The superfund cost estimating expert system

“Brownfields” in the environmental context is one of those modest success stories that come out of the environmental regulatory arena from time to time. The Brownfields Initiative is important enough that, in her recent resignation, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Christine Todd-Whitman wrote that “our success in enacting long-overdue brownfields legislation is already accelerating the reclamation of abandoned parcels of land in hundreds of communities across America”. For years, critics have hammered away at the wasteful, ponderous, and punitive features of two federal laws, the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and its so-called “Superfund” program, which deals with abandoned contaminated facilities, and the 1976 Resource Conservation and Regulation Act (RCRA), which regulates hazardous waste operations and sites. Begun informally in 1995, the EPA's “Brownfields Initiative” (www.epa.gov/brownfields) allowed innovative compromises to be made between those laudable but burdensome laws, and the reality of returning industrial sites to beneficial use relatively quickly. A “brownfields site” is defined as any real property whose expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence (or potential presence) of a hazardous substance, solid waste, pollutant, or contaminant. These are often abandoned industrial properties and other areas that suffered from lack of attention and no hope of redevelopment. The EPA estimates that between 500 000 and one million brownfields sites are spread across the US. Generally there is no responsible person to remediate the property, so it has to be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up by someone who is not potentially liable for cleaning it up, pursuant to some sort of arrangement with the EPA or an appropriate state or local agency. The program has received general bipartisan support both in Congress and at state level, has helped spur the redevelopment of properties that might still be festering, and has fostered inner-city restoration and renewal projects. It has also added thousands of jobs to new businesses which once steered clear of contaminated real estate, the associated difficulty of cleaning it up, and the draconian laws that might have held them liable if they took on the task. Some 40 states have now developed voluntary programs that are cleaning up hundreds of brownfield sites. In 2002, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act became law. It codifies many of EPA's policies regarding brownfields and provides assessment grants for community planning and the investigation of potential sites. Grants are awarded through a competitive system that ranks proposals. The law also created revolving loan grants for brownfields cleanups and job training grants for those living in such areas. Importantly, it provided certain legal exceptions from the Superfund law for innocent and adjacent landowners, prospective purchasers, and others agreeing to undertake remediation of contaminated properties. The legislation also applies to former hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Finally, the law promises to streamline required cleanups and the revitalization of urban areas which heretofore remained abandoned. In addition, certain tax incentives now exist to spur cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields in distressed urban and rural areas. The EPA began the RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative in 1998, encouraging the remediation of some lower priority hazardous waste sites that needed cleaning up. A potential RCRA Brownfields site is a RCRA facility, or portion of such a facility, that is not in full use, where there is redevelopment potential, and where reuse or redevelopment is slowed due to real or perceived concerns about actual or potential contamination, liability, and RCRA requirements. The Brownfields program has been accompanied by a national realization that voluntary cleanups, which bring contaminants down to reasonable levels rather than zero, are the wiser, easier, and more practical course. To that degree, the Brownfields Initiative has been a nationwide success. Still, much could be done to improve it further. Financing and grants are still limited and red tape clogs projects in some states. Nevertheless, “the greenfields that we used to roam,” in the words of the folk group The Brothers Four, are now visible alongside new businesses and new opportunities unimaginable a quarter of a century ago. Douglass Rohrman

Aquatic herbicides are commonly used to control a wide variety of algae and plants, but they also have the potential to contaminate and affect nontarget organisms. However, the impacts of low-level 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) herbicide exposure on larval fish are not well understood. We conducted a series of experiments to determine the effects of low concentrations (0.05, 0.50, and 2.00 ppm) of 2 commercial 2,4-D amine salt herbicide formulations (Weedestroy® AM40 [WAM40] and DMA® 4 IVM [DMA4]) and pure 2,4-D on the development and survival of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) at various life cycle stages. Larval survival (30 d post hatch [dph]) was decreased following exposure of eggs and larvae to pure 2,4-D (0.50 ppm; p ≤ 0.001), as well as to WAM40 (0.50 and 2.00 ppm; p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.001) and DMA4 (0.50 and 2.00 ppm; p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.001). The results also narrowed the critical window of exposure for effects on survival to the period between fertilization and 14 dph. Development was not negatively altered by any of the compounds tested, although the commercial formulations increased larval total length and mass at 2.00 ppm. Altogether, the results indicate that the use of 2,4-D herbicides for weed control in aquatic ecosystems at current recommended concentrations (<2 ppm whole lake; <4 ppm spot treatment) could present risks to fathead minnow larval survival. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2550–2559. © 2018 SETAC

Massive efforts are underway to cleanup hazardous and radioactive waste sites located throughout the US To help determine cleanup priorities, computer models are being used to characterize the source, transport, fate and effects of hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials found at these sites. Although, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Energy (DOE), and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have provided preliminary guidance to promote the use of computer models for remediation purposes, no Agency has produced directed guidance on models that must be used in these efforts. To identify what models are actually being used to support decision-making at hazardous and radioactive waste sites, a project jointly funded by EPA, DOE and NRC was initiated. The purpose of this project was to: (1) Identify models being used for hazardous and radioactive waste site assessment purposes; and (2) describe and classify these models. This report presents the results of this study.

