in situ technologies,
such as bioremediation, for remediation of landfills.

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Evaluate the performance of waste containment systems
at working landfills.

ORD Waste Research Pian

OIL SPILLS

+ Develop, evaluate, and demonstrate innovative
technologies to remediate and restore environments
impacted by oil spills or chemical releases

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Evaluate the environmental impacts of oil spills remediation
options.

REMEDIATION CLEAN UP GOALS

- Develop techniques to measure the health of ecosystems
and the effectiveness of restoration efforts.

CENR

ORD Waste Research Plan

Develop techniques for determining risk-based cleanup
goals for a variety of remediation technologies.

* OERR
Regions

ORD Waste Research Plan

BETTER MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

- Develop new information management and quality
assurance tools and procedures to improve the speed
with which data are collected, tracked, interpreted and
reviewed at sites.

CENR

Provide site-specific technical support, including in-depth
‘support that deals with complex remediation problems.

ORD Waste Research Plan



Acronyms

Aboveground Storage Tank
American Society for Testing and Measurement
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
Active waste management facility
Best demonstrated available technology
[RCRA] Corrective action
Clean Air Act
Capillary electrophoresis
Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling
Continuous emissions monitor[ing]
Committee for Environment and Natural Resources
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
Council on Environmental Quality
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Combustion research program
Consortium for Site Characterization Technology
Disinfection by-product
Dense non-aqueous phase liquid
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy

DOE-OHER Department of Energy, Office of Health and Environmental Research

DOIT Develop Onsite Innovative Technology
Differential absorption spectroscopy
Data quality objective
Drinking water
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
Environmental Technology Initiative
Environmental Technology Verification
Fatty acid methyl esters
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Framework for Regulatory Analysis and Management of Environmental Systems
Full-time equivalent
Fourier-transformed infrared
Fiscal year
General Accounting Office
Gas chromatography/atomic emission detection
Geosynthetic clay liner
Greenhouse gas
Government Performance and Results Act
Ground water



“s10joe} Bupjues ,SN|q e0Ua!0g,, a4) UO paseg Baly odo) YorResay YoRe UII AUIAOR YoIkasad Yows Jo Yue) ;euIPIO ey} sfenby ,

(y) Buyjdweg pue
uopeZzuajeeyO

(g) uswebeuey

(2) syueuiwejuoQ

JO} sanjep

AWOIXOL [EUOISIAOIg
Burdojanag -

(9) sjuiodpu3

yeol6ojo03 pue

uewn} 40) Busey

(e)

uoHetunsa [eoIsKUg

‘yodsues, pue
aye Je]UOWUOLIAU -

(4) Bujapoyy

aunsodxy Aemuyed

saqmoey juewebeuey

ase - ayseMy - AYOIXOL FROIWIAYD ~ “HIN ‘eIpawuniny - e]SeM eAOY
(s)
sjueujweEjuog hey (g) spomeyy
$0 asuodsey-asog - juaUUssassy ysIy
(y) spoyeyy (9) sqem, Aemuyed O@u1pu} -
(SIW3D) BuLoUOyy (1) joquog Poo, UI speo}WaYO (1) Buljapoyy
‘SuOI!SSIUD PUB UOHUSADI S8Al}B|NWNDIeOIg uoleZe}IeIeYyD ‘Salloe4 UONSNQWOD
snonuluog - SUOISSILUJ - Jo JUaWAaAOYy - eunsodx3 Joas|pul - | alse/y Woy suo|ssiwy
(6) saiBojouyoay
Buyoyuoyy (€1) siiids 110 -
Plat Jo UoHeOyNEA (LL) sos
/ UOWeI]SUOWOQ - Jo jueueal) SNoIgy -
(g) ubisag Buydwes - (6) saGojouyse, (Zt) | (2) seloads oypum
e) SH]OS JO} uOneIPSWEy eAITEAOUU] ABooo1XOL Saun)xijA\ - + 8S0Q PUR ayeIU]
spoujeys jeonAjeuy JO UOHBOYLOA (9) uewyeory los Buyewyss -
Bulusaiog pue pjely - uonesuOWag - Jo SSauennooyy (L) asog paraatiag
(p) spoujey (9) sjlog Jo JUaUUUFe}UOD - 984} aunseayy »B aunsodx3 QUOZ BSOpeA / SOS
Buydures pyar - (Z) SIIOS Jo JUaWBa}OIg - 0} sjsaj Bulueeiog - | uetunyy Buyewysy - | - soyig payeulweyuoD
(01) seiBojouyse, (2) seumxiy,
(04) saiBojouyoa uoneIpeway 40} sjapoyy asuodsay
|ULOPUOY @AlyeAouu] -9sog UBWNH -
Plals Jo voReOYEA JO UOHBOYLEA, (pt) spoyeny
uoHes}SUOWWAQ - uolpeyJsuOWag - jualssessy (6) skemuyed /
(9) MD 40 (8) MD JO yuUaWUFEIUOD - SI] [BOIBojooy - siojoe4
spoujey jeonsjeuy (Z) M9 JO jUEWyeeNOIg - (eL) @insodxy M9 -
Bujuse.0g pur pjal.{ - (s) MD. s}oayy we}sksoo3 - i?) Buyjepoy,
(g) uonezuajoereyo, JO JuaWyeeL) DHOIgY - (21) yodsues) pue Joye punoly
eoeunsans - (L) uopenuany jesnyen - ABo|OOXOL SeuM|XIy - | eyez yeuewUOsAUy - | - sag payeulWeUOD,
uOle10}Say uoljezuajoerey juawssessy yuawssessy
Buuoyuoyy Jouog Y uoeIpeway ySIY piezey einsodx3,
(1epi9 Ayoud ul)
juewebeueyy YI JUaUssessy YSIY sealy odo)
yoreasoy

SHIHODALVO WOIdVuvd SIH Ad SAILIALLOV HOUVASSY

“eare o1do} Yoreases yore UIYIIM payUed SanIAnoe Yoleesey “g-z a1GeL

17


Drinking Water Disinfection/DBPs
Particulate Matter

Arsenic in Drinking Water
Endocrine Disruptors

EMAP

Human Health Risk Assessment
Ecosystems Protection |

Global Change

Pollution Prevention

ee ary

Components of a number of these strategies, particularly those
on human heaith, ecosystems and pollution prevention, deal
with issues related to waste risk assessment and risk manage-
ment. Completed strategies and abstracts of those still in
preparation may be found at the ORD web site: www.epa.gov/
ORD/resplans.

8.1.5 Pollution Prevention Research

Since the early 1990s, ORD’s pollution prevention research and
development program has been transformed from an extramu-
ral effort that promoted pollution prevention through technical
assistance and information transfer to an in-house effort de-
voted to scientific and technical research on pollution prevention
tools, methodologies, technologies, and approaches. Resource
allocations have been reduced and targeted at support that
provides post-doctoral researchers, master’s-degree assistants,
technicians, and analytical services with which to build the in-
house capabilities of ORD scientists and engineers. This shift
has caused ORD to reevaluate its pollution prevention priorities
and to focus ona smaller set of high priority activities where itcan
make a significant contribution based on its unique expertise
and capabilities. 7

In preparing the Pollution Prevention Research Strategy, it was
essential that the above reorientation be given full consider-
ation, and that a research and development program in pollution
Prevention be targeted at and supportive of building and strength-
ening ORD’s in-house capabilities. As a result, four long-term
goals have been identified:

1 ORD will deliver broadly applicable tools
and methodologies for pollution prevention
and sustainability.

i. ORD will develop and transfer pollution
prevention technologies and approaches.

Il. ORD will verify selected pollution preven-
tion technologies.

IV. ORD will conduct research to address
economic, social, and behavioral research for
pollution prevention.

Pollution prevention progress in the next‘ten years will not
proceed as rapidly as in the past ten, but the results of that
progress can be even more significant. The “next wave” of
Pollution prevention can provide economic and environmental
benefits in a host of situations. Since these advances likely will
~ represent more fundamental changes in individual lifestyle,
industrial process design (e.g., clean technologies), consumer
products (e.g., benign chemicals), and land use, future research
and development must focus on quantum leaps instead of
incremental improvements. ORD will only be able to sustain this
future direction if it concentrates on longer-term research which
will produce a new generation of tools and technologies that

move pollution prevention beyond the obvious and less formi-
dable opportunities of the past.

B.2 Related Research Sponsored by the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response

OSWER provides resources to ORD and non-ORD entities for
research of particular emphasis for their programs. Funding to
any single project may be one time only or may be part of a
longer term commitment. In the paragraphs below, several
research areas that have been funded and identified by OSWER
are described.

he |_ Emer

ie) .
Analysis of emergency gas release data: CEPPO is
providing funds under the Clean Air Act through the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
the Desert Research Institute (DRI) for analysis of emer-
gency gas release data collected at the Nevada Test
Facility. The original data were generated by research
work funded by ORD under the Clean Air Act; however,
funding was terminated in September 1995.. The data are
critical to industry and others to validate dispersion model-
ing approaches to support hazard and risk assessments for
the prevention of catastrophic accidenial releases.

reparer id_Preventie ffice

Catastrophic accidental release: At the Wharton School
ofthe University of Pennsylvania, CEPPO-funded research
projects are in progress on issues associated with cata-
strophic accidental release risk assessment, risk manage-
ment, risk decision-making and accident investigation.

Catastrophic release of propane gas: Under a cooperative
agreement with CEPPO, the State of Delaware is develop-
ing a model risk management program and plan for pro-
pane, including the modeling and assessment of the con-
sequences of catastrophic releases of propane gas.

Chemical accident prevention: Undera cooperative agree-
ment. with CEPPO, the National Institute for Chemical
Studies is conducting outreach, training, and. technical
assistance in chemical accident prevention, addressing
particularly small businesses.and local communities, and
focusing.on Sections 112 (r) and 507 the Clean Air Act.
They are also analyzing local state and Federal chemical
accident investigation reports to highlight problem areas,
trends and significant findings.

Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST)

Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage
Tank Sites: A Guide For Regulators, EPA 510-B-97-001 -
OUST is developing a manual that will help state and federal
underground storage tank (UST) regulators evaluate and
promote expedited site assessments. The manual will
cover five major UST site assessment issues: the expedited
site assessment process, geophysical methods for UST site
investigations; soil gas surveys; direct push technologies;
and field analytical methods for petroleum hydrocarbons.
The equipment and methods presented in the manual will
be evaluated in terms of applicability, advantages, and
limitations for petroleum UST sites. OUST anticipates the
manual will be available in March 1997.

How to Effectively Recover Free Product At Leaking Under-
ground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For State Regulators,



The Kd Model and Its Use in Containment Transport Mod-
eling: A multi-Agency workgroup is developing a guidance
document concerning the distribution coefficient for ground-
water modeling at sites, including mixed waste sites.

Estimation of Water Flux in the Unsaturated Zone- A Survey
of the Available Techniques: A multi-Agency workgroup to
develop a guidance document for groundwater modeling at
sites, including mixed waste sites.

International Containment Conference: Technical confer-
ence for complex waste sites, including mixed waste sites.

Decision Support System: ORIA and OERR are funding
delivery of a probabilistic decision tool for all waste sites,
including mixed wastes sites. Product developed in con:
junction with Sandia National Laboratory.

Techno fice (TIO)

Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center
(GWRTAC) — The GWRTAC was established in 1995
through a cooperative agreement between TIO and the
National Environmental Technology Applications Center
(NETAC). NETAC’s overall mission is to facilitate the
development and use of new groundwater technologies
through: improving understanding and deployment of inno-
vative groundwater remediation technologies; supporting
customer groups requiring access to this technology devel-
opers and users. Current activities include assembling
information to be included in case study and vendor infor-
mation databases, placing the databases on the Internet,
preparing technology status reports, and responding to
requests for information on groundwater technologies.

Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) -
The RTDF was established by EPA in 1992 and now
includes a consortium of partners from industry, govern-
ment agencies, and academia. RTDF’s overall mission is to
foster public-private partnerships to advance the develop-
ment of more permanent-cost-effective technologies for the
remediation of hazardous wastes. The RTDF works to
achieve this goal through: identifying priority remediation
technology development needs; establishing and oversee-
ing action teams to plan and implement collaborative re-
search projects to address remediation problems; and
addressing scientific, institutional, and regulatory barriers to
the use of innovative treatment technologies.

Five Action Teams have been formed within the RTDF to
address priority research areas: Lasagna Consortium,
Bioremediation Consortium, Permeable Barriers Action
Team, In-Place Inactivation and Natural Ecological Resto-
ration (INERT) Soil-Metals Action Team, and Sediments
Remediation Action Team. Participants in each team
provide funding or in-kind support for specific research
efforts of the team.

TIO provide funds for the staff and contractors needed to
support the logistics of running the forum (e.g., organizing
meetings and conference calls). The research support
currently provided by EPA through its participation on the
RTDF teams is provided by ORD.

55

B.3 Research Conducted/Sponsored by Other Agencies
and Departments

Major waste research programs exist in other agencies and
departments. An important consideration for ranking waste
research to be performed by EPA/ORD is the extent to which a
research issue is being addressed elsewhere. Depending upon
the particular research need, a small, sharply focused ORD
effort might have significant impact even if another agency has
a large research program addressing an apparently similar
research issue. In addition, ORD’s position as part of the lead
environmental regulatory agency puts it in a unique leadership
role for the research programs of others. On the other hand,
given the nature of the issue and the resources directed towards
it by other agencies, ORD might more wisely focus its resources
elsewhere.

The description of eight other government programs follows.
Each gives a brief indication of the mission, magnitude, scientific
direction and sharpness of focus of other Federal programs to
determine the extentto which ORD efforts might be complemen-
tary, synergistic, duplicative, or relatively inconsequential. Where
possible, an Internet address is provided as a pointer to more
information about these other programs.

The Department of Energy (DOE)’s Office of Health and
Environmental Research (OHER) operates an Environ-

mental Remediation Research program, which is focused
on developing an understanding of the fundamental physi-
cal, chemical, geological, and biological processes that
must be marshaled for the development and advancement
of new, effective, and efficient processes forthe remediation
and restoration of the nation’s nuclear weapons production
sites [http://www.er.doe.gov/production/oher/habir/
cover.html]. A primary effort is a comprehensive research
program in bioremediation that integrates the full range of
fundamental scientific disciplines necessary to advance
this emerging technology. DOE-OHER’s natural and accel-
erated bioremediation research program is designed to
promote the use of living organism to reduce or eliminate
waste. The microbial genome research program is de-
signed to provide genome sequence and mapping data on
microorganisms of industrial importance and on those that
live under extreme conditions. The environmental technol-
ogy partnerships program is intended to encourage univer-
sity, national laboratory, and industrial partnerships to ad-
dress fundamental bioremediation and integrated assess-
ment research that is oriented toward reducing waste pro-
duction and energy consumption in manufacturing pro-
cesses. The subsurface science program is designed to
understand the physical, chemical, and biological processes
controlling the fate of complex chemical mixtures released
to terrestrial subsurface environments; and research in the
deep terrestrial biosphere.

DOE’s Office of Environmental Management
(www.em.doe.gov) is responsible for environmental resto-
ration, waste management, technology development, and
facility transition and management. The Office of Science
and Technology (OST) (em-50.em.doe.gov) has the re-
sponsibility for developing better, faster, cheaper, and safer
technologies for meeting DOE's 30-year goal for environ-



mental restoration and waste management, and for manag-

ing crosscutting activities. OST administers research in four

areas:

* Tanks (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/tanks/
tanks.html)

* Subsurface Contaminants (Integration of Plumes and
Landfills) (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/scfa/
scfa.html)

* Decontamination/Decommissioning
(http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/DD.html)

° Mixed Waste (htip://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/mw/
mixedwaste.html)

It also manages three crosscutting research programs:

* Characterization, Monitoring and Sensor Technology
(CMST) (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/
CMST.htm!)

* Robotics (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/FA/
robotics.html)

* Efficient Separations (http://em-50.em.doe.gov/BEST/
FAJES.html)

The Strategic Environmental Research and Development

is a multi-agency program created in
1990 through Public Law 101-510, and funded through the
DOD [http:/Avww.wes.army.mil/serdp/home/himl]. As such
it responds to environmental requirements of the DOD and
those that the DOD shares with the DOE, EPA, and other
government agencies. The program seeks to identify,
develop, demonstrate, and transition technology from six
areas: cleanup, compliance, conservation, pollution pre-
vention, energy conservation/renewable resources, and
global environmental change. In FY96, SERDP was funded

at about $58 million, of which 30 percent, or about $17
million, was for cleanup research.

