The use of innovative treatment technologies at superfund sites

ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1988;8:181-191

181

THE USE OF INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AT SUPERFUND SITES

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, TUFTS UNIVERSITY

In late 1985, the Office of Solid Waste of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the Center for Environmental Management (CEM) of Tufts University to convene a National Hazardous Waste forum of experts from academia, government, industry, and public-interest groups to discuss emerging or troublesome hazardous waste management issues. It was hoped that through thoughtful consideration, new directions in the nation's hazardous waste management strategy could be developed. CEM established a steering committee to help select issues that could best be considered by a forum process. Representatives were chosen from Tufts University (Anthony Cortese, Chairman), the EPA (Joan Warren), the Chemical Manufacturers Association (Mort Mullins of the Monsanto Company), the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (David Leu of California), the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (Charles Robertson of ENSCO), the National Solid Waste Management Association (Peter Daley of Chemical Waste Management), and an environmental group (Linda Greer of the Environmental Defense Fund). Also in attendance were a facilitator (John McGlennon of ERM-McGlennon) and the project coordinator (Dana Duxbury of CEM). The committee met on October 7, 1985, and November 25, 1985, to discuss the goals of the forum, the forum meeting process, dates, and places, and to identify forum participants. The Steering Committee proposed that there be a National Hazardous Waste Forum on Mobile Treatment Units (also called Transportable Treatment Units, ITUs) in February 1986. The Steering Committee identified the following issues to be addressed by the forum. 0195-9255/88

182

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Information Development The following information was considered critical to the forum. • The development of a catalog of TTU technologies and systems, descriptions of the technologies, and a list of companies with TI~Us • A list of waste problems and waste streams that could be addressed by TTUs.

Major Issues The major issues the forum would address were as follows. • The role that TTUs can play in solving the nation's hazardous waste management problems • The problems concerning the use of TI'Us • Permitting and siting issues relating to TTUs • Advantages and disadvantages of transportable treatment technology in managing hazardous waste • Development of strategies to accelerate use of TTUs

Use of TTUs Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The forum participants believed that environmentally sound TTUs can and should be an important component of the nation's hazardous waste management strategy. Use of TTUs should be encouraged for a number of reasons. TTUs can help ensure the availability of safe hazardous waste treatment, recycling, and disposal capacity by reducing the quantity and toxicity of waste that would otherwise go to off-site disposal. TTUs can help accomplish several specific RCRA goals established by Congress in the 1984 RCRA Amendments. • As a safe alternative to land disposal for hazardous waste generators (especially small and medium-sized generators), TTUs can help phase out land disposal (RCRA § 201). • TTUs can encourage waste minimization and reduction by providing generators with intermittent processing and treatment capability which many generators could not afford to install permanently (RCRA § 224). • As a waste management alternative which can destroy or detoxify wastes, TTUs can help encourage hazardous waste generators and others to voluntarily provide for corrective action of past waste disposal problems on their property (RCRA §§ 206 and 207).

INNOVATIVE SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

183

• Encouraging the use of TTUs can help promote new and innovative treatment technologies (RCRA § 214). Because T r U s bring the treatment technology to the site of waste generation, use of TTUs can reduce the environmental risk of hazardous waste transportation to off-site disposal facilities. TTUs can reduce the need for large, centrally located, commercial treatment and disposal facilities which are often opposed by local communities. The use of TTUs answers the concerns of many citizens that wastes should be treated where they are generated and not brought to another community for treatment or disposal. TTUs can reduce industrial waste discharges into publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities by providing dischargers (who have the capability to store their wastes temporarily) with pretreatment capability which might otherwise not be feasible as a permanent installation. Because they generally employ treatment and destruction technology, TI'Us can lead to permanent solutions in remedial action such as those under the federal Superfund program. Such a strategy to utilize treatment and destruction technology will also minimize environmental risks and costs of transportation in remedial actions, reduce use of off-site disposal capacity in remedial actions, saving capacity for newly generated waste, cut long-term costs of remedial actions by encouraging treatment and destruction of wastes, and reduce off-site removal in remedial actions where such removal would tend to transfer the problem to another community. TTUs can be utilized to reduce public health and environmental risks in emergencies caused by spills or sudden releases of petroleum products, chemicals, and wastes. Additionally, TTUs can reduce a generator's liability stemming from off-site disposal.