A matter of priorities

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has chosen over 500 hazardous waste disposal sites for the National Priorities List (NPL) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The priority sites were chosen utilizing the Hazard Response System (HRS) model that was designed to numerically score the relative health and environmental risks at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Although the HRS model assigns three scores to a hazardous waste facility (migration, fire and explosion, and direct contact), only the migration hazard mode score was used as a criterion for selection of sites for the NPL. The migration hazard mode score is a composite of separate scores for the potential migration of contaminants by routes involving groundwater, surface water, and air. This paper discusses the details of the HRS, and by way of example some of the methodological limitations and inconsistencies in the model that limit its usefulness. For example, the HRS does not consider hydraulic gradient in determining the groundwater route score. In addition, unlike the groundwater and surface water route scores, the air migration route score does not reflect the potential for release of contaminants to the air if direct evidence of release is lacking. Once sites are targeted for cleanup, decisions on the extent and method of cleanup must be made. USEPA has not yet developed a model similar to the HRS to aid in determining the extent of remediation necessary to protect public health once sites have been chosen for priority attention. The elements that must be considered in the development of such a model are discussed.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is required to conduct a health assessment of any site that is listed on or proposed for the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List. Sixteen US Department of Energy (DOE) sites currently fall into this category. Health assessments contain a qualitative description of impacts to public health and the environment from hazardous waste sites, as well as recommendations for actions to mitigate or eliminate risk. Because these recommendations may have major impacts on compliance activities at DOE facilities, the health assessments are an important source of information for the monitoring activities of DOE's Office of Environmental Compliance (OEC). This report provides an overview of the activities involved in preparing the health assessment, its role in environmental management, and its key elements.

Concentrations of dioxin-like PCB congeners in unweathered Aroclors by HRGC/HRMS using EPA Method 1668A

Received for publication September 11, 2000, and accepted for publication September 10, 2001. Abbreviations: CDC, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration; NRC, National Research Council. From the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Correspondence to Dr. Lynn Goldman, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Suite W8511, Baltimore, MD 21205 (e-mail: lgoldman@jhsph.edu). While epidemiologic evidence and, particularly, results of individual studies is often highly controversial, epidemiologic findings often play a significant role in the development of many environmental standards and regulations. This prominence reflects the direct relevance of epidemiologic evidence to public health, which was a focus for new policy initiatives over the first 5 years of the Clinton administration. Federal environmental statutes state that protection of human health is a major goal in ensuring, for example, clean water, clean air, and responsible management of waste. At times in the past, however, there was less focus on public health and greater reliance on projections of theoretical tools, such as modeling and risk assessment as the basis for selecting among policy options. With the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (1), a government-wide effort began to identify ways for measuring and tracking outcomes of governmental efforts, including those of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory agencies. At the same time, there is increased appreciation of the relevance of epidemiology in the public policy arena (2). A demand for more surveillance and other epidemiologic data can be anticipated. There are numerous other forces that have pushed regulatory agencies in the direction of relying more on epidemiology. Industry has questioned the applicability of animal toxicology data to human health risk and has wanted human data to be used to validate this practice. Public health advocates have pushed regulatory agencies to look beyond cancer and other diseases that are more readily assessed using animal models to include other diseases (e.g., reproductive, neurologic, and respiratory) where epidemiology studies have indicated there may be additional risks. The National Toxicology Program has recently begun to incorporate more epidemiology information into its cancer assessments for the Report on Carcinogens. Epidemiologists and the findings of epidemiologic studies will probably play a more significant role in environmental regulation in the future. This presentation offers the perspective of a physicianepidemiologist on the role of epidemiologic evidence in the regulatory arena. It draws on selected examples and experiences of the author as a basis for general considerations on epidemiology and regulation. While the presentation is thus based around a particular era of one administration, it offers more general lessons concerning epidemiology and policy. It is hoped that these perspectives will help to promote a greater understanding of the policy process among epidemiologists, and how their data are likely to be used (and misused). It is also hoped to promote a greater understanding and appreciation of the need to incorporate epidemiology among risk assessors (who predominantly are toxicologists).