SERDP cleanup area focuses on conducting R&D toachieve
more efficient and effective environmental cleanup of soil,
sediment, ground water, surface water and structures al-
ready contaminated by past practices with hazardous ma-
terials (including unexploded ordnance), radioactive (low-
level or mixed wastes) and toxic substances. The principal
focus of this areais more cost-effective cleanup/remediation
techniques and technologies, monitoring and characteriza-
tion methods and technologies, and assessment methods.

if i f_ Envi Ith Science:

(NIEHS) manages a large basic research program directed
towards Superfund issues [http:/Avww.niehs.nih.gov/sbrp/
home.htm]. The program is mandated in CERCLA (Section
209), which establishes a “basic university research and
education program” in NIEHS, and further reinforced in
SARA (Title Ill, Section 311), where the program “may
include” the following: epidemiologic and ecologic studies,
advanced techniques for detection, assessment and evalu-
ation of effects on human health of hazardous substances;
methods to assess the risks to human health presented by
hazardous substances; and methods and technologies to
detect hazardous substances in the environment and basic
biological, chemical, and physical methods to reduce the
amount and toxicity of hazardous substances.

NIEHS grants in this program are generally for a five-year
period, so new Requests for Application (RFAs) are only
developed once every five years or in the event significant
new resources are appropriated in a particular fiscal year.
Annual funding has been averaging about $35 million/year.
Projects supported include analytical chemistry, biomarkers,
bioremediation, combustion engineering, ecology, epide-
miology, exposure assessment, fate and transport, human
health effects, and non-biological remediation. The most
recent RFA was issued in FY94.

for Toxic ind Disea: ist

(ATSDR) (http:/atsdr1 .atsdr.cde.gov:8080/atsdrhome.html)
was created by CERCLA with broad mandates including:
Superfund site public health assessments, health investiga-
tions, surveillance and registries, applied research, emer-
gency response, health education, and toxicological data-
base development. ATSDR is required to prepare toxico-
logical profiles of agents found commonly at Superfund
sites, including identifying data gaps and research needs.
ATSDR is further directed to ensure the development of an
applied research program to address data gaps identifiedin
the toxicological profiles. In FY96, ATSDR directed approxi-
mately $16 million to addressing its “substance-specific
mandates,” including identification of priority hazardous
substances, development of toxicological profiles on those
substances, and research to answer major unknown ques-
tions about health effects.

ATSDR applied research serves two major functions: (a) to
respond to the public’s concern, has human exposure to
hazardous substances occurred and resulted in adverse
health effects; and (b) to provide EPA with critical health-
based information so that cleanup decisions that are effec-
tive and protective of public health can be made. ATSDR’s
in-house research capability resides primarily in the area of
human studies in communities at and around waste sites.
ATSDR supports the Association of Minority Health Profes-
sions Schools, as directed by the Congress, to fill some data
gaps identified in its toxicological profiles. Other data gaps
ATSDR hopes will be filled on an “volunteer” basis by
industry, or by EPA (through TSCA and FIFRA authority),
NIH and the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

The United States Geological Survey (USGS), as described
in a recent National Research Council review (Hazardous
Materials in the Hydrologic Environment: the Role of Re-
search by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Academy
Press, 1996) has a number of programs in which studies
are conducted to aid in resolving problems related to the
contamination of surface and ground waters by hazardous
materials. The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (http:/
/wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nrp/proj.bib/wood.htm!) is one such
program. Areas of research focus on the fate and transport
of contaminants and bioremediation and natural attenua-
tion of contaminants, especially for petroleum sources.
USGS has worked with ORD researchers atsome Superfund
sites.

he Department of Defense’s Office of Environmental Se-
curity (DOD-OES) sponsors the Environmental Security



Table 2-2. (Continued).

Program
Office

Higher Priority
Needs

Medium Priority
Needs

Lower Priority
Needs

‘OERR (cont.)

Site Characterization Research
> Ground Water DNAPL
Characterization

- Natural Attenuation/in situ
Bioremediation Site
Characterization and Process
Research

- Ground Water Modeling

Site Characterization Research

- Analytical Methods for
Bioaccumulative Chemicals

- Analytical Methods and QA for
Complex Mixtures

Risk Assessment Research
- Ecological Significance

- Benefits versus Habitat
Destruction

Dermal! Toxicity Values
Bioavailability of Metals and
Organics - Soil

Improved Exposure Assessment

Improved Dose-Response
Assessment

Pb Uptake / Models
Dermal Exposure Model

Risk Assessment Research

- Weight of Evidence Approach for
Ecological Effects Cleanup Levels

Site-specific Technical Support
Training Courses and Seminars

Remediation Design and Field
Construction Support

Develop Alternative Approaches
using Immunoassay and Bioassay
Tools

Develop Ecologically-based
Screening Values

Natural Attenuation
MTBE Treatment

Fate and Transport Models for Risk-
based Corrective Action

Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program

- Remediation Technologies

- Monitoring / Characterization
Technologies

Consortium for Site Characterization
Technologies
Bioavailability of Families of
Contaminants
Metrics for Evaluation of In situ
Technologies

Models to Predict the Efficacy of Natural
Attenuation

- Support DOE Spill Test Facility

Hazard Analysis Support - Large-scale
Releases of Gases and Liquids



Table of Contents

Foreword.
Peer Review
Figures .
Tables ...
Acronyms
Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background
1.1 Research Strategy Purpose, Scope, and Structure .
1.1.1 Purpose .

1.1.2 Scope

1.1.3 Structure

1.2 Nature and Scope of the Problem
1.2.1 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Hazardous Waste Facilities

Solid Waste Management

Waste Combustion Facilities

Waste Management Costs

Oil Spills and Leaking Storage Tan

1.2.2 Hazardous Waste Remediation (Superfund)

Waste Site Cleanup

Accidental Releases

1.3 Waste Research Program Mission, Goals and Resources
1.3.1 Mission Statement...

1.3.2 Waste Research Goals

1.3.3 Relationship to Agency Goals..........

1.3.4 Relationship to ORD’s Strategic Pla

1.3.5 Prior Research Strategies ..

CENR National Strategy

ORD Strategic Issue Plan:

1.3.6 Research Program Funding Resources .

Chapter 2. Setting Research Priorities.
2.1 Process for Ranking Research
2.1.1 ORD Strategic Planning Process ..

2.1.2 Waste Research Strategic Planning Process

2.2 Application of the Waste Ranking Scheme .
2.2.1 Identify Research Needs ............

2.2.2 Scope ORD’s Research Strategy and Identify Research Topic Area:

2.2.3 Identify and Rank Research Activities .......

2.2.4 Determine How to Accomplish Research Activities

2.2.5 Prioritize Internal ORD Research Activities for Resource Allocation

2.3 Ranking Research Activities within Research Topic Areas .
2.3.1 Ranking Research on Contaminated Sites

2.3.1.1 Ground Water ......

2.3.1.2 Soils / Vadose Zone



Peer Review

Peer review is an important component of research strategy development. The peer review history for

this research strategy is as follows:
Initial Internal Agency Review:
ORD Science Council:

Lead Reviewers:

Submitted for Comments

to the Committee on
Environmental and Natural
Resources - Agency
Principals and Subcommittee
Chairs

External Peer Review:
Reviewers:

Hilary |. Inyang, Chair
Stephen L. Brown

Barry Dellinger

Terry Foecke

James H. Johnson, Jr.
Richard Kimerle
Ishwar Murarka
Frederick Pohland
Lynne Preslo

Wm. Randail Seeker
Lauren Zeise

Coordinated by:

Final Acceptance by ORD:

ORD Executive Lead:

January 1997
May 1997

Robert Dyer, NCEA
Gilman Veith, NHEERL

June 1997

June 30 - July 3, 1997: Cincinnati, OH

University of Massachusetts
R2R2 Risks of Radiation and
Chemical Compounds
University of Dayton Research Institute
Waste Reduction Institute
Howard University
Independent Consultant
Electric Power Research Institute
University of Pittsburgh
Earth Tech
Energy and Environmental Research Corp.
California Environmental Protection Agency

EPA's Science Advisory Board,
Kathleen Conway, Designated Federal
Official

September, 1998

E. Timothy Oppelt, NRMRL



hydrocarbon blends (e.g., fuel oils) are carcinogenic or mu-
tagenic (IARC, 1989). The mobility, toxicity, and biodegradabil-
ity of PAHs varies depending upon the specific compound.

The magnitude and complexity of the problem are reflected in
our society’s extensive reliance on petroleum, petroleum prod-
ucts and non-petroleum oils to fuel vehicles, heat buildings,
generate electricity, produce food, and manufacture a wide
variety of goods. The Department of Energy (DOE) reported
that approximately 212 million gallons of crude and 584 million
gallons of refined petroleum products were produced in, im-
ported to, or exported from the United States in 1994 (Energy
Administration, 1995). Our continued national reliance on oil,
the broad extent of its use, and the aging of our oil industry
infrastructure suggest that oil spills and leaks will continue to be
a serious problem in the future.

Much of the nation’s petroleum and chemicals are stored in
underground storage tanks (USTs). At present, there are over
1.1 million active regulated USTs at over 400,000 sites across
the United States. Through September 1996, over 317,000
petroleum releases had been confirmed at about 40 percent of
the 750,000 UST facilities in existence in 1990. EPA anticipates
an additional 100,000 confirmed releases by the year 2000;
30,000 new releases are reported every year as owners and
operators are complying with EPA’s 1998 requirements to
upgrade, replace, or close substandard USTs. Besides petro-
leum, there are approximately 30,000 regulated USTs that store
hazardous substances.

EPA also regulates about 450,000 aboveground oil storage
facilities for prevention, preparedness, and response purposes
(OERR, 1991). These facilities each have from one- to several-
hundred individual aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); each
AST may contain between 661 and 10 million gallons. Petro-
leum oil and refined products are transported through approxi-
mately 1.9 million miles of oil and gas pipeline and 152,000 miles
of liquid pipeline in the United States. In addition, large and
increasing amounts of non-petroleum oils are produced and
widely used in the generation of electricity, in food processing,
and in other industries throughout the country.

Annually, between 18,000 and 24,000 AST oil spills are reported
to the National Response Center (NRC) and EPA Regions, and
between 10 million and 25 million gallons are spilled per year
(OERR, 1996a). Many of these spills were larger than 100,000
gallons in quantity; however, depending upon the location,
small spills also can cause great ecological damage.

1.2.2 Hazardous Waste Remediation (Superfund)

Problems with our nation’s past mismanagement of hazardous
waste first gained widespread attention in the late 1970s.
Incidents such as the contamination of Love Canal in Niagara
. Falls, New York, sparked widespread concern over hazardous
wastes. In response to this growing concern, Congress passed
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. This law, commonly known
as “Superfund,” taxed the chemical and petroleum industries
and provided broad Federal authority to address the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances that may endan-
ger public health, welfare, or the environment. Over five years,
$1.6 billion was collected in a trust fund for cleaning up aban-
doned hazardous waste sites. In 1986, the Superfund Amend-

ments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was signed into law.
SARA increased the trust fund to $8.5 billion over five years and
strengthened EPA’s authority to conduct cleanup and enforce-
ment activities.

Waste Site Cleanup

EPA’s Superfund program has screened hundreds of thou-
sands of sites and release incidents. A measure of the imme-
diacy of problems at sites is reflected in the work of the
Superfund emergency response program (the EPA “Removal”
program). Nearly 4,300 emergency actions have been initiated
to mitigate or eliminate immediate risks to human health and to
prevent future risks (OERR, 1996b). These actions have
reduced potential acute risks leading to death and injury, from
explosions, fire, and toxic vapor clouds.

Approximately 40,000 sites have been identified as potential
candidates forthe Federal Superfund remedial program (OERR,
1996b). To date, about 1,300 highest priority sites have been
assigned to the NPL, and additional sites are being studied to
determine whether NPL listing is necessary. The NPL sites
represent approximately 3 million acres in total area. The
problem is not static; new sites are constantly being proposed to
EPA and the states. The size of this unaddressed problem was
recently estimated by the General Accounting Office (GAO),
which projected that a cap on the federal NPL might leave the
states with 1,400 to 2,300 NPL-caliber sites to clean-up, ata total
cost of $8.4 to $19.9 billion (Sands, personal communication,
1996).

The seriousness of contamination at Superfund sites is exhib-
ited by actions taken to remove populations from the immediate
threat of contaminants at sites. The Superfund program has
relocated, temporarily or permanently, almost 15,000 residents.
It also has provided alternative drinking water supplies to
approximately 350,000 people (OERR, 1996c).

Federal facilities represent another important class of waste
disposal sites where serious contamination has been identified.
An estimated 61,000 potential hazardous- substance release
sites exist at over 2,000 federal facilities (U.S. CEQ, 1993).

Contamination at remedial sites involves substances of signifi-
cant concern to EPA both because of their cancer and non-
cancer hazards. For example, lead and PCB contamination are
common problems addressed by the remedial program. Unsafe
concentrations of benzene, several chlorinated solvents, mer-
cury, creosote, toluene, and other highly hazardous substances
often are encountered. The Superfund program also confronts
risks posed by substances such as DDT or chlordane that no
longer are produced commercially but persist in the environ-
ment.

The existence of a hazardous contaminant in the environment
does not in itself demonstrate an actual or potential threat to
human health by exposure. There are reasons for serious
concern. ATSDR estimates that about 11 million people live
within one mile of the 1,200 NPL sites studied (Williams and
Lybarger, 1996). In addition, approximately 68 million people
live within four miles of these NPL sites and approximately 65
percent of the sites have identified ground water contamination



2-1.

2-2.

2-3.

2-4.

2-5.

2-6.

2-7.

2-8.

List of Figures

A Risk Paradigm Used by the Office of Research and Development ..........ccsssssssesesseceesessestesesee 5
Translating ORD’s Strategic Plan Into a Research Plan .........sscscsesessesseseessesssesesscesesseeneesesseenes 6
Office of Research and Development Strategic Planning Process .........scsssssssesseseessseseeseeseeee 10
ORD Waste Research Ranking Scheme...........csscssssssessesessesceeseesessesassassatsssencenseseesecsseneeseenes 11

Setting Research Priorities

List of Tables
ORD Criteria for Evaluating and Ranking Potential Research Topics .......:.scsssssssssssesssesesseeetees 9
Summary of Major Program Office and Regional Research and Support Needs ...........sese 12

Research Activities Ranked within Each Research Topic Area .

Selected ORD Waste Research Activities Ranked Across All Research Topic Areas

Focus and Ranking of Research Activities for Contaminated Sites - Ground Water..

Focus and Ranking of Research Activities for Contaminated Sites - Soils / Vadose Zone ...... 24

Focus and Rankings of Research Activities for Active Waste Management Facilities ..

Focus and Ranking of Research Activities for Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities .. 29

Research Activities Unfunded in the Base Waste Research Program

vii



Chapter 2. Setting Research Priorities

Research needs invariably exceed resources available to sup-
port them, and decisions must be made about which needs to
pursue. This section describes how the selection and prioritization
of waste research fits into ORD's strategic planning process,
what are the waste research needs, how waste research priori-
ties were developed, and what are the resulting priorities.

2.1 Process for Ranking Research

The ranking of waste research builds upon ORD's Strategic Plan
(ORD, 1997) by refining the priority setting process and adding
some additional criteria based upon waste-specific strategic
considerations.

2.1.1 ORD Strategic Planning Process

In ORD's Strategic Plan (Figure 2-1), potential research topics
are evaluated by determining whether they are mandated (by
the Executive, Congress, or the courts) andifthey are consistent
with ORD’s mission and goals. Topics that remain are ranked
and a determination made as to whether ORD can make a
significant research contribution to these areas. The three sets

of criteria for evaluating and ranking potential research topics
are: Human Health and Ecological Health Criteria, Methods/
Models Criteria, and Risk Management Criteria (Table 2-1).
These criteria are to be applied to research topics to compare
their potential to support effective risk reduction.