RCRA Impediments to the Use of TTUs There are several impediments to the use of TTUs under the current EPA hazardous waste management program developed pursuant to RCRA and its 1984 amendments. Under current interpretation of RCRA regulations, a permit is required for each site of T r u operation, not for each T r u . Each time a TTU is moved to a new site for the first time (even if the T r u will be at the site for a few days or several weeks), it must obtain a new RCRA permit. This triggers requirements for 45-day public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearing. The effect is to require TTUs to go through a permitting process repeatedly; the time delays and cost involved create a major disincentive for the use of TrUs. In contrast, a permanent treatment facility must go through the permitting process only once for the duration of its RCRA permit (which can be up to 10 years). Presently, the owner of a site where a TTU is to be used must cosign the

184

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT

RCRA permit along with the TTU owner. The current definition of "facility" in 40 CFR 260.10 includes the treatment unit, the specific site at which the treatment unit is located and the contiguous land owned by the person who owns the operations which produce the waste. Both the TTU operator and the generator/landowner must be permittees, making them jointly and severally liable for all permit conditions. As a permittee, the landowner is subject to the requirements of RCRA §§ 3004(u) and (v) for identification and corrective action for all solid waste management units on the owner's land. A generator who formerly shipped hazardous waste off-site for disposal (often land disposal) and now decides to treat waste on site by using a TTU becomes a permittee and must often take extensive action to correct past disposal problems. Generators who continue to use the less environmentally desirable technique of off-site land disposal are not subject to any such regulations. These requirements create a major disincentive for generators to use T r u s on waste regulated under RCRA. Under current RCRA regulations, residues from treatment of listed hazardous wastes are considered to be hazardous and must be managed as hazardous waste, unless delisted (ie, determined to be nonhazardous). The formal delisting procedure usually takes a minimum of 6 to 9 months and only applies to a specific waste stream and its treatment residue. A generator and TTU operator must go through a lengthy delisting procedure for each known waste stream. This is a significant problem for all treatment facilities, both transportable and fixed. Since all processes have some residue, the generator is still responsible for sending this waste off-site for disposal. The effect of this requirement is to discourage waste generators from using TTUs as an alternative to land disposal.

RCRA Recommendations to Increase the Use Of TTUs The forum made five recommendation designed to facilitate the use of TTUs.

Recommendation 1: Develop a 7TU Permitting Process The forum participants believed that TTUs should meet the same substantive environmental standards as permanent treatment facilities. There may, however, be certain classes of treatment technologies, such as dewatering or phase separation, that do not warrant the same expenditure of regulatory and public resources as more hazardous technologies. The forum participants felt that, generally, the regulatory mechanisms for a particular treatment technology should depend on the potential for creating a safety hazard or discharging hazardous contaminants into the environment. Forum participants recommended that TTUs with a low potential for creating a safety hazard and/or minimal environmental discharge be subject to exemptions from RCRA permitting or to regulation by permits-by-rule. For TTUs with potential for creating a safety hazard and/or discharging haz-

INNOVATIVE SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

185

ardous contaminants to the environment, forum members believed that all the substantive RCRA requirements applicable to permanent treatment facilities should apply. However, a consensus was reached that a procedural modification of the current permitting process is necessary to ensure increased use of TrUs. The forum group believed that procedural modifications could be accomplished and still meet the public participation goals of RCRA § 7004(b) (2). These recommendations were based on a review of the current RCRA permitting process, the requirements of RCRA and the permitting process for PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Recommendation 2: Develop a Definition of TTUs Treatment Units The forum participants recommended that a TTU be carefully defined to ensure that the treatment unit is truly transportable and will not become a semipermanent or permanent facility. TransportAble treatment units should be defined as any equipment or device for the treatment of solid or hazardous waste which is designed and fabricated so as to be moved from one location to another and satisfies the following conditions: • For units taken to sites of waste generation, a TTU should remain on site for no longer than 90 days after start of the treatment operation. A unit could revisit the same generator site for up to an additional 90 days within a 365-day calendar period. There would be no limitation on the number of times a unit could revisit a cite. • A TTU taken to the site of an RCRA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or state cleanup action would be allowed to remain on site for up to 4 years before being required to leave the site. An unlimited number of revisitations would be allowed during the 4-year remedial treatment period. Such permits should have a condition governing the extent to which newly generated wastes could also be handled by the TI'U. • A TI'U taken to the site of a waste generator or an RCRA cleanup action would be allowed an additional 90-day extension at any location provided that the Regional Administrator or authorized state finds that such an extension is justified.

