information that should be made available to the public," said King. "We question what the chemical industry has to hide." Environmental groups are discussing their official response to EPA's decision and are planning to release some of the information independendy. The 1992 act required EPA to "conduct a comprehensive national survey of data regarding aquatic sediment quality in the United States." The agency must "compile all existing information on the quantity, chemical and physical composition, and geographic location of pollutants in aquatic sediment, including the probable source of such pollutants and identification of those sediments that are contaminated." The act required that diis information be reported to Congress in 1994 and every two years after According to EPA, industry groups, including the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, and the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Authorities, mounted a strong attack on the report, criticizing its rationale, methodology, and data handling. For the point source inventory, the agency searched 1992 data from the Toxics Release Inventory and the Permit Compliance System (PCS) for releases of chemicals known to cause sediment contamination. To express the impact of these discharges, the release data were combined with information about chemical toxicity and fate to calculate a relative hazard score. The hazard scores were used to sort the data according to the chemicals, geographic areas and industries of greatest potential concern Industry critics attacked the hazard ranking scheme, arguing that it was impossible to rank chemicals nationwide. EPA's handling of the PCS data for monitored releases that fall below detection limits was also disputed. Critics said EPA's approach of assuming nondetect values are equal to half the detection limit may greatly overestimate chemical releases. But other water quality scientists describe EPA's handling of die nondetect data as conservative. REBECCA RENNER
NEWS TECHNOLOGY DOE labs join Cal/EPA in program to evaluate new environmental technologies Department of Energy scientists and labs in California will begin working with the California Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate new environmental technologies under a recently signed pact. The agreement, reached Dec. 5, allows the state to contract with DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence-Berkeley Lab, and a branch of Sandia National Lab in Livermore to evaluate technologies for the state's environmental technology certification program The evaluation program started last year, and through it manufacturer claims for some 15 technologies have been certified and a handful of others are in the pipeline, according to a Cal/EPA spokesperson. Its goal is to speed acceptance and use of new and innovative environmental technologies by providing an independent state evaluation. The program's focus has been on hazardous waste-related technologies for treatment monitoring remediation pollution prevention and measurement {ES&T,eb 1995 72A. "We wanted to build our talent base, and there is lots of talent in the national labs," said G. Wolf-
gang Fuhs, manager of technology evaluation in the state's Department of Toxics Substance Control. "Through the contract, members of their staff can join our evaluation teams and look into the soundness of, for instance, certain treatment or measurement technologies." DOE, he added, has scientific expertise and equipment the state lacks. The overall certification decision would remain with the state, however. The labs would evaluate technologies, when requested by California, and submit a report for state review. Fuhs noted that DOE labs will also make good testing grounds for cleanup technologies because they are contaminated themselves. Indeed, Lawrence Livermore is a Superfund site, said Richard Ragaini, senior scientist in DOE's Environmental Restoration Division, and DOE is trying several new technologies there and at other DOE Superfund sites. Besides providing technics! expertise the California pro £fram may give DOE a better understanding of what is needed to bring a DOE-developed technology to commercialization Ragaini said
Cal/EPA offers deal to cut certification cost Through a $1.7 million federal grant, the California EPA plans to expand the state's environmental technology certification program. A portion of the grant, which came from the federal EPA's Environmental Technology Initiative, will provide a 45% subsidy in fees that technology manufacturers usually pay to have the state examine their technologies. The remainder will help California increase the size of its program. The two-year-old state program provides a means for environmental technology marketers to get claims for a new technology certified. Such certification improves acceptance and increases sales of a new
7 0 A • VOL. 30, NO. 2, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
technology. Currently only hazardous waste-related technologies are eligible, but expansion to water and multimedia technologies is being considered. With the three-year grant, the federal EPA intends to help California develop a model other states may use to develop their own technology certification programs, according to a Cal/EPA official. Consequently, the state wishes to increase the number of applicants for certification of new technologies. For more information, contact Tom Scheffelin of Cal/EPA at (916) 327-5789. Applications for reduced fees are due March 15. —JEFF JOHNSON