2.1.2 Waste Research Strategic Planning Process

To facilitate the identification and ranking of waste-specific
research, ORD developed a process called the Waste Research
Ranking Scheme (Figure.2-2). ORD first identified waste re-
search needs based on several sources, resulting in a lengthy
list of varying degrees of specificity. Preliminary determinations
were made on who should address these needs, another
Federal agency, other ORD research programs, or the ORD
Waste Research Program itself. Based on an evaluation of
these research needs, ORD identified major waste-related
environmental problems that it could address and defined these
as “research topic areas” (RTAs). The RTAs in the Waste
Research Strategy are: Contaminated Sites - Ground Water,
Contaminated Sites - Soil/Vadose Zone, Emissions from Waste
Combustion Facilities, and Active Waste Management Facili-

Table 2-1. ORD criteria for evaluating and ranking potential research topics.*

Human Health and Ecological
Health Criteria

Methods/Models Criteria

Risk Management Criteria

What type of effect would the
research investigate / mitigate
and how severely might this ef-
fect impact humans or ecosys-
tems?

Over what time scale might this
effect occur?

How easily can the effect be
reversed, and will it be passed
on to future generations?

What level of human or ecologi-
cal organization would be im-
pacted by the effect?

On what geographic scale might
this effect impact humans or eco-
systems?

How broadly applicable is the

proposed method or model ex- -

pected to be?

To what extent will the proposed
method or model facilitate or im-

prove risk assessment or risk

management?

How large is the anticipated user
community for the proposed
method or model?

Have the problem's source(s)
and risk been characterized suf-
ficiently to develop risk manage-
ment options?

Do risk management options
(political, legal, socioeconomic,
or technical) currently exist?

If so, are they acceptable to
stakeholders, implementable, re-
liable, and costeffective?

Could new or improved techni-
cal solutions prevent or mitigate
the risk efficiently, cost-effec-
tively, and in a manner accept-
able to stakeholders?

Are other research organizations
(e.g., agencies, industry) cur-
rently investigating / developing
these solutions or interested in
working in partnership with ORD
on the solutions?

* Criteria used as “Science” Ranking Criteria in this strategy.



United States Office of Research and EPA/600/R-98/154
Environmental Protection Development February 1999
Agency Washington, DC 20460 www.epa.gow/ORD



exposure pathways, and economical control and moni-
toring of small incinerators.

Research in this topic area is on the control and
monitoring of emissions, emissions fate process and
transport modeling, and indirect exposure and risk
assessment methods and models.

No research is funded currently in the base waste
program.

3. While there is much uncertainty, debate, and controversy
about the health and ecological risks posed by waste sites, there
is consensus that the economic impact of current waste man-
agement and cleanup practices is staggering. Within this
context, waste research should be viewed as a relatively small
and valuable investment to save future expenditures.

Waste management and remediation are estimated to cost as
high as $750 billion (Russell, et a/., 1989). in contrast, ORD’s
research budget for FY97 was less than $50 million. This
research, however, has yielded significant savings. For ex-
ample, ata mining site in EPA Region 8, a $50,000 bioavailability
study reduced cleanup costs from $8 million to $4 million (Weiss,
1997). Similarly, use of a phased characterization/sampling
and analysis design at a dioxin contaminated soil site resulted
in an overall savings of approximately $6.0 million (Ryti, et al.,
1992, and Ryti, ef a/., 1993). A 1996 Analysis of 46 RODs
showed that where innovative technologies of the type tested in
the SITE program were used instead of conventional technolo-
gies, showed that an average savings of $30 million dollars per
ROD was achieved (Gatchett, 1998). Clearly, there have been
significant reductions in remediation costs resulting from re-
search, and itis expected that future research will yield similar
benefits.

4, Because of the multi-disciplined nature of waste-related
research, there are many organizations (across government,
industry, and academia) actively involved in sponsoring re-
search activities. In order to maximize efficiency of effort and
avoid duplication, and to improve every organizations’ under-
standing of waste research needs, special efforts need to be
made to coordinate and leverage these research programs and
activities,

5. ORD'’s current research program emphasizes risk manage-
ment research. There is a need to increase the relative amount
of risk assessment research in this program.

About 80 percent of ORD's current waste research program is
invested in risk management and monitoring, while only 20
percent is invested in risk assessment research. This is due to
several factors. First, within ORD, the waste research program
is the only place where characterization and remediation re-
search specific to hazardous waste and Superfund sites is
conducted. In contrast, a number of other ORD research
programs (Human Health Protection, Ecological Research,
etc.) have research efforts on topics related to generic risk
assessment that benefit the waste programs. Additionally,
CERCLA has mandated that ORD conduct 10 technology
demonstrations per year as part of the SITE program. These
activities utilize a significant portion of ORD’s Superfund re-
search resources. Finally, both NIEHS and ATSDR have

Congressionally mandates to conduct basic research and de-
velop toxicological profiles. While these efforts do not necessar-
ily have a direct relationship to risk assessments at sites, they
are helpful to the Superfund program.

There are several areas where risk assessment issues need to
be addressed, either as part of the ORD waste research pro-
gram, or by other research programs inside ORD or elsewhere.
The research activities identified in Table 3-1 are those that
should be conducted in whole or in part in the ORD waste
research program. Both the risk assessment research activities
(leftthree columns) and the risk management research activities
(right three columns) address high-priority research needs. This
research strategy provides guidance on deciding the relative
emphasis that should be placed on risk management and
assessment research from FY97 to FY00.

3.2 Issues

1. Lack of Risk Characterization Research. The CENR report
identified risk characterization as a commonly overlooked, yet
very important, research priority. ORD does not have any
research activities under this component of the risk assessment
paradigm. Should ORD conduct additional research in this
area? If yes, should it be part of the Waste Research Strategy
or is it more appropriate as part of another research plan such
as the Research Strategy for Human Health Risk Assessment?

2. Future Waste Strategy Development. This waste strategy
and its associated research plans present the first comprehen-
sive waste research planning done by ORD. The planning will
not stop with publication of this document. The authors plan to
coordinate ORD discussions that will lead to a more integrated
set of research activities both across ORD waste research and
with other related ORD research programs, such as ecosystems
protection. The research strategy itself will be revisited within
two to three years to provide guidance beyond FY00.

3. Funding Strategies. The number and diversity of research
needs far exceeds ORD'’s ability to meet them. ORD has
identified a set of research activities through which it believes
can make significant scientific contributions and that are respon-
sive to many of the high priority needs. However, some of these
activities are not currently funded in our base research program
(FY97). These unfunded research activities are identified in
bold in Table 3-1. Strategically, ORD will use four approaches
to identify funds for these unfunded priorities. They are:

Annual Reallocation of Funds — Annually, for both
the enacted and President's budgets, ORD will look
for opportunities to reallocate funds to higher priority
research from completed or lower priority research
activities.

Research Appropriate for ORD’s External Grants
Program — Annually ORD will identify research
needs that are appropriate for the external grants
program. Generally, this will be in areas where
fundamental advances to the science are needed.
Unfunded high priority research activities will be
emphasized.



TOF/MS

TSAP
TSC
TSCA
USGCRP
USGS
UST
UXO
voc
XRF

Office of Solid Waste

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Underground Storage Tanks

Pollution prevention

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

[Office of] Planning, Budgeting, Analysis, and Accountability
Physiologically based pharmacokinetics
Polychlorinated biphenyl

Perchloroethane

Product of incomplete combustion

Particulate matter

Permeable reactive barrier

Quality assurance

Quantitative structure-activity relationship
Research area

Rapid commercialization initiative

Research Coordination Team

Request for Application

Record-of-decision

Rapid optical screening tool

Research topic area

Remediation Technologies Development Forum
Solidification/stabilization

Science Advisory Board

Structure-activity relationship

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Small Business Innovative Research

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
Supercritical fluid extraction

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Science To Achieve Results

Superfund Technology Assistance Response Team
Semi-volatile organic compound

Trichloroethane

Toxicity characteristic leaching process
Technology Innovation Office

Total Organic Emission

Time-of-flight/mass spectrometer

Technical resource document

Treatability Study Assistance Program

Technical Support Center

Toxic Substances Control Act

United States Global Climate Research Program
United States Geological Survey

Underground Storage Tank

Unexploded ordinance

Volatile organic compound

X-Ray fluorescence



GWRTAC
HAP
HEAST
HSRC
HSWA
HWIR
IEM
INERT
IRIS
ITER
ITVR
ITRC
ITVR
LDR
LIF

LIF
LNAPL
MACT
MARLAP
MARSSIM
MCL
MERA
MITE
MS
MSW
MTBE
NA
NAPL
NCEA
NECI
NERL
NETAC
NHEERL
NIEHS
NOAA
NOAEL
NPL
NRC
NRMRL
NTP
OERR
OMB
OPA
ORD
ORIA
OSP
OST

Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center
Hazardous air pollutant

Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

Hazardous Substance Research Center

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

Hazardous Waste Identification Rule

Indirect exposure methodology

In -Place Inactivation and Natural Ecological Restoration
Integrated Risk Information System

Innovative Technology Evaluation Report

Innovative Technology Verification Report

Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation working
Innovative Technology Verification Report

Land Disposal Regulation

laser-induced fluorescence

Laser-induced fluorescence

Light non-aqueous phase liquid

Most achievable control technology

Multi-Agency Radiation Laboratory Protocol

Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual
Maximum Contaminant Level

Multipathway Exposure and Risk Analysis

Municipal Innovative Technology Evaluation

Mass spectrometer

Municipal solid waste

Methyl-tertiary-butyl ether

Natural attenuation

Non-aqueous phase liquid

National Center for Environmental Assessment

National Enforcement Investigation Center

National Exposure Research Laboratory

National Environmental Technology Applications Center
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

No observed adverse effect level

National Priorities List

(a) National Response Center; (b) National Research Council
National Risk Management Research Laboratory

National Toxicology Program

Office of Emergency Response and Remediation

Office of Management and Budget

Oil Pollution Act

Office of Research and Development

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air

Office of Science Policy

United States Department of Energy Office of Science and Technology



Table A-5. Summary of waste research needs - Remediation.

remediate contaminated plumes in ground water,
particularly DNAPLs.

OSWER

Risk Research Needs Sorted by Major Source of Who/Where
Paradigm Research Activities Research Will Need Be
Element Need Addressed
=
Remediation GROUND WATER REMEDIATION
- Conduct field evaluations of ground water remediation CENR ORD Waste Research Plan
technologies to obtain data on performance, cost and
environmental effects.
- Develop, demonstrate and evaluate in situ technologies, | CENR ORD Waste Research Plan
such as bioremediation, to remediate subsurface plumes. | OERR
- Develop technologies to characterize, model monitor and | CENR ORD Waste Research Plan

- Identify new or improved techniques for removing or
treating subsurface DNAPLs.

Regions

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Develop workable site characterization protocols for
evaluating the potential for using natural attenuation to
meet cleanup goals in the subsurface.

OSWER

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Develop understanding of microbial and abiotic processes
contributing to contaminant degradation in the subsurface.

OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Conduct research to better understand the process
associated with reactive barrier effectiveness and develop
improved barrier media.

OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Develop improved methods of remediating ground water
using vegetation planted and grown in the contaminated
areas.

OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Develop improved methods for monitoring and evaluatin,
performance of barriers designed to control migration of
contaminated ground water.

OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Conduct research to understand the fate and remediation
options for MTBE in fuels.

OUST

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Conduct research in natural attenuation of fuels in ground
water.

OUST

ORD Waste Research Plan

SOIL/VADOSE ZONE REMEDIATION

- Conduct field evaluations of contaminated soils remediation
technologies to obtain data on performance, costs and
environmental effects.

CENR

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Develop, demonstrate, and evaluate in situ technologies,
such as bioremediation, for remediation of contaminated
soils.

CENR
ORD

ORD Waste Research Plan

+ Evaluate the applicability of composting remedies to
stabilization of metals in surface soils.

OERR

- Develop workable site characterization protocols for
evaluating the potential for using natural attenuation to
meet cleanup objectives in the subsurface.

OSWER

ORD Waste Research Plan

45



tion/Modeling involves developing improved fate, transport,
and transformation models of contaminants that are emitted
from waste combustion facilities. Current models lack the ro-
bustness and resolution to provide adequate fate and transport
data needed to accurately estimate exposure and risk. Potential
avenues of research include developing improved/validated
complex terrain models for combustion sources, vapor-particle
partitioning of semi-volatile organics (chlorinated dioxins and
PAHs) under ambient conditions, air deposition of semivolatile
organics (chlorinated dioxins, PCBs, higher molecular-weight
chlorinated benzenes/phenols, PAHs, and high molecular weight
phthalates), vapor transportto surfaces, wet and dry deposition,
surface vapor uptake in plants and animals, mathematical
models, parameter characterization, validation of models for dry
gas deposition and air dispersion, and methods for particle size
distribution for input to air dispersion models. This area was
judged as the highest priority because of the very large uncer-
lainties associated with the fate, transport, and transformation of
emissions from waste combustion facilities.

Research on Indirect Pathway Risk Assessment Methods is
needed to develop, validate, and refine a methodology that
estimates exposures from combustion facilities via indirect
(non-inhalation) exposure pathways. The indirect exposure
methodology (IEM) is a multimedia and multi-pathway model
that was developed for application to numerous emitted pollut-
ants being released from stationary combustion sources. The
methodology was developed to provide a set of procedures for
the estimation of exposures resulting from emitted pollutants
that have been transferred from the atmosphere to environmen-
tal media and biota. In addition, indirect exposures may result
fromuptake and transfer of an atmospheric pollutant through the
terrestrial or aquatic food. Tasks in this research area include
refining and validating the algorithm, developing guidance manu-
als on how to properly select input parameters, and developing
an expert system. Research in this area is a high priority
because recent risk assessments of waste combustion facilities
indicate that the greatest risks appear to be those caused by
these indirect exposure pathways. Typically, the risks resulting
from indirect exposure pathways are an order of magnitude
higher than those from the direct inhalation of emissions.

Conducting Dose-Response Assessments of Key Contami-
nants Released is also a high priority. The purpose of this
research areais to develop updated dose-response riskassess-
ments for contaminants that present the greatest risk from
combustion facilities. As more scientific data become available
in the form of animal toxicological studies, human epidemiologi-
cal studies, and mechanistic toxicodynamic models, toxicity
values (reference doses, reference concentrations, and cancer
slope factors) will need to be updated to provide a more accurate
estimate of risks. Because there is a linear relationship between
the toxicity values and risk, any change in the toxicity value will
translate into the same change in estimated risk. Currently, the
“risk drivers” are mercury, dioxin, furans, cadmium, and lead.
Because there are many ongoing epidemiologic and toxicologic
studies of these contaminants, the Waste RCT judged thatitwas
very important that the results from these emerging studies be
evaluated and that current toxicity values be updated if neces-
sary so that the risks from waste combustion facilities can be
accurately estimated.

Research on Continuous Emissions Monitoring Methodsis
anotherimportant research area. Acceptance of incineration as

28

a viable treatment option for hazardous waste has been hin-
dered by an inability to know continuously how well the combus-
tion units are performing and whether there are any unexpected
emissions. Emphasis in this research area would be on toxic
metals (lead, mercury, cadmium), dioxins, furans and other
semi-volatile organics. Simple, inexpensive methods are espe-
cially needed for monitoring the thousands of small incinerators
(e.g., medical waste incinerators) around the country. While this
research area is very important in providing assurance to the
public about the reliability of operations and uncertainties asso-
ciated with incinerator emissions, ORD judged this area to be
less critical than the previously described research areas, which
should provide more reduction of uncertainty in our estimates of
exposure and risk.

The purpose of research studying the Movement of
Bioaccumulative Chemicals in Food Webs is to determine
the ecological effects of emissions from combustion facilities by
studying their uptake and transfer through terrestrial and aquatic
food webs. Research would include the identification of indica-
tor species and studies of species-specific exposure rates.
Research would also include the study of contaminant
bioavailability in combustor residues, including those from ther-
mal treatment units. While this is an important area of research,
ORD judged it to be a relatively lower priority because many of
the principal contaminants of concern such as mercury and
cadmium, have already been widely studied or are currently
being studied by other programs. Any research would be tar-
geted toward issues specific to waste combustion, such as
bioavailability of specific forms of contaminants being emitted by
waste combustion.



tional and chemical munitions. DOE and DOD have established
research programs to address these specific needs. Coordina-
tion and collaboration with these research programs will con-
tinue to be pursued by ORD.