Recommendation 3: Separation of TTUs and Corrective Action at NonTreatment, Storage, or Disposal Generator Sites There is currently no federal statutory authority to require corrective action at a site of hazardous waste generation that does not contain an interim status or permitted treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) unit. Absent a change in the

186

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

definition of "facility" in 40 CFR 260.10 (which would allow permitting T r U s separately from appurtenant real estate), the presence of a TTU at such a generator site could make the entire property a TSD "facility" and trigger corrective action requirements. Such a result would likely undermine the voluntary cleanup of hazardous releases from a generator's solid waste units. Generators are faced with an "all or none" proposition: Bring a TI'U onto a site for treatment and destruction and have to clean up the entire site because the T r u made the entire land area a "facility," or continue off-site disposal, not be considered a "facility," and not be responsible for cleaning up other waste on the site. Participants in the forum believed that the current requirements create a major barrier to the use of TTUs at generator sites. One solution to this problem would be the decoupling of TTU permitting from the corrective action policy instituted by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA. This would create a positive incentive over the next 2 to 3 years for generators to use onsite treatment. Such a solution could also encourage voluntary cleanup actions to remediate releases from units that may contain hazardous materials. RCRA § 7003 and CERCLA § 106 remain available for use at any such generator sites where there is a threat to human health or the environment. The forum group agreed that the authority to conduct corrective action at a generator site that does not also contain an interim status or permitted TSD unit is an issue that should be addressed in the 1989 RCRA reauthorization.

Recommendation 4: Clarify Construction Ban as It Applies to TTUs The current regulatory definition of "physical construction" means excavation, movement of earth, erection of forms or structure, or similar activity to prepare a hazardous management facility to accept hazardous waste. In addition, RCRA § 3005(a) specifies that the construction of any new facility for the treatment, storage or disposal of any hazardous waste is prohibited except in accordance with a permit. Neither the construction ban nor the regulatory definition of physical construction is viewed as a major impediment to the use of T r U s , provided that the fabrication of such units at the factory and/or their mere presence at the site does not represent a violation of this construction ban. Because the units can be removed in a short time, and site preparation may take only a brief period, this policy does not significantly impede the use of "lq'Us. The basis of the construction ban is that once substantial capital investment is made and physical structures installed, it would be very difficult to stop the permitting of a TSD facility even when significant questions concerning the adequacy of the facility are raised during the permit review or hearing process. This situation does not exist with T r U s because, by definition, they do not involve or require the construction or establishment of structures that cannot be

INNOVATIVE SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

187

removed from a community in a very brief period of time. The construction ban would only prevent the actual installation of the unit or preparation of the site for acceptance of the unit.

Recommendation 5: Consider Hazardous Waste Treatment Residuals When Permitting 7TUs The forum members reached consensus on the issue that hazardous waste treatment residuals be considered for control as part of the initial permitting process for all treatment facilities (mobile and permanen0, and not be subject to a separate delisting process. The EPA should establish and publish generic criteria for determining which hazardous waste treatment residuals are hazardous and which are not hazardous. The forum participants believed that the federal or state permitting agency should require each permittee to perform testing and monitoring to assess the quality of treatment residuals in terms of these criteria. Those residuals which are hazardous based on analysis would be managed as hazardous wastes under RCRA. Other residuals would be handled as nonhazardous waste.