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates waste management activities at hazardous waste management facilities. Whenever a facility becomes subject to regulation under RCRA, the facility owner or operator is required to notify the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of hazardous waste activity and within 30 days submit the initial ``Part A`` portion of an operating permit application [RCRA {section} 3010] to EPA or to the State authorized to operate a hazardous waste management program in lieu of EPA. A facility that has submitted its Part A application is defined as having ``interim status,`` and is subject to the regulations in 40 CFR Part 265. Interim status facilities that contain hazardous waste landfills, surface impoundments, or land treatment facilities are required by 40 CFR 265 Subpart F to implement a groundwater monitoring program that consists of several phased monitoring activities and is capable of determining the facility`s impact on the quality of ground water in the uppermost aquifer underlying the facility. This information brief is the fourth in a series on the general topic of groundwater monitoring requirements under RCRA at interim status and permitted facilities. This information brief focuses on the last phase of activities, implementation of an Assessment Program, and highlights recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Environmental epidemiologists strive to conduct research that will lead to actions that improve public health outcomes. The risk assessment process is the bridge between scientific research and policies that can impact public health. Historically, epidemiologic studies have not frequently been used to inform US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessments outside of the context of air pollution. There are certain practices that the epidemiology community can adopt to facilitate the integration of epidemiologic studies into policy-relevant assessments. The central objective of this commentary is to provide guidance to epidemiologists that will enhance the value of their studies for US EPA assessments. First, we provide an overview of the US EPA dose-response and toxicity value derivation to increase literacy about these processes across the environmental epidemiology community. Second, we provide suggestions for modeling and reporting to facilitate the use of epidemiologic studies in US EPA dose-response assessments that form the basis for decision-making. Epidemiologic research can be used in all aspects of dose-response assessment, which involves identifying a point of departure followed by specific adjustments and extrapolations to identify a toxicity value intended to prevent adverse effects across the population. To facilitate the integration of epidemiologic research into the dose-response assessment process, we provide specific recommendations for additional modeling (e.g., modeling in the low exposure range; exploring nonlinearity) and reporting (e.g., sufficient information to conduct study evaluation; more details on exposure levels in the population) in published epidemiologic research. Many of these suggestions require only additional reporting in the final manuscript or associated appendixes but would have substantial impact on the contribution of the published work to the assessment process. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15203.

Coal ash ecological risk assessment in context: Lessons learned from the Kingston Fossil Plant ash spill.

A hazardous waste remedial investigation is currently being performed at 21 sites at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Fallon in Fallon, Nevada. One of these sites, a fuel tank farm, is the subject of a lead agency controversy. The discovery, in August 1986, of JP-5 jet fuel floating on the water table at the bases' fuel tank farm prompted the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to issue a finding of alleged violation of a state statute prohibiting discharge of pollutants without a permit and an order for remediation. Application of confusing and sometimes ambiguous state and federal regulatory standards to the jet fuel contamination leads to problems with interpretation. Does jurisdiction belong to the state, to the Department of Defense (DOD), or to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? If EPA has jurisdiction, does the site fall under the program to manage past waste disposal sites, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or does it fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which was promulgated to control current activities. Furthermore, is JP-5 jet fuel a hazardous waste, or is it exempt because it is classified as a petroleum hydrocarbon. This report attempts to answer these questions by presenting the chronology of events that created a lead agency controversy at this site and by examining both the basis and application of environmental regulations. Also addressed are the elements of human risk and threat to the environment pertaining to remediation at this site.

The National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, is a US Army training installation that provides tactical experience for battalion/task forces and squadrons in a mid- to high-intensity combat scenario. Through joint exercises with US Air Force and other services, the NTC also provides a data source for improvements of training doctrines, organization, and equipment. To meet the training and operational needs of the NTC, several maintenance facilities provide general and direct support for mechanical devices, equipment, and vehicles. Maintenance products used at these facilities include fuels, petroleum-based oils, lubricating grease, various degreasing solvents, antifreeze (ethylene glycol), transmission fluid, brake fluid, and hydraulic oil. Used or spent petroleum-based products generated at the maintenance facilities are temporarily accumulated in underground storage tanks (USTs), collected by the NTC hazardous waste management contractor (HAZCO), and stored at the Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) Storage Facility, Building 630, until shipped off site to be recovered, reused, and/or reclaimed. Spent degreasing solvents and other hazardous wastes are containerized and stored on-base for up to 90 days at the NTC's Hazardous Waste Storage Facility, Building 703. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performed an inspection and reviewed the hazardous waste management operations of the NTC. Inspections indicated that the NTC had violated one or more requirements of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and as a result of these violations was issued a Notice of Noncompliance, Notice of Necessity for Conference, and Proposed Compliance Schedule (NON) dated October 13, 1989. The following post-closure plan is the compliance-based approach for the NTC to respond to the regulatory violations cited in the NON.