By using a variety of approaches, ORD will strive to leverage
resources to meet identified needs and priorities while remain-
ing in the forefront of scientific research in waste-related disci-
Pplines. This step will be revisited to consider how to best meet
unfunded customer priorities when appropriate.

Greatest
Need

Little for
‘understanding Research

Greatest
‘Need
for Too!
Development|

Narrow applicability Broad applicability

Less
uncertainty
reduction

Least
Need

for Too!
Development

Greatest
Need
for RM

Research

Options
too costly,
inefficient

Risk problem

Risk problem
poorly characterized

well characterized

2.2.5 Prioritize Internal ORD Research Activities for
Resource Allocation

Table 2-4 presents the remaining research activities addressed
by the Waste Research Strategy and are research activities that
ORD should conduct if funding exists. This table shows the
“Science Plus” ranking of these waste research activities across
the entire Waste Research Program. This is a consensus
ranking arrived at in discussions amongst ORD, OSWER and
Regional representatives, and serves as guidance for ORD
funding decisions through FYO0.

Setting Priorities for
Effects, Exposure, and
Assessment Research

Setting Priorities for
Methods, and Models
Research

Setting Priorities for
Risk Management
Research

‘Source: Adapted from Paul Slovic, Risk Perception

Figure 2-3. Setting research priorities.



Other Research Programs Where a Need May Be
Met — ORD will seek to identify other ORD, Federal,
or private sector research programs where high
priority waste research needs may be met.

Additional Resources — Should additional resources
become available, they will be allocated to high-
priority unfunded or underfunded research activities.

33



in state clean-up programs and Brownfields sites. ORD divided
the contaminated site issues into two RTAs: Contaminated
Sites - Ground Water, and Contaminated Sites - Soils/Vadose
Zone.

The selection of two contaminated site RTAs recognizes that
there are a number of distinctions in the technical problems that
need to be addressed in the saturated zone compared to the
unsaturated zone.

ORD will not address certain types of contaminants and waste
streams because they are outside the principal areas of exper-
tise, are being handled by other Federal agencies, are not an
environmental priority or are not readily addressed by a re-
search program with only modest resources. Radionuclides are
not being addressed because ORD lacks expertise in this area
and DOE is doing research related to these pollutants. Similarly,
DOD has major research programs on remediation of sites
contaminated with munitions wastes. This strategy also does
not address high volume wastes (e.g., mining wastes) that are
excluded from RCRA either by statue or by RCRA regulations.
Itis important to note, however, that many of the research issues
addressed by the strategy are important to these excluded
waste types. For example, research on metals contamination
should prove applicable to radionuclide contaminated sites,
mining wastes, and utility wastes.

ORD also decided to limit its research on environmental issues
associated with solid waste management. ORD has conducted
relatively large research programs in this area in the past, but
since the early 1990s, work has been reduced in response to
guidance from OMB and OSWER. As a result, a decision was
made to focus on a few areas of high priority to OSWER: waste
combustion, multipathway assessments, and - to the extent
ORD has expertise solid waste - management and characteriza-
tion issues. This resulted in two. waste management research
topic areas: Waste Combustion Facility Emissions, and Active
Waste Management Facilities.

Such choices make sense within the context of the risk para-
digm, because solid waste regulations have been in place since
the 1980s, and, with limited exceptions, solid waste manage-
ment approaches at active waste management facilities are
already minimizing risks at reasonable costs.

2.2.3 Identify and Rank Research Activities

Research activities were identified that would address the major
research needs within each RTA (Table 2-3).

The research activities within each RTA were then ranked ina
two-step process, details of which are provided in Appendix C.
First, a “Science” ranking was conducted using the three sets of
criteria identified in the ORD Strategic Plan (Table 2-1). These
criteria were used for establishing priorities according to the
three simplified graphic representations shown in Figure 2-3.
Those research activities that fall within the upper right corners
were considered to be high priority, those that fall in the top left
and bottom right corners were considered medium and those
that fall in the lower left corners were considered low. These
“Science” rankings were then adjusted to take into consideration
a number of non-scientific factors, yielding a “Science Plus”
ranking of research activities within each RTA. Examples of

these non-scientific factors include: Administration priority; CENR
research priority, EPA Program Office and Regional Offices’
priorities (Table 2-2); regulatory or legal mandates; EPA priori-
ties; Congressional directives; and FY98 areas for new funding.

2.2.4 Determine How to Accomplish Research Activities

Research activities were examined to determine if they are best
accomplished through the expertise of the waste research
program at ORD Laboratories and Centers or through other
means. Coordination with the Hazardous Substance Research
Centers (HSRCs), other research programs within ORD, other
Federal research programs, Program Office funded research
activities, or independent private sector research programs will
be sought when these mechanisms are more appropriate due to
the particular expertise of these groups or due to constraints on
available ORD waste research resources.

Ecosystem effects and chemical toxicity testing for human and
ecological endpoints are two areas to be leveraged with other
programs. Ecosystem effects are most appropriately accom-
plished as part of ORD’s Ecosystem Protection Program. Chemi-
cal toxicity testing for human and ecological endpoints - the
routine application of standard toxicology protocols for the
development of human and ecological toxicity values - could be
best accomplished through coordination with the National Insti-
tute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxi-
cology Program.- As a result, these two research activities -
Ecological Effects and Chemical Toxicity Testing - were re-
moved from further consideration for funding under the Waste
Research Program.

Congress established the HSRCs to conduct waste research
through regional academic consortia. The HSRCs are conduct-
ing fundamental and applied research in many of the same
areas as ORD; therefore, ORD needs to coordinate closely its
research to ensure it does not duplicate that of the HSRCs. The
HSRCs are discussed in further detail in Appendix B.

In addition, there are major waste related research programs
being conducted by the ATSDR, NIEHS, DOD, and DOE as
described below.

Superfund legislation mandates. that ATSDR and NIEHS per-
form research in specific areas. ATSDR has been charged to
perform health assessments at waste sites to assess whether
exposure has occurred and to determine the potential impact of
any exposure. ATSDR has also been directed to conduct
applied substance-specific.research to fill data gaps identified
by its toxicological profiles. NIEHS has been directed to estab-
lish a university-based basic research program. This is amature
program that conducts research in the detection of hazardous
substances in the environment, evaluation of health effects,
assessment of risk, and site remediation methods.

DOE has also been directed by Congress to establish a program
in basic environmental research through grants and DOE’s
laboratories. The DOE Office of Energy Research conducts
additional environmentally related basic science research in a
variety of areas.

Many important waste sites have nuclear, mixed nuclear and
hazardous, and other defense related wastes, such as.conven-



B.1.2 Minority Centers

Two minority centers are currently funded: Southern University
at Baton Rouge and University of Texas - El Paso. Both Centers
are funded from within the Waste Research Program.

8.1.3 Small Business Innovations Research and Explor-
atory Research Grants

Small Business Innovation Research is a Federal, Congression-
ally mandated program funded through a set-aside of 2.5
percent of extramural research funds appropriated within an
agency. The program's primary focus is on cleanup, resulting in
proof of concept and actual demonstration of individual
entrepreneur's technologies, many of which have application to
remediation. The most current topic areas being pursued are
addressed in the following table: “SBIR FY 1997 Topic Areas.”

ORD has for many years solicited for exploratory research
beyond that covered by directed or focused STAR solicitations.
It is the opinion of ORD that there are many outstanding
investigator initiated ideas that could contribute and move the
science forward, yet have no vehicle for funding. The Explor-
atory Grants program attempts to fill this void. Eligibility is for
academic institutions and non-profits. Broad areas of solicita-
tion tend to be in categories such as: environmental chemistry,
environmental physics, engineering, and human health and
ecological effects. Proposals are solicited for all media, includ-
ing waste management, risk assessment and remediation.

B.1.4 Companion ORD Research Strategies
The Waste Research Strategy is one of 10 separate strategies

that have recently been or are being developed by ORD. They
are:

Table B-2. Minority Centers funded from within the Waste Research Program.

Center Name

Center Focus

Consortium Members

Center for Environmental Resources

Management and groups

Problems that effect low-income individuals

Minority residents of the Mexico border region
Strengthen the capability of Hispanics to enter
environmental careers

U. of Texas at El Paso

Institute for Environmental Issues and
Policy Assessment Center for Energy
and Environmental Studies

Pollution Prevention
Environmental Equity
Mississippi River Env. Strategy
Environmental Risk

Southern U. at Baton Rouge

Table B-3. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) topics for 1997.

SBIR FY 1997 Topic Areas

Drinking Water

Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment and P2*

Wet Weather Flow Treatment and Pollution Control

Prevention and Control of Indoor Air Pollution

Prevention and Control of NOx, VOCs, SO2, and Toxic Air Emissions*

Treatment, Recycling, and Disposal of Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes and Sediments”

In situ Site Remediation of Organically Contaminated Soil, Sediments and Groundwater*

Treatment or Removal of Heavy Metals at Contaminated Sites*

Pollution Prevention*

Advance Monitoring and Analytical Technologies”

* Of probable interest to the waste plan and clients



Table of Contents (cont.)

2.3.2 Ranking Research on Active Waste Management and Combustion Facilities .
2.3.2.1 Active Waste Management Facilities ..
2.3.2.2 Emissions from Waste Combustion Facilities

Chapter 3. Conclusions and Issues
3.1 Conclusions .
3.2 Issues

References
Glossary of Terms
Appendices
A. Summary of Research Needs .

B. Related Research Programs...
C. Research Ranking Process



* Describe how these components fit into the risk paradigm.

*  Delineate the major outputs expected to be produced over

the next three years.

The ORD Strategic Plan also identifies general goals, long-term
objectives, and activities to meet these objectives.

The Waste Research Strategy contains these components of a
research strategy and is consistent with, and builds upon, the
goals and objectives of the ORD Strategic Plan.

ORD’s Strategic Plan

[sion |

Long-Term
Goals

1

Objectives |

Role of
Science
at EPA

Strategic
Principles

Priority-
Setting
Process and
Criteria

1.3.5 Prior Research Strategies

Previously, a number of research plans and strategies related to
hazardous waste have been produced and they contributed to
the identification of research needs in this strategy.

CENR National Strategy

The most current and important federal strategy was the
President's National Science and Technology Council through
its Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources

Activities to
Meet the
Objectives

i

High
Priority

Science

Research
Projects

@ EPA Program and Regional Office Involvement

A External Scientific Community Involvement

Research
Plans

,®@

Requests
for
Applications

A

Vv

Peer
Review of
Proposals

Laboratory
Implementation
Plans

@A
y

Award of
Grants or
Cooperative
Agreements

Intramural
Research

Program
Review and
Evaluation

Figure 1-2. Translating ORD's Strategic Plan into a research plan (Source: ORD, 1997a).

6



Table A-2. (Continued).

Risk Research Needs Sorted by Major Source of Who/Where
Paradigm Research Activities Research Will Need Be
Element Need Addressed
Exposure EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION / MODELING - COMBUSTION / INCINERATION (cont.)
Assessment
- Methods for particle size distribution for input to air Regions | ORD Waste Research Plan
dispersion models. ORD Air Toxics Research
Program (in part)
INDIRECT PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS - COMBUSTION / INCINERATION
-_ Indirect eco and human exposure methodology for OsSW ORD Waste Research Plan
combustion sources (incineration/thermal desorbers). OERR ORD Air Toxics Research
Program (in part)

Table A-3. Summary of waste research needs - Risk Characterization.

Risk Research Needs Sorted by Major Source of Who/Where
Paradigm Research Activities Research Will Need Be
Element Need Addressed
Risk RISK INTEGRATION
Characterization
- Methods to integrate the elements of a risk assessment | CENR ORD Human Risk
in complex cases. Assessment Research Plan
- Quantitative statistical methods to evaluate variability and | CENR ORD Human Risk
uncertainty. Assessment Research Plan
- Methods to assess cumulative risk. CENR ORD Human Risk

Assessment Research Plan

~ Methods to include cultural and behavioral aspects into CENR
risk analysis.

RISK COMMUNICATION

- Risk communication strategies that include community CENR
members

- Better statistical and communication tools to communicate | CENR
risks to the public and risk managers.

43





The Biotreatment research activity was also ranked high be-
cause it would address natural attenuation of contaminants in
soils (and landfills). Natural attenuation in soils has the potential
for being a relatively low-cost means of site remediation, if its
selection is justified and its progress is monitored to insure that
there are no significant environmental risks. In addition, the
Biotreatment research activity develops enhanced biotreatment
processes for soils, vadose zones and landfills. These all have
the potential to significantly reduce remediation costs, particu-
larly in situ processes. .

Estimating Soil Intake and Dose by Wildlife Species was
tanked in the upper half because ecological risks are becoming
more significant as drivers of cleanup levels at many contami-
nated sites. In most cases, soils are believed to have a more
significant ecological risk at contaminated sites than do con-
taminated ground waters, due-to the greater variety of wildlife
that can come in direct contact with contaminated soils or feed
on species residing in these soils. There are numerous uncer-
tainties about the extent to which soil contaminants impact
ecosystems and therefore ecosystems may not be adequately
protected. .

Field Sampling Methods and Field and Screening Analyti-
cal Methods were both ranked near the top because: uncer-
tainty associated with site characterization is often high, thereby
leading to uncertain risk assessment or high remediation costs,
and there are significant savings in time and money to be gained
by conducting analyses in the field.

Ecological Screening Tests to Measure Effectiveness of
Treatment was ranked near the middle because it deals only
with bioavailability issues and therefore is a more narrowly
focused research area than Estimating Human Exposure or
Wildlife Species research.

The Containment research area was ranked in’ the middle
because its use is increasing because of its relatively low cost,
yet there are still uncertainties about the long- term effective-
ness of these systems and the most effective. ways to install
them. Also, there is the potential to reduce costs further by
utilizing new materials for containment.

The research activity Sampling Design was ranked in the
middle because improved designs can have a significant impact
on reducing costs of cleanup by more accurately identifying
what volumes of soils need to be remediated and what and
where the sources of the risks are.

The two research activities dealing with Demonstration / Veri-
fication of Innovative Technologies were moved up. in the
Science Plus ranking because of the high priority allotted to
them by Congress. While these two research activities do not
develop new technologies, they are an important ORD activity
for contaminated soils (and ground water) because they allow
ORD to evaluate processes developed outside the Agency and
through these “independent” evaluations provide credible re-
ports on the applicability, performance and cost of these pro-
cesses to site managers and other decision makers.

The Abiotic Treatment research area was ranked below Con-
tainment, Biotreatment and Demonstration/Verification of Inno-
vative Remediation Technologies because it has less potential
toimpactcleanup costs or achieve significantly lower remediation

23

levels. There are, however, important areas where abiotic
treatment, either alone or as part of a multifaceted management
option, is needed for cost effective site clean up.

The two remaining research activities: Mixtures Toxicology
and Oil Spills are of less importance than the other research
activities. Oil spills was ranked relatively low because its
primary impact is to ecological systems. Research on Mixtures
Toxicology of soil contaminants was ranked lower due to the
sequence in which activities should be conducted to maximize
research yield. For example, knowledge of the bioavailability of
soil contaminants assists in predictions of the toxicological
impact of mixtures.

2.3.2 Ranking Research on Active Waste Management and
Combustion Facilities

Research evaluated under this topic areais limited to supporting
OSW's Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), develop-
ing the treatment technologies for wastes and waste streams
that are hard to treat, and to understanding hazardous waste
combustion risks and risk management options.

2.3.2.1 Active Waste Management Facilities

The current regulatory approach to the management of hazard-
ous wastes is extremely burdensome and costly to the U.S.
economy. In addition, the regulations are overly conservative
and not founded on risk. As a result, the Administration is
proposing regulatory reforms to provide administrative and
economic relief by developing a multimedia, multipathway risk-
based approach that is expected to exclude many wastes and
waste streams from regulatory control under Subtitle C of RCRA
(Hazardous Waste Identification Rule [HWIR]). In addition,
acceptable disposal of hazardous wastes is specified by Land
Disposal Restriction (LDR) rules. As part of these rules, Best
Demonstrated Available Treatment (BDAT) technologies are
specified that must be used to treat the waste prior to disposal.
BDAT technologies were identified for each hazardous waste
stream in the late 1980s and early 1990s and were based on the
most effective treatment technologies that were commercially
available at the time. It was recognized that there were some
hard-to-treat. wastes for which available technologies were
either not sufficiently effective, or were very expensive, and that
ongoing efforts would be needed to upgrade the BDAT technolo-
gies for a limited number of hazardous waste streams.