Special Concerns About the Use of TTUs T I E s are an important and essential component of the nation's hazardous waste management strategy. TTUs raise some special concerns which federal and state regulatory officials should consider. Because TTUs are transportable, treatment using TrUs may be more frequent and may be performed at an increased number of locations. This may require increased regulatory resources for field verification of T r U location and operation relative to permit requirements. Waste handling and release problems for TTUs are most common during startup and shut-down of the units. Because T I U s may be moved frequently from one site to another, there is an increased potential for problems when compared with a fixed facility. Use of TTUs can help to minimize the amount of waste disposed of through increased use of treatment but their use may be perceived by the public as a disincentive to source reduction, for example, changes in process design. Rezoning of an area from light to heavy industry may be necessary in order to use a TTU at a given site because many local jurisdictions classify hazardous waste management as heavy industry. The T r u regulatory policy must be structured in a manner to control the creation of "satellite" treatment centers---locations where wastes were not previously located or generated. In addition, the TITI policy must guard against constant "cycling" of different units to the same facility to avoid fixed-facility permitting. These special conditions can be addressed via permit conditions. Use of TI'Us will increase the number of sites where hazardous waste treatment

188

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

residuals will be produced and must be managed. In most instances, the residuals should be the property and responsibility of the generator of the waste. "VFUs may be viewed by the general population as an alternative to building large, fixed, centrally located, commercial treatment and disposal facilities. Use of TTUs can reduce but not eliminate the need for fixed commercial facilities. Care should be taken in describing the use of TTUs in EPA communications to emphasize that "ITUs are an important component of a comprehensive waste management strategy which also includes waste reduction, recycling, on-site treatment and off-site treatment.

Use of Innovative Treatment Technologies At Superfund Sites During the initial forum discussion concerning the use of TTUs, there was general consensus that TTUs could be used effectively in remedial actions at hazardous waste sites. Because the type of technologies used in a transportable mode often employ treatment or destruction methods, increased use of TTUs could lead to permanent remedial actions at such sites. Considering the difficulties in permitting "[TUs for currently generated hazardous waste under RCRA jurisdiction, TTUs will have the greatest applicability to remedial actions in the near future. Accordingly, the forum participants agreed to examine the current Superfund decision-making process concerning selection of remedial action technologies to identify the impediments to the use of innovative technologies, including TTUs, in remedial actions under Superfund. This review led to the conclusion that there are elements which result in a bias against the use of innovative treatment technologies, including TTUs. The technologies often have not had the opportunity to be proven effective on a commercial scale or have not been used for specific applications at hazardous waste sites. Limited data on cost and operational history has resulted in screening out innovative technologies early in the evaluation process. Because of the liability for damages resulting from failure of the technologies, contractors, potentially responsible parties, and government alike are reluctant to recommend the use of innovative technologies that have not been fully demonstrated to remedy hazardous waste problems. Forum participants established the following goal for hazardous waste cleanups: design a technically sound process with effective public participation to evaluate and select innovative technologies for remedial actions at Superfund sites which will facilitate the rapid application of innovative technology and result in more permanent cleanup of such sites. In attempting to achieve this goal, the forum group examined methods to remove barriers to the use of innovative technologies (including TTUs) and to establish a regulatory and institutional framework to facilitate the rapid application of such technologies at Superfund sites.

INNOVATIVE SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

189

The forum group believed that the EPA should consider the following recommendations as a means to encourage the permanent cleanup of more Superfund sites. These recommendations can be implemented through changes in EPA guidance.

Recommendation 1: Increase Community Education and Information on TTUs Community education and information are key factors to the acceptance and use of innovative technology in the Superfund program. Two types of community education were recommended. First, a program should be established to educate and inform the general public concerning innovative technology, including TTUs. This program should identify both their advantages and risks. Second, potential site specific applications of innovative technology should be presented to affected and interested community groups early in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process.

Recommendation 2: Notify Vendors Early in the RI/FS Process Early involvement of potential vendors of innovative technology through publication of information about a site and its wastes was recommended. One-page fact sheets should be prepared for each site in the Superfund Comprehensive Achievements Plan (SCAP), which would describe site location, size, media impacted, and general types of contaminants. A notice should be published in the Commerce Business Daily listing the sites and announcing that detailed information will be made available on request through an established point of contact in the EPA. The EPA would be required to provide the staffing to administer this process and establish a mailing list of interested vendors by site.

