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