Major uncertainties are associated with several élements of the
risk paradigm. Of the 400 waste constituents that require the
development of “exit levels” under the proposed HWIR, 220 are
without health-based levels (even fewer for ecologically based
levels). These values need to be determined or estimated, In
addition, approximately 210 of the constituents are without
adequate analytical methods (current methods cannot measure
the constituents at the proposed exit levels). Current multimedia
modeling is constructed on a “most critical pathway” basis rather
than on a mass balance basis. Components of some of the
models are probabilistic and well developed (e.g., ground water)
while others are poorly developed and deterministic or not
developed at all. There is no system to exchange information
between existing or planned models and data bases. Existing
toxicity and environmental fate data bases are out of date and
need to be updated with existing literature and new data.
Methodologies to conduct assessments on mixtures or to ac-



Table 2-6. Focus and ranking of research activities for contaminated sites - Soils / Vadose Zone.

Research Activity Title

Potential Research Focus

“Science”

Ranking

“Science
Plus”
Ranking

Estimating Human Exposure
and Delivered Dose

Estimate soil intake rates for children and adults.
Evaluate the bioavailability of contaminants in various
soil matrices.

Develop and validate biokinetic dose-response models for
lead and other heavy metals.

Derive dermal absorption factors for common soil
contaminants.

Develop biotransfer and bioaccumulation factors for
contaminants to facilitate estimates of exposure via the
food chain.

Develop statistical distributions for exposure factors to
facilitate use of probabalistic techniques to evaluate
variability and uncertainty (e.g., Monte Carlo methods).

1

Biotreatment

Determine under what conditions biotreatment processes
can reach risk-based cleanup levels.

Develop less expensive cleanup processes for frequently
found hard-to treat contaminants (e.g., TCE, PAHs, PCBs).
Develop inexpensive permanent cleanup options for landfills.
Determine when natural attenuation is an appropriate
remediation option for soils and landfills.

Estimating Soil Intake and
Dose for Wildlife Species

Develop critical ecological exposure factors such as: species-
specific soil intake rates, uptake factors from soils to plants
to herbivores, species-specific dietar factors uptake factors
from herbivores to carnivores, and data on migratory and
range patterns.

Develop a wildlife contaminant exposure model that should
be useful for constructing and evaluating site-specific
scenarios. This model would allow calculations of intake via
the food web and analyses of multiple exposure pathways
and species. It would aiso include a probabalistic component
to evaluate variability and uncertainty.

Field Sampling Methods

Develop sampling methods that better preserve the integrity
of contaminants in soil (e.g., volatile organic compounds).

Develop sampling aj

roaches to better.ensure that a sample
is “representative” of

e area surrounding tile sample location.

Field and Screening Analytical
Methods "

Develop field-portable methods for rapid in situ determination
of contaminants in soils.

Develop analytical methods to determine the status and
rates of natural attenuation in soils.

Containment

Develop methods for evaluating the long term effectiveness
of containment systems.
Develop more cost-effective containment systems.

Ecological Screening Tests to
Measure Effectiveness of
Treatment

Develop inexpensive methods to screen for significant risks
from treatment residuals.
Develop inexpensive methods to determine cleanup goals.

Sampling Design

Develop new statistical designs for sampling/characterizing
contaminated soils at waste sites (e.g., multivariate, 3-D
technologies).



Appendix A. Summary of Research Needs .

All the detailed research and support needs identified by the
CENR, the Program Offices, Regional Offices, and the ORD are
arrayed by risk paradigm in Tables A-1 through A-6 (one table
for each element of the risk paradigm). These tables include
data that identify the specific support or research need, the
source of research need, and who/where the need should most
appropriately be addressed. This set of needs is considered to
be the “universe of needs” and the basis upon which ORD will
determine what research is appropriate and for which it has the
capability and capacity to conduct. The table attempts to identify
“where” each identified research need should most appropri-
ately be addressed. Those needs that are (or may be in the
future) addressed in this plan are identified by ORD Waste
Research Plan in bold. In many cases, relevant or related
research is being conducted elsewhere that will partially or fully
meet the stated research need. These other locations are also
identified. If there is no entry for a given research needs,
research is not currently planned nor has it been identified as
being conducted elsewhere.

39



Table 2-2. Summary of major program office and regional research and support needs.

Program
Office

Higher Priority
Needs

Medium Priority
Needs

Lower Priority
Needs

osw

Hazardous Waste Combustion, including
Dioxin/Furan Emissions

Surrogates and CEMs for HAPs,
Dioxins, and Furans

Technical Support for Combustion
Issues

Speciation Methods for PICs
Air Deposition Models

Indirect Exposure -- Bioaccumulation
through the Food Chain

Human Health Sciences
- IRIS/HEAST Data Base Updates
- Alternative Endpoints

- QSAR/SAR Methodology
Development

Ecological Risk

- Ecotoxicity Screening Levels,
Bioavailability Mechanisms

- Improved Screening Tools

Multimedia Science, including

- Improve Multimedia Models and
Data Bases

- Validation / Verification of Fate and
Transport Models (Multimedia and
Indirect Exposure Portions)

- Subsurface Biodegradation Rates

- Enhance Subsurface Models to
Include Fractured Flow

Socioeconomic

- Risk Tolerance Thresholds for
Exposed Populations

- Engineering/Costing Support
- Contingent Valuation

Waste Technology, including
Stability/Bioavailability of
Constituents in Waste Derived
Products
Chemistry of Waste Leaching --
Improve TCLP.

Treatment Alternatives for Mercury
Efficacy of Waste Solidification /
Stabilization Technologies

Natural Attenuation, Permeable
Reaction Barriers

Innovative Site Characterization
Technologies

Methods
- Speciation of Arsenic and Selenium

- Pesticide Methods Development
(GC/AED)

- PAHs by Capillary Electrophoresis

Technical Assistance for Corrective
Action

Pollution Prevention / Waste Derived
Products, including
- Source Reduction / Recycling for
Processes that Generate the Most
Toxic Wastes
- Technologies for Reducing Barriers
to Recycling
~ Source Reduction for Combustion
Wastes



Table A-2. (Continued).

Risk
Paradigm
Element

Exposure
Assessment

Research Needs Sorted by Major
Research Activities

Source of
Research
Need

Who/Where
Will Need Be
Addressed

a

EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND FACTORS (cont.)

- Improved understanding of exposure to dose relationships.

ORD Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Plan

(in part)
RD Air Toxics Research
Program (in part)

MULTIMEDIA, MULTIPATHWAY EXPOSURE MODELING

Evaluate existing/developing new fate, transport, and
exposure assessment models for multimedia assessments.

ORD Waste Research Plan}
ORD Multimedia Research
Program

Better procedures to assess complex (¢.9.,
multipathway/multichemical) exposure scenarios.

ORD Waste Research Plan
ORD Multimedia Research
Program

Enhancement of OSW subsurface fate and transport
models by incorporating fractured flow and heterogeneou:
porous media. .

ORD Waste Research Plan

Validation and verification of fate and transport models in
general.

ORD Waste Research Plan
ORD Multimedia Research
Program

DOE Spill Test Facility -- fundamental dispersion modeling
research

Research on large-scale gas releases and liquid spills
under varying weather, density, terrain, and surface
roughness conditions to validate and enhance exposure
models.

ORD Air Toxics Research
Program (in part)

EXPOSURE MODELING TECHNICAL SUPPORT

+ Fate, transport and modeling support for HWIR, OUST,
OERR.

Osw
OUST
OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan’

EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION / MODELING - COMBUSTION / INCI

INERATION

Correlation between combustion mercury emissions and
methyl mercury levels in biomarkers.

Regions

ORD Waste Research Plan
ORD Multimedia Research
Program (South Florida
Mercury Study)

Vapor-particle partitioning of semi-volatile organics
(chlorinated dioxins and PAHs) under ambient conditions.

ORD Waste Research Plan
ORD Human Risk
Assessment Research Plan
(in part)

ORD Air Toxics Research
Program (very little)

Air deposition of serri-volatile organics (chlorinated dioxins,
PCBs, higher MW chlorinated benzene and phenols,
PAHs, and higher MW phthalates).

ORD Waste Research Plan|
ORD Air Toxics Research
Program

(very little)

Vapor transport to surfaces - wet and dry deposition.

osw

ORD Waste Research Plan

Surface vapor uptake - plants and soils.

osw

ORD Waste Research Plan}

Mathematical models, parameter characterization, and
validation of models for dry gas deposition air dispersion.

OsSwW
Regions

ORD Waste Research Plan
ORD Air Toxics Research
Program (in part)

42



Appendix B. Related Research Programs

B.1 Related Research in the Office of Research and Devel-
opment

B.1.1 Hazardous Substances Research Centers

The competitive Hazardous Waste Research Centers were
created as a result of the CERCLA amendments of 1986 (P.L.
99-499). Section 311, directs EPA to “ ... make grants to
institutions of higher learning to establish and operate not fewer
than five hazardous substance research centers in the United

States. In carrying out this program the Administrator should

seek to have established and operated 10 hazardous sub-
stances research centers in the United States.” The legislation

goes on to say responsibilities shall include at least research
and training related to the manufacturing, use, transportation,
disposal, and management of hazardous substances and pub-
lication and dissemination of the results of the research. The
focus of each center is to parallel problems within the geo-
graphic regions of the Centers. .

ORD currently is supporting five HSRCs through base re-
sources or Congressional directive. The Centers draw financial
support through EPA, other federal agencies, academia, states,
local communities and the private sector. The following table
identifies the centers, their focus and their participating mem-
bers.

Table B-1. Hazardous Substances Research Centers.

Center Name Center Focus Consortium Members

Northeastern HSRC Industrial Waste
* Incineration/thermal treatment
* Characterization and monitoring
* In situ remediation

¢ Ex situ treatment processes

MIT, New Jersey Inst. of Tech,
Rutgers, Princeton, Stevens,
Tufts, Univ. of Med and
Dentistry of NJ.

In situ Bioremediation
* In-situ bioremediation technology
* Surfactant introduction tech.
* Bioventing

U. of Michigan, Howard U.,

Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic HSRC
. Michigan State

Great Plains/Rocky Mountain HSRC Contaminated Soils and Mining Wastes

Kansas State U., Haskell indian
Soil and water contaminated with heavy

Nations U., Lincoin U., Montana

metals State U., South Dakota State,
* Soils and groundwater contaminated by U. of lowa, U. of Missouri, U. of
organic chemicals Montana, U. of Nebraska, U. of

* Wood preservatives that contaminate water
Pesticides identified as haz. waste
Improved tech. and methods to characterize
and analyze contaminated soils

Waste minimization and P2 methods and
technology

Wyoming, U. of Northern lowa,
and Utah State U.

oe

South and Southwest HSRC. Contaminated Sediments
* In-situ chemical mobilization processes in
bed and confined disposal facilities
* In-situ remediation

* In-situ detection

Louisiana State U., Georgia Inst
of Tech. , Rice U.

Western HSRC Groundwater Cleanup and Site Remediation
Chlorinated solvents

Halogenated aromatic compounds
Nonhaloginated aromatics including
petroleum derivatives

Ordnance wastes

Heavy metals .
Evaluation of factors affecting the transport ’
and fate.of chemicals in the environment
Design and management issues for site
remediation

Stanford U., Oregon State U.

51



Notice

This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use. The document cover includes an image used under license from Corel
Stock Photos which is protected by the copyright laws of the U.S., Canada and
elsewhere.


Chapter 3. Conclusions and Issues

Based on the analysis of research needs and ranking of re-
search topics described in Chapter 2, ORD reached several
conclusions and identified three issues that may require further
attention.

3.1 Conclusions

1. There is a large and diverse set of waste research needs that
span the spectrum of the risk paradigm. As a result, well
integrated research programs are needed for each research
topic area which have the goal of improving our assessment,
characterization and risk management capabilities. Because
there are insufficient resources available to meet all these
research needs, the process of ranking research topics and
activities is critical.

The large volumes of solid and hazardous wastes generated in
the United States pose a number of environmental problems
that EPA is responsible for minimizing. Given the variety of
waste types and of past waste management practices, it is not
surprising that there is also a variety of technical and scientific
issues that need to be addressed. The CENR report identified
broad risk assessment and risk management research needs.
for waste-related environmental problems, and OSWER and the
Regions identified more- focused needs that support their
regulatory programs.

2. Four high-priority research topic areas and associated re-
search activities were identified:

* Contaminated Sites - Ground Water.

The National Research Council (NRC) has estimated
that 300,000 to 400,000 sites have contaminated
ground water from USTs, and about 80 percent of the
NPL sites have contaminated ground water. The
subsurface is also the most complex and costly me-
dia to characterize, model, assess, and remediate,
and there are still numerous scientific uncertainties
associated with each of these topics. Congress ap-
propriates approximately $1.2 billion annually to clean
up the NPL sites and the Waste Research Program
has demonstrated repeatedly the ability of its re-
search to significantly reduce these costs.

The focus of the research activities (Table 3-1) is on
the issues of: improved risk assessment, character-
ization and remediation of non-aqueous phase liq-
uids (NAPLs), the application and management of
natural and accelerated process for subsurface
remediation, and the demonstration and verification
of innovative characterization and remediation tech-
nologies.

The activities shown for contaminated sites - ground
water are currently funded in the base research pro-
gram except for mixture toxicology and containment
of ground water.

31

Contaminated Sites - Soils/Vadose Zone.

The complexity and heterogeneity of soil/vadose zone
matrices present many challenges to their character-
ization, assessment, and remediation. The cost of
remediation is still high; remedial actions alone aver-
aged approximately $9 million per site in 1996.

The focus of research activities (Table 3-1) is on the
issues of improved exposure and risk assessment of
soils, the application and management of natural and
accelerated process for remediation, and the demon-
stration and verification of innovative characterization
and remediation technologies.

The activities shown for contaminated sites - soils/
vadose zone are currently funded in the base re-
search program except for mixture toxicology and
estimating soil intake and dose for wildlife species.

Active Waste Management Facilities.

Currently, hazardous waste regulations are burden-
some and costly to the U.S. economy. A proposal to
provide administrative and economic relief by devel-
oping a multimedia, multipathway risk-based approach
to exclude waste and waste streams has been made
(proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule).
However, for this rule to succeed, significant new
science, models and data are required. Also, OSWER
has identified a number of waste control/ treatment
issues for waste and waste streams that are hard to
treat or where current technological solutions are too
costly or do not meet current treatment standards.

The focus of the research activities proposed for this
research topic area is on the science needs related to
HWIR, especially in multimedia, multipathway model-
ing, and the development or estimation of toxicity
values.

The activities shown for active waste management
facilities are currently funded in the base research
program except for the development of provisional
toxicity values and waste management.

Emission from Waste Combustion Facilities.

Waste combustion facilities are know to emit toxic
contaminants such as dioxins, furans, cadmium, lead,
and mercury. In addition to large municipal waste
combustion facilities, there are thousands of small
incinerators such as those used to dispose of medical
waste which are suspected of being a major source
of mercury emissions. Public acceptance of incinera-
tion as a viable disposal technology is very low
because of our inability to answer questions related
to emission sources, emissions monitoring, indirect



Table 2-8. Focus and ranking of research activities for emissions from waste combustion facilities.

Research Activity Title Potential Research Focus “Science”| “Science
Ranking | Plus”
Ranking
Emission Prevention and * Develop a better understanding of the combustion processes 1 1
Control that lead to emissions formation.

Characterize toxic emissions from industrial hazardous waste
combustion units.

Determine the most cost-effective means of controlling
emissions from hazardous waste combustion units, especially
industrial units and small incinerators.

Indirect Exposure

Determine the fate and transport of emission contaminants. 1 1
Characterization/Modeling

Develop models that identify and predict the formation of
secondary contaminants from primary emissions.

.