Recommendation 3: Provide Site-Specific Waste Samples to Vendors Innovative technology vendors and contractors should be allowed the opportunity to perform an analysis of actual site wastes and to test the capability of their technology using these wastes. Notice of the availability of site-specific samples should be published in the Commerce Business Daily and the Federal Register. Also, notice could be sent directly to those vendors indicating interest at the SCAP notification stage. Small volume "representative" samples should be collected and made available to the vendor at the vendor's cost. A form should be shipped to the vendor with the sample requesting a description of the treatment process, the effectiveness of the process in terms of the required feasibility analysis, and cost data. This form

190

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT

should be completed by the vendor based upon the results of the specific waste sample processed. The EPA should provide the staffing to administer this process and address the issues associated with providing hazardous waste samples. Obtaining a representative site sample, in many cases, would not be a simple task and no warrant could be made concerning its representativeness. The information obtained from the vendors would prove extremely useful to the EPA in performing the site-specific feasibility study and in establishing a technology data file, and would accelerate technology transfer.

Recommendation 4: Develop a Methodology for Life-Cycle Costing Forum participants recommended that remedial alternatives should be evaluated on an equal cost basis. Remedial solutions that contain the waste and therefore present the potential for future actions to provide a permanent solution should be addressed using life-cycle costing. Such costing would include estimates of present and future costs and the reliability and permanence of the solution. The EPA should proceed immediately to evaluate historic cost information and develop a methodology for a life-cycle costing approach to Superfund sites. Once developed, this methodology should be made a requirement of the feasibility study process. This approach would result in a more valid comparison of remedial alternatives and would alter the present economic cost bias for containment solutions. It could result in initial higher costs for site remediation due to more permanent solutions being implemented.

Recommendation 5: Utilize Performance Data in Lieu of a Record of Operating History The forum members recommended that innovative technology should be evaluated in a modified (but consistent) feasibility study approach by having the vendor provide the information necessary to perform the feasibility analysis. The modification would be an analysis of feasibility using performance data in lieu of a record of operating history.

Recommendation 6: Determine Technological Feasibility of lnnovative Remedial Action Alternatives Forum participants recommended that the EPA specifically modify its CERCLA guidance to ensure that innovative technologies can be selected as remedial solutions at Superfund sites. The forum members felt that the current guidance allowed such technologies to be chosen but that it did not specify how such choices could be made.

INNOVATIVE SUPERFUND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

191

Recommendation 7: Base the Record of Decision Upon Classes of Technology, Incorporating Performance Standards In those instances where the feasibility study determines that innovative technology could be appropriate for the site remediation, forum participants concluded that the Record of Decision (ROD) should be prepared in a somewhat generic manner, based upon classes of technology, rather than specific unit operations. The ROD would incorporate the factors analyzed in the feasibility study and performance standards.

Recommendation 8: Require Successful On-site Demonstration of Innovative Technology The group concluded that the award of a site remediation contract incorporating innovative technology would be conditioned upon the successful on-site demonstration of the technology. If the technology does not meet the performance standards, the contractor would not be awarded the contract and would be obligated to restore the site to the condition prior to his demonstration. Forum participants believed that awarding the contract conditionally would provide the assurance necessary for the contractor to obtain the financing to meet the demonstration conditions. The demonstration would, if unsuccessful, be at the contractor's cost; if successful, the contractor would be paid in accordance with the contract provisions.

Recommendation 9: Expand the Use of Performance Guarantees to Other than Traditional Methods It was the consensus of the forum participants that performance guarantees for innovative technology should be expanded to include alternative methods such as "accelerated retainage" rather than traditional bonding or other financial assurances. The forum consensus was that other guarantee methods could be incorporated into the contract and would provide relatively the same protection to the EPA, thereby eliminating this harrier.

Although the informationin this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreementCX-811592-01-09 to the Center for Environmental Management at Tufts University, it may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.