This article discusses the use of solidification/stabilization (S/S) to treat soils contaminated with organic and inorganic chemicals at wood preserving sites. Solidification is defined for this article as making a material into a freestanding solid. Stabilization is defined as making the contaminants of concern nonmobile as determined from a leaching test. S/S then combines both properties. For more information on S/S in general the reader should refer to other publications (Connors, J.R. [1990]). Chemical fixation and solidification of hazardous wastes. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; US Environmental Protection Agency. [1993a]. Engineering bulletin solidification/stabilization of organics and inorganics (EPA/540/S‐92/015); Wiles, C.C. [1989]. Solidification and stabilization technology. In H.M. Freeman [Ed.], Standard handbook of hazardous waste treatment and disposal. New York: McGraw Hill) as this article addresses only wood preserving sites and assumes basic knowledge of S/S processes. For a more general discussion of wood preserving sites and some other remedial options, the reader may wish to refer to a previous EPA publication (US Environmental Protection Agency. [1992a]. Contaminants and remedial options at wood preserving sites [EPA/600/R‐92/182]).This article includes data from the successful remediation of a site with mixed organic/inorganic contaminants, remediation of a site with organic contaminants, and detailed treatability study results from four sites for which successful formulations were developed. Included are pre‐ and post‐treatment soil characterization data, site vaines. ileizdot‐ names (in some cases), treatment formulas used (generic aridproprietary), costs, recommendations, and citatioiis to inore detailed refer‐ en ces. The data presen ted iiidica te that dioxins, pentachlorophepi 01 (PCP), creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbom (PAHsI, and metals can be treated at moderate cost by the use of S/S techuologp.

The sanitary survey program was created by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support state primacy agencies in assessing utility progress with implementing water quality requirements in the Ground Water Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. In the spring of 2021, EPA said it was planning to issue a direct file rule to integrate cybersecurity into the existing sanitary survey program. Multiple organizations representing water utilities and state primacy agencies communicated to EPA that using the sanitary survey program for cybersecurity was ill-advised. Even so, on March 3, 2023, EPA issued the “Cyber Rule” directing state primacy agencies to assess cybersecurity of public water systems (PWSs) as part of the sanitary survey program—effective immediately. The new Cyber Rule requires all PWSs (n = 151,606) to determine whether they use “operational technology,” meaning hardware and software that detect or cause a change through the direct monitoring or control of physical devices, processes, and events in the enterprise, per the Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. § 271(3)(6). EPA provided states with three compliance options: (1) self-assessment or third-party assessment by a state-approved entity; (2) state assessment during a sanitary survey; or (3) an alternative, equivalent, state-developed cybersecurity program. The draft guidance for the Cyber Rule includes a checklist of 33 controls that EPA determined are “technically feasible for most PWS[s] to address without significant capital expenditures.” Sixteen of these controls are classified by EPA as potential “significant deficiencies” if not implemented. There are numerous implementation challenges, including the ability of a state official to nonintrusively verify that a control has been implemented. The Cyber Rule interprets the use of operational technology as being part of the equipment or operations examined in the sanitary survey, components used for producing and distributing safe drinking water. This represents a significant expansion of the states’ existing sanitary survey inspection obligations. The details of the rule were never proposed or made available for public review and comment, which is the norm under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While EPA did have discussions with states in the summer of 2022, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators has consistently advised the agency against using the sanitary survey for addressing cybersecurity. Bypassing APA and other regulatory obligations represents a troubling process issue that undermines the integrity of the rule of law. This includes EPA's determination that the regulatory oversight approach set out by Congress in §2013 of America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 was, in the administrator's judgment, insufficient. AWIA §2013 amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) §1433 to require each community water system serving 3,300 or more people to conduct a risk and resilience assessment (RRA) at least every five years, which explicitly encompass cybersecurity threats to “electronic, computer, or other automated systems.” Further, §2013 requires systems to incorporate the findings of the RRA into emergency response plans, which must address the “strategies and resources to improve the resilience of the system, including the physical security and cybersecurity of the system.” Congress clearly defined a process by which a specific class of PWSs would address cybersecurity. Finally, Congress instructed EPA to directly implement, oversee, and enforce AWIA §2013. Unlike other SDWA requirements, AWIA does not authorize the EPA to delegate implementation to the states. Contrary to congressional direction, the Cyber Rule shifts the burden of oversight to the state. Many of these procedural concerns were shared with EPA in a January 2023 letter from the water community. Undeterred, EPA proceeded with issuing the Cyber Rule. Subsequently, on April 17, the states of Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa filed a challenge to the Cyber Rule in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, State of Missouri, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 23-1787 (8th Cir.). AWWA and the National Rural Water Association have filed to intervene on behalf of the states. The intent of the challenge is to hold EPA accountable for going around the checks and balances created to govern the promulgation of regulations. Perhaps watching the “Three Ring Government” episode from Schoolhouse Rock! is in order since it explains the balance of power between the three branches of government. The judiciary is a last resort for accountability; it is unfortunate that the public–private collaboration called for in the National Cybersecurity Strategy was not exercised. Kevin M. Morley is manager of federal relations at the AWWA Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at [email protected].