Indirect Pathway Risk * Test and validate indirect exposure methodology (IEM) using 3 3
Assessment Methods site specific data.
* Develop and validate contaminant biotransfer and uptake
factors.
* Develop guidance manuals and software program to apply
EM procedures.
Continuous Emissions * Develop improved instruments that measure (on a “real time” 5 4
Monitoring Methods basis) what contaminants are being released to the
environment.
Dose-Response of Key * Complete the risk assessment of mercury. 4 5
Contaminants * Develop toxicity values (Reference Doses, Reference
Concentration, Cancer Slope Factors) for critical
contaminants.
Studies of the Movement of * Determine ecological effects of metal emissions. 6 6

Bioaccumulative Chemicals in | * Study the movement of mercury in aquatic environments.
Food Webs Determine bioavailability of metals.

29



EPA 510-R-96-001, September 1996 - This manual assists
regulators in determining when recovery of free product is
necessary, whether an appropriate recovery method has
been proposed, and whether the free product recovery plan
provides a technically sound approach. (This manual was
done in conjunction with NRMRL, but was published as an
OUST document).

How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for
Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective
Action Plan Reviewers, EPA 510-B-95-007, May 1995 -
This manual has been proposed, and whether the correc-
tive action plan provides a technically sound approach to
achieve cleanup. It covers 10 technologies.

Risk Assessment — Exposure scenarios for wastes in
commerce - Hazardous wastes are increasingly being re-
cycled and the products from these recycling operations are
finding their way into commerce and use by the public.
Consequently, these materials have a number of unique
attributes that require special evaluation. In particular, this
work is concerned with the long term stability of constituents
in stabilized matrices, the bioavailability of constituents
under different conditions, and the development of models
forexposure pathways that are not typical of waste manage-
mentscenarios. This work is being conducted by OSW and
its contractors.

Monitoring — Continuous emission monitors - In coopera-
tion with the Department of Energy, OSW is researching
and evaluating the long-term ruggedness of CEMs for
mercury and other organics. These monitors, while used in
Europe, have not been installed extensively in the United
States. This effort involves researching the long-term
performance and stability of these state-of-the-art monitors.

Formation of products of incomplete combustion (PIC) -
Field sampling efforts have been underway over the last
several years to evaluate the nature and extent of organic
hazardous constituents that form as a result of incomplete
combustion. In cooperation with cement producers, OSW
has conducted a series of field studies to assess PICs in
cement kilns.

Accelerated microwave extraction - In conjunction with
Environment Canada, OSW is developing a microwave
extraction method for organic compounds. OSWis continu-
ing to develop the method and will conduct a round-robin
study in order to evaluate and improve the performance of
this method.

Fate and Transport Model Development — Groundwater
contaminant movement modeling - Although ORD makes
significant contributions to this area, OSW, with its special-
ized contractors and other academic experts, conducts
development work to improve EPA's Composite Model for
Transformation Products. OSW is presently working to
restructure the Monte Carlo framework in the model so that
we can separate model uncertainty from data variability. In
addition, in conjunction with several industries, academic
experts and the ORD, OSW will be reevaluating available
subsurface biodegradation data.

Multimedia and indirect fate and transport modeling - In
close coordination with ORD, as outlined in the draft Multi-
media Science Plan, OSW is taking the lead on anumber of
areas; examples include the development of additional
human health and ecological endpoints for new chemicals,
refinement of the waste management units which describe
the source of contaminants, revisions to several submodels
including the overland flow model, and additional evaluation
of loss processes.

Environmental Benefits Analysis — Contingent valuation of
groundwater - OSW is restarting an effort to evaluate the
nonuse economic benefits of avoiding groundwater con-
tamination. This effort, being conducted in conjunction with
OSW’'s specialized contractors, will use the controversial
method of contingent valuation. Prior SAB review and
additional peer review input has led to a strategy that
requires some experimental testing of responses to validate
the valuation information that OSW us acquiring.

Office of Emergency and Remediaj Response (OERR)
MARSSIM (ORIA - lead): MARSSIM is a 750- page guid-
ance document that addresses issues related to the pro-
posed rule, “EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Regulation,” such
as how to set background levels and risk/method/decision
confidence levels.

MARLAP (ORIA-lead): MARLAP is a document conceming
analytical methods, especially measurement issues re-
lated to the Radiation Site Cleanup proposed rule.

Fact Sheets for Ground water/Modeling (and future poten-
tial EPA/DOE/NRC Interagency Modeling Working Group)
(ORIA-lead): Four reports promoting modeling of hazard-
ous and radioactive waste sites were completed and pub-
lished by ORIA. Four fact sheets were prepared summariz-
ing the reports:

- Environmental Characteristics of EPA, NRC, and
DOE Sites Contaminated with Radioactive Sub-
stances.

Computer Models Used to Support Cleanup Decision-
Making at Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes Sites.

Environmental Pathways Models - Groundwater Mod-
eling in Support of Remedial Decision Making at Sites
Contaminated with Radioactive Material.

A Technical Guide to Groundwater Model Selection at
Sites Contaminated with Radioactive Substances.

Groundwater/Modeling Document Review (and future po-
tential EPA/DOE/NRC Interagency Modeling Working
Group) ORIA-lead): Two documents on modeling were
prepared:

- An Evaluation of Three Representative Multimedia
Models Used to Support Cleanup Decision-Making at
Hazardous, Mixed and Radioactive Waste Sites.

- A Recommended Guide to Documenting Groundwater
Modeling Results at Sites Contaminated with Radioac-
tive Substances.



\dwes pue

(2g) 6
uo}

(gg) jusweBeuey,
ayseM -

(81) squeujwejuog
JO} senyer,

Ayoixoy, pu IAQ}
juidojaneq -

(2)
teorskyq
lsued| pue
aye jeyuewuoNAUg -
(p1) Buyjepoyy
einsodxy Aemuyed
“HIN “eIpawuyinyy -

uonewn

sanioe4 juewebeueyy
ayseM annoy

(yz)

sjueulweuog Aoy, (LL) spore,
Jo esuodsey-esoq - juewssessy \SIy
(ez) spomen (ee) sqeM Aemuyed Joailpul -
OW (21) jouog, poo, U} sjeqWEYyo, (€4) Buyepoyy
WS pue uojusraldg eAnejnNooROlg uolezuejerey
snonuluod - ‘suOISSIWWZ ~ Jo JUBWAAO| - eunsodx3 JoauIpul -
(22) seBojouyoa,, (9€) silts HO -
Buyoyuoy (Lg) silos
Plat Jo uc OA, Jo Juowyeed | 91 -
/uoledsuoweg - (Zz) serBojouyooy,
(¢z) ubiseg Buydues - UOHEIPSWALY SAAOUU] (ve) (g) saedg aytipil
(6) slog 40} JO UOHBOYUEA, ABojoo1xol SeANyxIy - = 90 pue oyxe]U]
spoujow [2 Uy uoleajsuoweg - (g}) yuowyeedy llog Burpewns3 -
Buluse10g pur pjal - ‘ (81) 40 Ssou@nnoeys (1) 880g pasenyiog
(8) spomey SI]OG JO JUEWUTEJUOD - eu) aINsea| O} S}SOL 9 ainsodx3, 9QUOZ SOPRA / SOS
Buyjdwres pets - (€) Slog Jo juowyeanjo1g - Bujuseiog jeoiojoo3 - uewiny Buyewsa - | - seg payeulweju0g
(22) seiBojouyoe!
(22) saBojouyoa, uOeIPaWaLY SAEAOUU]
Buyoyuoy, Jo uoeoyLeA, (g) seunxiyy
Pjaly Jo uopeoyua, uole.jsuoWag - 4JoJ sjapoyy esuodsey
uolesSUOWEG - (21) -9S0q UBWIN} - (12) shemuyed /
(SL) M5 40} MD Jo JUSWIUIEIUOD - (ge) spouey) siope
spoujoy jeonAyeuy (91) Md Jo uaueanolg - quawssessy einsodx3 M5 -
Bulussi0g pue pjel - (6) MO. SI [O180]093 (2) Burjepoyy,
(9) uonezuajoeseyo Jo yuaweer! SNolgy - (92) yodsues| pue Jaye puna
eoeynsaqns - (Z) uonenuepy jeanyen - ABojooxo! SeANIXIW - | eye ;eJeWUOJAUZ - | - Ses payeulWe}UuCD
uonelojsoy uoezeyoeseyo juewssessy juewssessy
Buroyuop JouJuoQ 8 UO eIPOWOY ysIy puezey eiunsodx,
(4ep10 AyJOUd ul)
juawebeueyy ¥Si JUBLUSSESSY ¥SIY sealy aldo),
yorrasey

SAINODSLVO WOIdVad YSIY Ad SALLIALLOV HOWVASSY

Oy weiBo1g Yoseasey a1seM CHO Pee|eg *|-SA eIqeL

xii



Table A-2. Summary of waste research needs - Exposure Assessment.

Risk Research Needs Sorted by Major Source of Who/Where
Paradigm Research Activities Research Will Need Be
Element Need Addressed

—
Exposure PHYSICAL ESTIMATION, TRANSFORMATION, AND FATE PROCESSES
Assessment

- Improve understanding of abiotic processes controlling
transport, fate and bioavailability of chemicals in soil,
natural waters, and sediment.

CENR

ORD Waste Research Plan
ORD Multimedia Research
Program

- Improve understanding of bioaccumulation and metabolic
processes controlling biodegradability of chemicals in
microbial populations in soils, natural waters, and
sediments.

CENR

ORD Waste Research Plan
ORD Multimedia Research
Program

- Enhancement of the MINTEQA2 database.
Validation/veritication.

osw

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Addition of Redox database to MINTEQA2.

osw

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Evaluation of fate and transport parameters for hazardous
constituents.

osw

ORD Waste Research Plan
ORD Multimedia Research
Program

Air Toxic Research
Program (in part)

- Expert analysis of biodegradation rates for the subsurface
environment.

osw

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Develop a working understanding of the microbiologic
and abiotic processes contributing to the degradation of
contaminants in the subsurface, especially as related to
natural attenuation.

OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Determine the environmental fate of vegetable oils and
animal fats in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.

OERR

EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AND FACTORS.

- Improve methods for diagnosing route of exposure and
exposure history.

~CENR

ORD Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Plan
(in part)

- Improve data on human activity patterns (e.g., food
ingestion rates, time in various settings, ete).

CENR

ORD Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Plan
(in part)

- Better procedures / models for assessing dermal exposure,
especially from soil, including matrix-specific and receptor-
specific (e.g., race) properties.

CENR
OERR

ORD Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Plan
(in part)

- Bioaccumulation of metals, especially mercury.

osw

ORD Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Plan
(in part)

- Bioaccumulation of semi-volatile organics (chlorinated
organics, PAHs, higher MW phthalates) and metals in
terrestrial plants and animals, cycling of xenobiotics from
terrestrial plants to detritus to soils to soil organisms.

osw

ORD Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Plan
(in part)

- Methods/models for determining the bioavailability of
metals and organics from soils via the ingestion exposure
route, plant to animal, animal to human (direct and indirect
exposure).

OERR
Regions

ORD Waste Research Plan

- Guidance for determining residential exposure (dermal,
inhalation) from NAPL contaminated ground water and
soils (vinyl chloride, benzene, etc.).

OERR

ORD Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Plan
(in part)

- Develop methods to collect exposure data from minorities,
disadvantaged populations or other groups (children ,
women, etc.) likely to be disproportionately affected.

CENR
OERR

ORD Human Health Risk
Assessment Research Plan
(in part)

41



Table A-5. (Continued).

Remedies (guidance to speedy remedy selections and
promote technically sound, consistent selections).

Risk Research Needs Sorted by Major Source of Who/Where
Paradigm Research Activities Research Will Need Be
Element Need Addressed
Remediation BETTER MANAGEMENT DECISIONS (cont.)

- Provide support for the development of Presumptive OERR ORD Waste Research Plan

Expand bioremediation field data base to include
composting.

OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan

Direct research and development expertise towards solving
site-specific cleanup problems.

OERR

ORD Waste Research Plan
(technical support)

Provide site-specific technical assistance on the application
of subsurface modeling at contaminated sites, especially
to address cleanup technical impracticability and the
applicability of natural attenuation.

OSWER

ORD Waste Research Plan

Develop methodologies for evaluating the outcomes, or
benefits, of cleanup projects.

OERR

Develop tools and provide guidance on how to estimate
costs of remediation projects to support cleanup decisions
and justify budget requests.

OERR

(to be determined)

Develop and implement ways to ensure that recent
scientific/engineering advances can be rapidly and correctly
implemented in remediation practice.

ORD

ORD Waste Research Plan

Develop means to keep remediation stakeholders informed
about state-of-the-art solutions to the highest priority
technical problems.

ORD

ORD Waste Research Plan

RCRA CA Tech Support - Remediation

osw

ORD Waste Research Plan

FEDERAL FACILITIES

Conduct field evaluations of technologies to remediate
radioactive wastes and mixed wastes in order to obtain
data on performance, cost and environmental effects.

CENR

DOE

Develop a national federal test site program at federal
facilities to support technology development and evaluation.

CENR

DOD, DOE

Develop, demonstrate, and evaluate innovative
technologies for characterization, identification, and
remediation of energetic materials (e.g., unexploded
ordinances and chemical munitions).

CENR

DOD

Coordinate development of robotics waste separation and
characterization technologies that are applicable to high-
level waste, mixed wastes, landfills and contaminated
soils, and ground water contaminated plumes.

CENR

DOE

47



Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

1.1 Research Strategy Purpose,
Scope, and Structure

This document describes a strategy to focus waste research at
a national level to reduce the greatest risks to people and the
environment and to make waste management more cost-effec-
tive. This strategy builds upon the principles set forth in the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Office of Research and Development (ORD) strategic plans.
Key scientists, engineers, and environmental professionals
were engaged in its development to achieve real progress in
meeting the needs identified by the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), Regional Offices, and other
stakeholders, and to advance the state of the science. This
strategy identifies four research topic areas that correspond to
the major waste-related environmental problem: contaminated
ground water, contaminated soil/vadose zone, emissions from
waste combustion facilities, and active waste management
facilities. It also summarizes ORD technical support activities
needed to assist stakeholders.

This document is intended to be a “living document” and will
updated as needed to remain current with identified customer
needs and the state of the science in waste research. The
research needs and priorities described in this document reflect
decisions made in the latter half of Fiscal Year 1997 (FY97).
ORD'’s waste research program continues to evolve.

1.1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this strategy is to apply ORD’s strategic prin-
ciples, goals and ranking criteria to waste problems identified by
OSWER and other stakeholders to set priorities for waste-
related research. These priorities will be used to focus the
efforts of ORD research laboratories and ORDs external grants
program. It will also form the basis for EPA coordination with
other Federal agencies.

1.1.2 Scope

This strategy addresses waste-related environmental problems
that are of greatest importance from the perspectives of both
ORD'’s research ranking criteria and the program priorities of the
OSWER and the EPA Regions. The research activities de-
scribed herein are those involving the assessment and
remediation of contaminated sites (e.g., Superfund, RCRA,
corrective action [CA], underground storage tank and oil spill
sites), as well as the assessment and control of contaminant
releases from waste management (i.e., treatment, storage, and
disposal). A fourth important waste management research

area, pollution prevention, is addressed in a separate ORD
Research Plan (ORD, 1998). Also, contaminated sediments are
not explicitly addressed in this document because there is
separate ORD research planning activity for this topic (ORD,
1997c). Because it is an integral part of waste management,

ORD research planning activities for pollution prevention are
summarized in Appendix B.

ORD has significant personnel resources committed to waste
technical support and these activities are closely tied to ORD’s
waste research program. These nonresearch activities are not
addressed in this strategy.

This research strategy represents the first comprehensive waste
research planning done by ORD.. It addresses just research
funded in ORD’s Waste Research Program. As indicated in
Chapter 3, there are other related research activities in ORD
which were not considered in the strategy but could be in future
strategies.

1.1.3 Structure

This strategy is dividéd into three chapters. Chapter! describes
major waste problems faced by the United States, and their
associated risks and risk management costs. This chapter also
describes the mission, goals and resources of the ORD Waste
Research Program, and the relationship of this research plan to
the ORD Strategic Plan. Chapter 2 describes waste research
needs identified by ORD, EPA's Program Offices, EPA Regions,
and others. Four research topic areas are identified along with
a set of research activities that ORD needs to carry out for each
topic area. These research activities are then prioritized based
upon a waste ranking scheme that uses ORD’s strategic plan-
ning principles. Chapter 3 provides conclusions from the
strategic planning process and summarizes planning issues
that remain to be addressed.

