project inventory and research framework are divided into three categories: methods used to identify potential hazards from exposure and effects; quantitative models to assess risk; and measurements of specific chemicals in the environment. "Our goal is to overlay the framework and the inventory," Reiter said, "and to begin to identify where there are common interests and where we have research gaps." At the November meeting, the working group will hear testimony from organizations that are funding endocrine disruption research, especially industrysupported research and projects under way in Europe. "We hope to rev them up enough so they will take their data and put it in a form we can include in our database," Reiter said. Eventually, the information will be available on the Internet. The White House panel's role is limited to research questions. A separate body within EPA is developing a strategy to screen and test for the endocrine-disrupting potential of the 600 pesticides and 72,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States. EPA is expected to recommend formation of a federal advisory committee to help guide the agency in this huge task. Although plans to form an advisory committee are not final, a staff member said he has received up to three calls a day seeking membership. The screening and testing strategy will be aimed largely at reducing or mitigating risk to human health and the environment, obtaining and using exposure information to set agency priorities, and developing a process to determine when tests beyond screening are necessary and how these will be validated. The staff member noted that there is a "strong technical component" needed to integrate research into the screening and testing program, but EPA's project would not revisit research. Instead, he said, the emphasis will be on regulations, noting that both the recently passed Food Quality Protection Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization call for testing to determine if chemicals can disrupt the endocrine system. —JEFF JOHNSON
NEWS TECHNOLOGY Research, regulations spur development of new CEM incinerator technologies Technology entrepreneur Mike Seltzer hopes the decision by Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) to let him demonstrate his real-time metals emissions monitoring prototype at its Ohio hazardous waste incinerator is the wave of the future. Seltzer, a research chemist at the Naval Air Center, China Lake, Calif., has developed a continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) system for metals. The technology has also caught the eye of Department of Energy officials, and it could have far-reaching consequences for incinerator operators, especially if EPA moves ahead with proposed incinerator regulations. Seltzer's prototype measures all metals, including lead and mercury. These two are of great concern to regulators, citizens living near incinerators, and incinerator operators. WTI, located near homes and a school, has faced a barrage of opposition and consequently has installed some of the world's most advanced pollution control and monitoring equipment (ES&T, Jan. 1996, p. 14A). It uses CEM for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, oxygen, total hydrocarbons, hydrochloric acid, and opacity. WTI's president saw Seltzer's prototype at an incinerator conference in April and urged him to
bring it to Ohio. The device operated at WTI for a week in September and found no detectable metal emissions. Seltzer's system couples a wellknown technology, inductively coupled argon plasma spectrometry, to hardware that draws sample stack air emissions into the plasma. The metals are broken down to atomic constituents in the plasma and measured by the spectrometer. The system can process metal measurements every two minutes; current methods require more than three weeks to process samples in a laboratory. Seltzer first developed his prototype for the Navy several years ago; then the Army sponsored further work; now DOE is interested in it for use at its own hazardous and radioactive waste incinerators and for civilian applications. Dan Burns, a senior researcher at DOE's Savannah River Plant, heads a program to encourage CEM development. Currently, DOE is supporting a six-month test of three mercury-monitoring technologies at a South Carolina cement kiln and is financing CEM tests of particulate matter at a hazardous waste incinerator in Wilmington, Del. It is also funding several multi-metal benchscale projects. continued on page 478A
Mike Seltzer tests his continuous emissions monitoring system for metals at Waste Technologies Industries incinerator at East Liverpool, Ohio. VOL.30, NO. 11, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 7 7 A
Seltzer's system is closest to market. But how fast these systems become commercial will turn on how quickly EPA promulgates its emissions regulations for incinerators, Burns noted. "Let's be clear, MACT (maximum achievable control technology) is driving this industry," he said. The MACT incinerator proposal, issued last spring, sets air emissions standards and includes CEM requirements for mercury and particulate matter (ES&T, June 1996, p. 235A). If all pollutants could be tested by CEM, Burns said, such a system would have two clear advan-