Time and talent are what DOE offers the state, Ragaini said. The Lawrence Livermore Lab is currently developing risk assessments, waste characterization, detection, remediation, and monitoring technologies, but he said its role will broaden to include other areas California may wish
to have evaluated. The lab is now evaluating for the state an enzyme immunoassay measurement technology for indicating polynucleated aromatic hydrocarbons and may verify an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer technology. Along with evaluating technol-
ogies, Lawrence Livermore may serve as a funnel to bring DOEsupported technologies, developed at sites around the country, to the state for evaluation, Ragaini predicted. He stressed, of course, that the evaluation would not be done by DOE in these cases. —JEFF JOHNSON
EPA using more innovative cleanup technologies, says GAO EPA has increased the use of innovative technologies for Superfund site cleanups, but greater use of these technologies will depend on factors beyond the agency's control, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO). Innovative technologies were used in about 20% of EPA's cleanup decisions made during 1994 at Superfund sites, up from 6% in 1986, according to Lawrence Dyckman, GAO associate director for Environmental Protection Issues, Resources, Community and Economic Development. Dyckman presented the assessment to a Dec. 5 hearing of the House Science Committee on Energy and Environment which is evaluating the federal role in developing new cleanup technologies. Commenting on the GAO report, Toby Clark, director of the nonprofit Clean Sites Corporation, said, "EPA has done surprisingly well at encouraging innovative technologies. In fact, this administration is more supportive of environmental technology development than any other I've seen. I believe that there will be a further increase in their use." EPA considers a technology to be innovative if it has not been used before in a full scale application or if it is the first application of an existing technology to a new contaminant. These technologies lack the cost and performance data necessary to support their routine use. Factors that have inhibited the widespread use of innovative technologies at Superfund sites, according to GAO, are regulatory standards, technical limitations, scarce track records, and the lack of industry incentives. Innovative technologies have difficulty meeting the regulatory cleanup standards at many Superfund sites, Dyckman said. But
new EPA initiatives and congressional Superfund reauthorization proposals would make it easier for innovative technologies to compete with established methods. These proposed standards may be easier for innovative technologies to meet, he said. House and Senate Superfund proposals would also reduce the number of federal and state requirements on Superfund cleanups to facilitate the use of new technologies. New land-usebased cleanup standards will also make it easier for innovative technologies to compete with established methods according to Clark Innovative technologies may be applicable only to certain site conditions and specific types of contamination, according to GAO. For example, these technologies are generally not suited for cleaning up sites with highly toxic contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls or dioxin. EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, part of the Office of
Research and Development, tests unproven technologies at Superfund sites and publishes information on the performance of new technologies. In 1995, SITE spent about $12 million to demonstrate 11 technologies. This funding level was about 20% of the Superfund R&D budget, Dyckman said. The most commonly used new technologies are soil vapor extraction, which flushes contaminants into the air for further treatment, and bioremediation of in situ contaminants and excavated materials. Also speaking at the hearing, Robert Huggett, EPA assistant administrator for research and development, said that the SITE program "has significantly reduced the uncertainty and cost associated with site remediation." A recent EPA assessment of 17 sites showed a total savings of $21 million at each site, or a 62% saving over conventional technology. At the hearing, GAO was asked to substantiate the EPA cost savings claims. REBECCA RENNER
Cleanup decisions using innovative technologies EPA has increasingly used innovative technologies in cleanup actions since 1986, although the total has declined in the past few years. In 1994,20% of all cleanup actions involved innovative technologies, according to the General Accounting Office.
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office, "Superfund: Use of fnnovattve Technologies for Site Cleanups," testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, House of Representatives (GAO/T-RCED-96-45).
VOL. 30, NO. 2, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 7 1 A