There are three appendices. A summary of waste-related
environmental research needs is provided in Appendix A in six
tables, each describing research needs within one of the six
Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR)
risk paradigm categories (discussed in detail later in this chap-
ter). Appendix B provides a summary of other waste-related
research programs in ORD, OSWER, other Federal agencies,
and the private sector. Appendix C provides additional details
to the research ranking process outlined in Chapter 2.

1.2 Nature and Scope of the Problem
1.2.1 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management

In 1965, Congress passed the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the first
law to require safeguards and encourage environmentally sound
methods for disposal of household, municipal, commercial, and
industrial refuse. Congress amended this law in 1970 by
passing the Resource Recovery Act and again in 1976 by
passing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Congress revised RCRA first in 1980 and again in 1984. The
1984 amendments (referred to as the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments [HSWA)) significantly expanded the scope
of RCRA. The major sections of the statute are:



EPA/600/R-98/154
February 1999

Waste Research Strategy

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268

& Printed on Recycled Paper



available. Evaluation of innovative ground water contamination
characterization techniques is also important to help fill gaps
where there is a lack of adequate techniques and to improve
cost-effectiveness.

Research on Mixtures Toxicology was ranked lower because
the need to develop information on interactions between mixture
constituents was judged less urgent than the need to develop
dose-response models for mixtures using existing databases.

Ecosystems Effects and Ecological Risk Assessment Meth-
ods were ranked lowest despite uncertainties about the effects
of ground water on ecosystems, because the impactis expected
to be low compared to human health effects.

2.3.1.2 Soils/Vadose Zone

The complexity and heterogeneity of soil/vadose zone matrices
presenta large number of technical challenges to their assess-
ment and remediation. There are numerous uncertainties
associated with soil/vadose zone decisions and the cost of
remediation is still high (remedial actions alone cost an average
of $9 million per Superfund site in 1996). Local risks to humans
and ecosystems, high costs and uncertainty in decision making
are all reasons for supporting contaminated soil/vadose zone
tesearch.

Specific scientific uncertainties are associated with each step of
the site evaluation and remediation process. In the risk assess-
ment process, major uncertainties are:
magnitude of effects on human health and the ecosystem
contributions of indirect pathways to receptor exposure

availability of adsorbed contaminants and treatment re-
siduals to human and ecological receptors
intake of contaminants across multiple exposure routes -
ingestion, dermal exposure, and inhalation

In the site characterization process, major uncertainties are:
‘sampling of contaminants to determine their location and
magnitude
quantitative analysis of selected compounds
design of sitespecific sampling strategies
physical characterization of soils and the vadose zone

In remediation, major uncertainties are:

* applicability of treatment techniques to different contami-
nants and soil matrices, particularly heterogeneous matri-
ces

cost of remediation techniques

To address these uncertainties and associated high-priority
research needs, 13 research activities were identified (Table 2-
6). These activities were first ranked by aset of Science criteria
and then a set of Science Plus criteria following a process
described earlier in this chapter.

Science Ranking

ORD determined thata combination of site characterization, risk
assessment and remediation research is needed in this topic

22

area to address important scientific and technical issues, help
clarify the risks posed by contaminated sites to surrounding
communities, and reduce the high costs of site remediation.
There are improvements needed in site risk assessments to
reduce uncertainties in the magnitude of human health effects,
and there are limited tools to evaluate the risks that these sites
pose to ecosystems. The high cost of site remediation (and the
ineffectiveness of some available technologies) requires re-
search on innovative technologies. Improved site characteriza-
tion contributes to both risk assessment and risk management,
helping to define risks more accurately and define what needs
to be remediated.

Science Plus Ranking

The Science Plus ranking of research activities (Table 2-6)
varies little from the Science ranking for contaminated soils/
vadose zone, except that the two research activities on demon-
stration/verification of innovative technologies are ranked higher
in the Science Plus ranking. This reflects the fact that with this
one exception, all the Science Plus ranking factors were equally
applicable to all research activities in this topic area. These
factors included: 1) high priority given research across the risk
paradigm in the CENR strategic plan and by the Program Office;
2) high Congressional priority (as reflected by the annual
Superfund appropriation of about $1.5 billion); and 3) high
Administration priority (reflected by the President's initiative to
cleanup two-thirds of the Superfund sites by 2000 and by the
tight 8 -10 year schedules for DOD and DOE site cleanups).

The two demonstration/verification research activities were
given a higher ranking under Science Plus because Congress
has indicated the importance of such work by requiring that ORD
conduct ten demonstrations per year as part of the SITE
program.

The Estimating Human Exposure and Delivered Dose and
Biotreatment research activities were ranked highest, in part
because both address the availability of contaminants in soils
to impact receptors, particularly humans. Currently, it is as-
sumed that all or most of an agent found in soils is biologically
available, but this assumption is probably inaccurate. Improved
estimation of the fraction of contaminants that are biologically
available to humans or ecosystems could significantly reduce
the estimates of risks at contaminated sites and reduce the cost
of remediation by raising the level of the cleanup standard. The
Estimating Human Exposure research activity would develop
better models and factors for making these estimates for indi-
vidual contaminants in soil. Research would include developing
models for dermal exposure, estimating soil intake rates for
children and adults, and estimating bioavailability of contami-
nants. In the long term, the Biotreatment research activity would
evaluate the effectiveness of different types of biotreatment
processes in different soil media based on these models and:
factors.

The Estimating Human Exposure research activity was also
ranked high because its goal is to reduce other uncertainties
associated with risk characterization. These include increasing
the certainty of multipathway analysis, developing statistical
distributions for exposure factors, and addressing specific is-
sues related to soil risk, such as intake rates for children and
adults.



External Scientific Community Input: ORD National Laboratories and Centers
EPA Science Advisory Boar EPA regan Offices
National Research Council Research Coordination Council
- Identify Research Topics and

Other Government Agencies
Private Sector Evaluate Research Products

No Is the Yes
Topic Clearly
Mandated?

Reject Is the Topic
for ORD Within OFD's
Funding 2 ission at

no Goals?

Yes

Apply Evaluation Criteria:
Human Health/Ecological Health
(Use Comparative Risk Analyses

as Appropriate)
Risk Management
Methods/Models

Prioritized Research
Topics

Can i :
No ORD Make \ Yes Determine Research Needs:
a Significant Exposure Conduct External

y Risk Characterization Pe ms jw ft
Risk Management “extramural °
Research

Proposals

Conduct Research
(In-house, Grant, Coop. Contract, etc.)

Research Products

1 If so, EPA may have no discretion to reject or delay this research.
2 EPA program offices and Fegions may still choose to fund, using ORD labs, grants, contracts, etc., or a
research sourse outside of ORD.

Figure 2-1. Office of Research and Development strategic planning process (Source: ORD, 1997a).
10





+0108} Bupjues snjd eouejos ayy uo peseg WeiGolg Yoreasay a1S2M SuNUS ey} Ssos0e AjAnoe YO!BESes YORO JO HUE) |EUIPIO OU srenb3 ,

(Ze) Buyjdweg pue
UOHFEZLO}ORIeYD
QISBM -

(9¢) JuewebeueW
ayseM-

(81) syueujweyuoa

40} san|en

AYOIXO} JEUOISIAOIg
Buidojaacg -

(sz)

uoyewnss leo1skud

‘uodsuely pue
yey seyuawUO.AUZ -

(71) Bujepoyy

ainsodxy Aemuyyed
IW “eIPewWAIN -

ye4 Juawebeuey)
aysem onnoy

(ez) spore

(sad) buyoyuow

suolssiwiy
snonunuod -

(ZL) jou
PUP UONUSAAIdg
suolss}wi -

(ve)
syueujweyuog Aoy
Jo asuodsay-asog -

(ee) sa9M

syeojweyd

aanejnuinoseolg
Jo yuawanojy -

(LL) spoueyy
quawissessy 4SIY
Aemured yoas|pul -
(EL) buyjepow
uonezyayoeseyo
eansodxq 399aJ1pUuy -

uolsnquiod a1seM\
wo} Suo}ss}wy

(Zz) seiBojouyoe),
Buvoyuow,
Plaid Jo uoHeoyEA
/uoweRSUOWAG -
(2) vbssea wes -
6)

(9¢) siids
(1) sos,
Jo yuawjeed| onolgy -
(22) seBojouysa,,
uOHeIPSWey SAHeAOUU]
Jo UONTOYLEA,
uolesjsuoWwag -
(gi)
SIJOS JO JUSWUIE}UOD -
(g) Sos Jo juewyeenolg -

(ve)
ABojoo1xo] SeinjXIN -
(BL) quowyead,
Jo ssouenyoeys,
aly aINseey O} S}SOL
Bujusasag jeolGojoo3 -

(e) sajoeds ayIPIIM
+ 9S0g pure axeqU]
UEWISS -
(1) esoq pasenliag
*g ainsodxy
uewny Buyewns3 -

GUOZ BsOpeRA / S/IOS
= SoYIS payeUITEIUOD

(22) saBojouyse,
Buyoywuow

plaid JO UO!
uoNesSUOWAG -
(1) Md 40}
SpoujeW eonAjeuy
Hulusalog pue pjal-j -
(9) uopezuayerey
goeyinsqns -

(22) sejBojouyoaL
uo}eIPSWEy SANEAOUU]
IN
vonpasuon's -
(Ab

MAD 0 yUBWIUIE}UOD -

(91) Md Joqueuneanoig -
(6) MO

Jo quawyeed! ONOIgy -

(z) uonenueny einen -

(e) saunxin,
Jo} sjapoyy esuodsoy
-9s0qg UBWNH -
(ge) spomen
juawssessy
4SIY reos6op -
(92)
ABioj}09}X0, SOAN}XIWW -

(12) skemured /
s10}0e-4
einsodxg M5 -
(2) Buyjapowy,
yodsuell pue
eye jeUaWUOLAUZ -

Jaye PUNOId
= SONS PAYEUJWEYUOD

Buyoyuoyy

Jouog

uoneiojsoy
98 uONeIpPaway

uonezuajereyo
SI

quawssessy
piezey

quewssassy
ainsodxy

juawabeuey Ysiy

JUBWSSASSY YSIY

SSIHODALVO WOIdVuVd ASI Ad SALLIALLOW HOWWASSY

(epi Aworg ul)
sealy o1doy.
yoleesayy

*(pjoq uj uMoys) WesBord yoseasal e}seM aSeq JUaLINO Sty UI PapuNjun samaroe Yoseasey “LE BIGeL



“s10]08} Bupjuel ,sniq 80UE|9g,, 84} UO paseg WesBolg YoIeesey e}se/ aujjue ay} Sso/0B AyANoe YoreESAl YORE Jo ues /eUIPIO ayy sjeNby

(Ze) Guydwes pue
uoIeZza}BeYO
aysem -

(gg) quawebeuey
aysen\-

(81) syueueyuoo

Jo} sanjen,

AYOIXOL [BUOISIAOLG
Buidojaaeg -

(sz)
Teoshyd

eyey feyUeLWUOIIAUR -
(y1) Busjepowy
aunsodxg Aemuyed

“HIN “PIPEUHINY -

sonyjoey juaweBeuey
aISeM OANOY

(ez) spoure
(SWad) Suyowuoy
3

snonujuog -

(21) jonuog
pue UoNUaAad
suOISs|W ~

(yz)

jo esuodsey-asoq -
(eg) saeM
poo ul sjeorwayo
aayeinunooeolg
JO JUaWanoW -

(LL) spoueW,
juewssessy >
Aemuyed 102J|pU} -
(1) Buyepow
uoeZUa}OBeYO.
aunsodx3 ye, |pu] -

24 UOKSNqUOD
SBM WO} SUO|SSIW

(ZZ) seBojouyooy,

Buyoyuoyy

Pjaly JO UOHEOyLOA
/ uo}esSUOLAG -
(¢2) uBlseq Bujduses -

(6) slog 40}

spomeyy jean xjeuy
Bulueai0g pue pjel.j -

(g) spouja
Buldwes pjal -

JO yUWYPAI] OI)
(22) saiBojouyooL,
uOeIPAWEY SATEAOUU]

1S JO JUBWUEJUOD -
(g) jlo yo uauneanjoig -

(ve)
ABojoo}Xxo]L, SOIN}XI\ -
(g}) uewyeas,
Jo ssauannoays
ayy ainseay) 0} SISO],
Bujusarag jeoiGo}oo3 -

(eg) sejoads eyIpIM

- aS0q pue axe}U]
los Buyewys3 -

(1) esog pasenliag

9 ainsodx3,
uewny Buyewnyss -

‘auoz asopep / SOS
~~ SOUS PayeulLeUCD

(22) saiBojouyse,

Buoyu0yy

Piety JO UOWeOINEA,
uoleSUOWAG -

(SL) MD 405

spoyjsy) Jeo} Ajeuy
Bulusaiog pur pyely -

(9) uonezajoeeyo
oepNsqns -

(zz) sajBojouyoay
UO}eIPAWAY SAIEAOUU|
JO UOHEOYUEA,
UO}TBJJSUOWAQ -
(21)
Md JO JUBWUIEWUOD -
(91) Mp JouauNRANOIg -
(®) mo
jo juawyeary anoigy -
(2) uoyenueny jenjen -

(c) seanxi
40} Sjapoyy Bsuodsey
~9S0q UBWN} -
(ge) spon
jualussessy
4SIx [9150}003 -
(92)
ABiojoalxoL, SainyxiW -

(12) shemuped /
si0}084

aunsodxy MD -
+(2) Buyjapow
yodsuely, pue

aye eyuawuowAuy -

sayeM punosy
= SAYS PayeulWE}UCD

Buyoyuoyy

Joop

uol}e10]S8y
'g uoHeIpawsy

uoyezuajoeeyo
4SID

juawssessy
puezey

quauissassy
einsodxQ

juawabeuey ysl

JUBLUSSASSY YSIY

(epi Awoug ul)
sealy aldol.

SSIYODALVO WOIVVd SIX Ad SAILIALLOW HOUVASSY

yoreasay

“sease odo} yoseasas [fe SSOIDB payuel SalANOE YOIRAsAl BISEM CHO Pass “bz a1qeL



graphic areas that often have large populations or produce
important food products (crops, animal, and dairy products), and
(4) exposure occurs over several pathways and routes. These
risks are also perceived by the public as very high as evidenced
by community protests at facilities such as Waste Technologies
Incorporated (WTI) in East Liverpool, Ohio, and at many
Superfund sites such as New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts,
and Bloomington, Indiana.

The risks associated with combustion facilities are also highly
uncertain and cut across the risk assessment paradigm. Areas
of major uncertainty in exposure assessment include:

What contaminants are being formed? What additional
contaminants are formed as the emissions disperse and
are transformed in the environment?

What is the fate and transport of the contaminants?
Where do they go and who might be exposed? What is
the geographical scale of exposure? Current studies indi-
cate that airborne contaminants are extremely mobile and
can affect regional receptors.

How much contamination are people and ecological re-
ceptors exposed to? Through what exposure pathways?
How much contamination eventually makes its way into
our food? And how much of the contamination found in
our food is bioavailable to cause a toxic response in
human receptors?

How effective and accurate are current monitoring tech-
nologies?

.

Areas of major uncertainty in hazard assessment include:
How toxic to humans are the contaminants that are being
released? What doses of dioxin, furans, mercury, lead,
cadmium and other contaminants are safe for human
receptors?

How harmful to ecological receptors are the contaminants
that are being released? What amounts of dioxin, furans,
mercury, lead, cadmium and other stressors are harmful?

Areas of major uncertainty in risk characterization include:
Which contaminants being emitted present the greatest
risk to human health and the environment and, thus,
should be the focus of control efforts?

What is the risk of cumulative continuous exposure?
Combustion facilities are normally evaluated and regu-
lated based on their individual emissions, exposure, and
risk to surrounding receptors. The cumulative impact of
continuous emissions from multiple combustion facilities
and other sources of contaminants is not known.

The areas of greatest uncertainty in risk management are:
How can emission levels of contaminants be reduced
most cost-effectively?

What are the combustion processes that lead to contain-
ment formation?

Are process design/operation changes appropriate, or
should add-on controls be used? What are the cheapest
ways to minimize emissions from small combustors? How
can the control of multiple emissions be most cost-effec-
tively accomplished?