tages. Residents would have greater peace of mind knowing that emissions are being tested continuously rather than once every few years in a single test burn. And operators would have instant emissions measurements, allowing them to set waste feed, temperature, and other burn parameters to directly control emissions. Thereby they could reduce the costs of testing waste and running test burns. DOE and EPA are also testing a CEM system for dioxin. The system uses a German technology and can measure specific dioxin
congeners down to the part per trillion level. Dioxin emissions have been particularly worrisome, as they are highly toxic and cannot be measured directly. "These tests are only at the 'proof of principal' level," Burns emphasized. However, he said, the CEM system would be an excellent research tool for studying dioxin formation mechanisms because it can measure a host of dioxin compounds every few seconds. "And who knows, maybe in five years we'll have this thing down to a portable unit in a little black box." —JEFF JOHNSON
EPA near completion of "natural attenuation" remediation policy Natural attenuation, a form of bioremediation, has gained EPA acceptance for use at nearly 100 Superfund sites. But despite its success as a technique to reduce petroleum-based plumes in groundwater, state and federal regulators are struggling with the public perception that it is a "do nothing" approach. EPA staff "feel very vulnerable" about the public's view that natural attenuation is a fancy name for doing nothing to remediate a site, said David Ellis, bioremediation leader, DuPont Specialty Chemicals. Residents near some Superfund sites have objected to natural attenuation as a cleanup choice, said Fran Kremer, coordinator for the bioremediation field program in the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD). In addition, EPA has received conflicting information from regional and private sector site managers who are confused about EPA's position on its use. To address this, an EPA workgroup is developing a natural attenuation policy for the regions and state regulators. Natural attenuation capitalizes on the degradation of certain contaminants by the combination of microbes, nutrients, and oxygen present in groundwater and soil. As a remediation tool, it requires little engineering except monitoring (ES&T, Sept. 1996, p. 398A). But preparations done before the remedy is approved, including site characterization, are usually more intensive than those performed for a traditional cleanup technique.
Researchers at the St. Joseph Superfund site near Lake Michigan have drilled bore holes to monitor degradation of trichloroethene in groundwater. Chemical concentration data are needed to determine the effectiveness of natural attenuation. (Photo courtesy of EPA.)
The approach is included as an option for Superfund cleanups. EPA also recognizes it as an option for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Underground Storage Tank groundwater cleanups. The main objective of the workgroup crafting the policy is to explain exactly what EPA considers natural attenuation. The policy will define the approach and describe the supporting documentation EPA expects when natural attenuation is proposed as a remediation tool, Kremer said. The policy statement will be limited, however. For instance, it will not provide step-by-step instructions on how to evaluate a site for natural attenuation, Kremer added. The agency's immediate goal is to clarify its expecta-
4 7 8 A • VOL. 30, NO. 11, 1996/ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
tions when natural attenuation is proposed and encourage its "judicious use," Kremer said. EPA hopes to finalize the policy document by the end of this year. The policy should make natural attenuation more acceptable to residents living near contaminated sites and state regulators, said Ken Lovelace of the EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Because its use is relatively new for nonpetroleum spills, regulators and remediation firms are careful to avoid negative publicity about the approach. "Nobody wants to see a promising technology be disregarded because of a poor demonstration," Ellis said. EPA is not alone in developing a policy for natural attenuation. This month, at a meeting of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) a draft standard for natural attenuation at petroleum release sites will be discussed, and the U.S. Air Force has already developed a protocol that describes how indicators proving the natural remediation process is under way can be collected during the site characterization process. Several states, including Wisconsin and Florida, are working on their own natural attenuation policies, Small said. EPA's next regulatory step will be issuing a detailed guidance document for managers evaluating a site that looks promising for natural attenuation. ORD expects to finish this document "sometime next year," Kremer said. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