To address these uncertainties and associated high priority
research needs, six research areas were identified: 1) exposure
characterization and modeling; 2) continuous emission monitor-
ing; 3) evaluation of the movement of metals in the food chain;
4) indirect pathway risk assessment methods; 5) dose-response
assessments of key contaminants; and 6) emissions prevention
and control (Table 2-8).

ORD first ranked these research areas relative to each other
based on the potential for the research to either reduce risk;
reduce uncertainties in risk estimation, site characterization or
tisk assessment; or reduce cleanup costs. The third column of
Table 2-8 lists the research activities in order of decreasing
priority based on this Science ranking. The fourth column Table
2-8 lists the ranking of research activities in terms of “Science
Plus,” reflecting revised priorities based on Congressional man-
dates, Program Office and Regional priorities, and other impor-
tant considerations that are more of a managerial nature than
solely scientific.

The Science Plus ranking of research activities is identical to the
Science ranking for waste combustion facilities. This reflects the
fact that all the Science Plus ranking factors were equally
applicable to all research activities in this topic area. These
factors included: 1) high priority for research across the risk
paradigm in the CENR report; 2) high Administration priority as
reflected by the Administrator's Combustion Strategy, which
requires that all hazardous waste combustion facilities be evalu-
ated for health and ecological impact using the indirect exposure
methodology; 3) high priority by the Office of Solid Waste and
Regional offices as evidenced by their commitment to establish
with their own funds a Technical Support Center to evaluate
indirect exposures; and 4) listing of waste research as “an area
of high importance” in the ORD strategic. plan.

Application of the Science Plus criteria did not impact any of the
rankings withinthe Combustion Facility research topic. Applying
the Science Plus criteria resulted only in some minor changes in
the ordinals when combustion facility research areas were
compared to the other three hazardous waste topic areas. The
combustion research areas dropped to slightly lower ranks due
to several factors. First, issues relating to combustion were
judged by ORD as not as high a priority to the program offices
as contaminated ground water or contaminated soil. Secondly,
Congressionally authorized programs which received relatively
lower science rankings (e.g., various SITE demonstration pro-
grams) were bumped upward in their science plus rankings.

The Waste Research Coordination Team (RCT) judged that the
highest priority areas within the waste combustion facility topic
area were emission prevention and control and exposure char-
acterization/modeling. Emission Prevention and Control in-
volves the characterization of waste combustion systems and
their emissions along with the development and evaluation of
techniques to prevent emissions formation or control their
release. This area addresses incinerators and industrial sys-
tems burning wastes. It studies the reduction of emissions, by
system design and operation changes, as well as through the
use of add-on controls. This area was judged as the highest
priority because of the high potential for risk reduction and cost
savings that could be achieved with reduced emissions from the
waste combustion facilities. Indirect Exposure Characteriza-

27



Table 2-2. (Continued).

Program
Office

Higher Priority
Needs

Medium Priority
Needs

Lower Priority
Needs

Regions
(RCRA Needs)

- Particle Size Distribution Testing
Methods in Support of Air Modeling

- Develop Ecological Risk Screening
Values for Various Exposure Scenarios

- Natural Attenuation for Chlorinated
Solvents

Improve the Total Organic Emission
(TOE) Test Methods

Enhance Dry Gas Air Dispersion
Models

Enhance Guidance on Synergistic
Effects When Deal with Mixtures
(Low Priority)

Fill Data Gaps in IRIS and HEAST
Databases

Ecological Toxicity Mechanisms of
Action for Endocrine Disruptors
Improved Biotransfer and Uptake
Factors for Risk Assessments

Modify TCLP to Address Oily Wastes

Develop a Test for Corrosivity of a
Solid

Develop a Test for Ignitability of a
Solid .
Develop a Test to Evaluate the
Permanence of Stabilized Wastes

OERR

Site Specific Technical Support
Technical Support Centers

Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center (EPIC)

- START

Center for Exposure Assessment
Modeling)

Establish a Technical Support
Center for Ecological Risk
Assessment

Technology Transfer -- Seminars
and Courses

Program Office Support --
Presumptive Remedies, Soil
Screening, etc.

Technology Transfer - ATTIC, etc.

Site Remediation Research
- Ground Water Containment
- DNAPL Remediation Methods
- Subsurface Reaction Walls
- Phytoremediation

Oil Spills Research

- Technical Correction on Swirling
Flask Test for Dispersants

- Develop Surface Washing
Effectiveness Test

Oil Spills Research

- Develop Bioremediation
Strategies

- Ecological Impacts of
Countermeasures

13



Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

This document describes a strategy to focus waste research at
a national level to reduce the greatest risks to people and the
environment. This strategy builds upon the principles set forth
in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and Office of Research and Development (ORD) strategic plans.
Key scientists, engineers, and environmental professionals were
engaged in its development to achieve real progress in meet-
ing the needs identified by the Office of Solid Waste and Emer-
gency Response (OSWER), Regional Offices, and other stake-
holders and to advance the state of the science. This strategy
identifies four research topic areas which correspond to the
major waste-related environmental problems (contaminated
ground water, contaminated soil/vadose zone, emissions from
waste combustion facilities, and active waste management fa-
cilities). The strategy prioritizes research activities that ORD
should undertake through Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00).

This document is intended to be a “living document” and will be
updated as needed to remain current with identified customer
needs and the state of the science in waste research. The
research needs and priorities described in this document re-
flect decisions made in the latter half of Fiscal Year 1997 (FY97).
ORD’s waste research program has continued to evolve since
then.

Purpose

The purpose of this strategy is to apply ORD’s strategic prin-
ciples, goals, and ranking criteria to waste problems identified
by OSWER and other stakeholders to set priorities for waste-
related research. These priorities will be used to focus the ef-
forts of ORD sponsored research (including the use of grants)
and form the basis for EPA's coordination with other research
organizations and stakeholders.

Structure of the Plan

This report is organized into three chapters. Chapter 1 sum-
marizes the major waste problems facing the United States,
associated risks to human health and the environment, and costs
of proper management and cleanup. Chapter 2 contains the
essence of the strategy. It first lists waste research needs; then
describes the four environmental problem areas plus technical
support along with related research activities for each topic;
and finally presents the ranking of the activities with the ration-
ales for the rankings. The conclusions of the strategy are dis-
cussed in Chapter 3 along with outstanding issues that require
further evaluation.

Nature and Scope of the Problem - :

This strategy covers research necessary to support both the
Proper management of solid and hazardous wastes, and the
effective remediation of contaminated waste sites. As such, it
responds to two major legislative mandates and large programs

within the USEPA — The Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or
“Superfund”) and their amendments.

The number of existing RCRA waste management facilities and
abandoned Superfund waste sites is very large and their po-
tential risks to human health may be significant because of nu-
merous releases of contaminants to the environment.

Abandoned waste sites present a risk to human health. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
found that some heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and
other specific substances occur at levels of health concern in
the bodies of exposed people. ATSDR concluded that “uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites and unplanned releases of haz-
ardous substances that constitute emergency events are a major
environmental threat to human health.” (ATSDR, 1996)

Waste management and remediation also have major economic
impacts. The average remedial action cost at a Superfund site
was about $9 million per site in1996 (U.S. EPA, 1996a). One
report concluded that over the next 30 years, the nation as a
whole will spend $480 billion to $1 trillion, with a “best guess” of
$750 billion, cleaning up sites. (Russell et al., 1991, NRC, 1994).

: Chapter 2. Setting Research Priorities

xi

Priorities for waste-related research were set by using the gen-
eral strategic principles, methods, and criteria identified in the
ORD Strategic Plan and then adapting them to waste research
topics and activities. This entailed developing a ranking scheme
comprised of the following steps: (1) Identify research needs,
(2) identify Congressional directives, (3) identify research topic
areas and activities, (4) rank research activities, (5) determine
how to best accomplish research activities (internal expertise,
other areas within ORD, external coordination outside EPA,
grants), and (6) prioritize research activities for funding.

Identification of Research Needs

Research needs were identified from two major sources: those
identified by the Committee for Environment and Natural Re-
sources (CENR) that were relevant to the EPA’s mission, and
those identified by the various programs within the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Regional waste
offices. The latter needs were sorted and categorized as.either
higher, medium, or lower priority needs. Over one hundred
needs were identified during this exercise.

Identification of Congressional Directives

The Congress has directed ORD to conduct certain types of
Superfund related activities through legislation and appropria-
tions language. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evalu-
ation (SITE) Program was identified as having Congressional
direction included in appropriations’ language.



Table A-6. (Continued).

Risk Research Needs Sorted by Major Source of Who/Where
Paradigm Research Activities Research Will Need Be
Element Need Addressed
_
Monitoring SPATIAL ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZED SAMPLING DESIGNS
- Innovative site characterization (especially as related to | OSW ORD Waste Research Plan
natural attenuation). oust

SURFACE / SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

- Innovative site characterization (especially as related to | OSW ORD Waste Research Plan
natural attenuation). OUST
OERR
Regions

- Develop innovative techniques for locating DNAPLs in OERR ORD Waste Research Plan
the subsurface.

- Develop methods for monitoring and evaluating the OERR
performance of barriers designed to control migration of
contaminated groundwater, especially DNAPLs.

MONITORING AND CHARACTERIZATION TECHNICAL SUPPORT

> Technical support on sampling and analysis and CEMS OsSW ORD Waste Research Plan
for PICs, metals, and PM.
- RCRAcorrective action technical support. osw ORD Waste Research Plan

- Superfund site-specific monitoring and characterization OERR ORD Waste Research Plan
(including remote sensing) technical support. Regions

- Training courses: fate and transport of contaminants and | Regions
DNAPLs.

49



References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1996.
Report to Congress 1993, 1994, 1995. U.S. Department of
Human Health Services, Public Health Service, 1996.

Carlin, A., P.F. Scodari, and D. H. Gamer. 1992. Environmental
Investments: The Cost of Cleaning Up. Environment34(2):12-
20, 38-44,

Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources. A Na-
tional R&D Strategy for Toxic Substances and Hazardous and

Solid Wastes. Washington, DC: National Science and Tech-

nology Council, 1995.

Energy Administration. 1995. Petroleum Supply Annual |. Wash-
ington DC: U.S. Department of Energy, May 1995.

Gatchett, A., and K. Edwards. 1998. SITE Program Success:
Cost Savings to Government and Increased Revenue for
Technology Vendors. Remediation 8(4).

Higgins, B. W. 1996. The Case for Municipal Waste Combus-
tion. Environmental Solutions, Vol. 9, No. 10:27-32.

Industrial Economics, Inc. 1991. Initial Assessment of the Scope
of the Contaminated Media Problem. Washington, DC: EPA
Office of Policy Analysis and Contaminated Media Cluster.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1989.
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans. Lyon, France.

Laws, Elliott P. 1996. Correspondence to Genevieve
Matanowski, Ph.D., EPA Science Advisory Board, Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

* National Academy of Sciences. 1994. Science and Judge in
Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Research Coun-
cil.

National Environmental Law Center. 1995. Nowhere to Hide.
August.

National Research Council. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Wa-
ter Cleanup. Washington, DC, National Science Press.

National Response Center. 1996. National Data Bases: Acute
Hazard Events Data Base, Accident Release Information
Program, Emergency Release Notification System, Hazard-
ous Materials Information System, Mariné Safety Information
System, National Response Center Incident Reporting Sys-
tems. Washington, DC.

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1991. Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Program
Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, January.

35,

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1996a. Emer-
gency Response Notification System (ERNS) Database.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1996b. Compre-
hensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS). Washington, DC: U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency.

Office of Emergency and Remedial! Response. 1996c. National
Environmental Indicators Data Compilation. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of Research and Development. 1997a. 1997 Update to
ORD’s Strategic Plan, EPA/600/R-97/015. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of Research and Development. 1997c. Contaminated
Sediments Research Work Plan - Draft. Washington, DC:
U.S.-Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of Research and Development. 1997d. Human Health
Risk Assessment Research - Draft.. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of Research and Development. 1997e. Ecosystems
Protection Research Plan - Draft. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of Research and Development. 1998. Pollution Preven-
tion Research Strategy. Washington, oe: U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.

Office of Science and Technology. 1996. Fue! Oxygenates and
Water Quality: Current Understanding of Sources, Occur-
rence in Natural Waters, Environmental Behavior, Fate, and
Significance. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, March.

Office of Solid Waste. 1993a. RCRA Data Summary. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of Solid Waste. 1993b. The Biennial RCRA Hazardous
Waste Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.

Office of Solid Waste. 1993c. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Final Rulemaking on Corrective Action for Solid Waste
Management Units. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

Office of Solid Waste. 1995a. Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States: 1995 Update. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Office of Solid Waste. 1995b. Regulatory Impact Assessment
for Propose Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards
- Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.



Glossary of Terms

bioavailability: The availability of a chemical to an animal,
plant or microorganism. It may be assayed by measurement of
uptake, toxicity or biodegradability.

biomarker: A measurable indicator of exposure or effect in
a biological receptor.

biodegradation: The biological conversion of an organic
compound to products of simpler structure, often inorganic
products.

bioremediation: The treatment of contaminants by
biodegradation to reduce their concentration.

biosensor: An analytical device composed of a biological
recognition element (enzyme, receptor, DNA, antibody, or mi-
croorganism) in intimate contact witha signal transducer (e.g.,
electrochemical, optical, thermal, or acoustic) that together
relate the concentration or chemical property of an analyte toa
measurable electronic signal.

cellular biology: The study of processes and interactions at
the cellular level.

cone penetrometer: A hydraulically driven [geotechnical] too!
for characterizing the arrangement of hydrogeologic materials.

dose-response assessment: The evaluation of the relation-
ship between chemical exposure concentrations (dose) and the
incidence of adverse effects in humans or other species (re-
sponse).

exposure assessment: The determination of the conditions
under which people could be exposed to contaminants and the
doses that occur as a result of such exposure scenarios.

hazard assessment: The activities of hazard identification and
dose-response assessment.

hazard identification: The determination of the identities and
quantities of chemicals present as contaminants in the environ-
ment or manufactured for various uses, and the types of hazards
they may pose to human health.

hydrofracturing: The injection of water into [contaminated]
consolidated sediments to create fractures that increase the
permeability of the sediments, thereby increasing the effective-
ness of in situ treatment processes.

immunoaffinity: A separation technique using
chromatography specific antibodies to extract the target
analyte(s) from an environmental or biological matrix prior to
detection by immunoassay or instrumental methods.

immunoassay: An analytical method based on the interaction
of a specific antibody with its target analyte(s) used for detection
and quantitation. Although based on biological reagents, immu-
noassays are physical assays.

immunochemical method: Analytical methods based on the
reaction of a specific antibody with its target analyte(s) for
extraction, cleanup, concentration, detection and quantitation.

immunochemistry: A scientific discipline bridging chemistry
and biology, providing highly specific and precise quantitative
methods for the study of environmental contaminants and
human exposure assessment.

incineration: Thermal destruction of waste materials by
oxidation.

innovative technology: Technology lacking sufficient pub-
lished cost and performance data.

in-situ remediation: Remediation processes that are pro-
cesses applied “in place” in the ground, without excavation of the
contaminated soil.

karst terrain: An irregular limestone region with sinks,
underground streams and caverns. 7

kriging: A statistical procedure that geologist use to
characterize subsurface; kriging maximizes the information
obtained from a given number of samples.

mechanistic data: Information describing the process of how
a toxic reaction occurs in an organism.

methodological research: Research conducted to develop
“improved procedures to evaluate risks. _

mixed wastes: Wastes containing radio nuclides as well as
other non-radioactive contaminants.

nonaqueous-phase liquid: A liquid consisting of organic
compounds that are not completely miscible with water.
natural attenuation: Naturally occurring processes in the .
environment that act without human intervention to reduce the
mass, toxicity, mobility, volume or concentration of contami-
nants.

pharmacokinetics: The field of study concerned with defining,
through measurement or modeling, the absorption, distribution,
metabolism, and the excretion of drugs or chemicals in a
biological system as a function of time.

physiologically based: Pharmacokinetics based on mea-
sured pharmacokinetics (PBPK) physiological variables such
as blood flows through organs.

phytoremediation: Set of processes that clean contaminated
sites using plants.

risk assessment: The systematic, scientific characterization
of potential adverse effects of human or ecological exposures to
hazardous agents or activities.

37