Vadose zone monitoring

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

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 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].

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.

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.

Libby: the long legacy of a public health disaster

A matter of priorities

Remediation JournalVolume 1, Issue 2 p. 247-248 Book Review Basics of pump-and-treat groundwater technology. US Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK 74820. EPA/600/8–90/003 First published: Spring 1991 https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.3440010216AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume1, Issue2Spring 1991Pages 247-248 RelatedInformation

ABSTRACTFour commonly found pesticides (alachlor, atrazine, metolachlor, and simazine) in surface water were determined using dispersive pipette extraction followed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. The rapid mixing and equilibrium between the dispersive pipette extraction adsorbent and water sample resulted in fast and efficient extraction. Using only 5 mL of water sample, the estimated time consumption for extraction of each sample was less than 5 min. Method validation was performed to evaluate accuracy, precision, linearity, the limits of detection, and the limits of quantitation. Average recovery of above 90% was obtained with relative standard deviations below 10%, which indicated good accuracy and precision of the dispersive pipette extraction method. Coefficients of determination were all above 0.9901 and showed good linearity. For the four pesticides studied using the current method, the limits of detection ranged from 7 to 40 ng L−1, and limits of quantitation were from 20 to 130 ng L−1. Method validation results supported the application of the current method for drinking water safety monitoring per National Primary Drinking Water Regulations established by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Water samples from Lake Lanier and Stone Mountain Lake (Georgia, USS) were analyzed with this method as a preliminary work for a larger scale drinking water quality study in the future. Trace amounts of simazine and atrazine were found in lake water samples, but both were below the regulation levels of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Previous articleNext article No AccessEnvironmental SciencesReclaiming the Environmental Debate: The Politics of Health in a Toxic Culture. Urban and Industrial Environments. Edited by Richard Hofrichter. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press. $65.00 (hardcover); $25.00 (paper). ix + 356 p; index. ISBN: 0–262–58184–5 (hc); 0–262–58182–5 (pb). 2000.Kathleen WalkerKathleen WalkerNational Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC Search for more articles by this author National Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Quarterly Review of Biology Volume 77, Number 2June 2002 Published in association with Stony Brook University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/343993 Views: 35Total views on this site PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

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 toxicology of carbon monoxide is a large subject. In recent years three large compendia have been published: (1) The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Environmental Health Criteria (EHC), Number 219 on Carbon Monoxide (2nd edn), 1999, (2) Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, ed. DG Penney, CRC Press, 2007; (3) The US Environmental Protection Agency's Criteria Document on Carbon Monoxide [US Environmental Protection Agency, An Introduction to indoor air quality (IAQ), Carbon Monoxide (CO)], available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html, accessed February 2013. These accounts provide a great store of information on carbon monoxide; we have not tried to précis these accounts, far less to provide an alternative compendium. Instead we have written an account that deals with some areas in detail and which touches lightly on others. Our selection has been guided by our perceptions of the needs of scientists, medical staff and others dealing with or advising on how to deal with casualties from fires. Thus we have said little about the possible and much discussed effects of long term exposure to low levels of carbon monoxide and nothing about time series epidemiological studies that have related the occurrence of myocardial infarction to daily peaks and hourly concentrations of carbon monoxide. These studies are, of course, important in considering the effects of both acute and chronic exposure to low concentrations of air pollutants. This chapter is about the effects of the rather higher concentrations of carbon monoxide produced by inhalation of the products of combustion of fires.

Remediation JournalVolume 1, Issue 2 p. 246-247 Book Review Government documents. Handbook on in situ treatment of hazardous waste-contaminated soils. US Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268. EPA/540/2–90/002 First published: Spring 1991 https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.3440010215AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume1, Issue2Spring 1991Pages 246-247 RelatedInformation

The US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) baseline Hudson River health risk assessment (HRA) is evaluated and found to be biased toward keeping polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sediments. The HRA systematically mis-quantified parameters, underestimating PCB movement from sediments to water and from water to air. The EPA excluded from its analysis all mono- and dichlorinated PCB congeners, which EPA subsequently estimated at one-third of total PCB mass in the river, and excluded dissolved and colloidal PCB. The EPA included silt-adsorbed PCB, but overestimated the rate at which it would settle out of the water column by inappropriately basing the rate on Stokes' Law for more massive spherical particles. Flat clay particles settle more slowly with a longer path length and residence time. The EPA omitted electrostatic charges on clay particles that separate them, preventing agglomeration and maintaining clay in suspension; they also assumed that particles never “reflect” back into the water column after settling, likewise underestimating PCB concentrations in water. Also omitted was PCB codistillation, in which PCBs at low bulk concentrations preferentially distribute to the air-water interface, accelerating PCB transfer from water to air. Indeed, EPA cited empirical data showing more rapid PCB water-to-air transfer, but reduced its effect on the HRA, reducing the transfer coefficient by averaging in lower modeled PCB transfer coefficients that ignored codistillation. Finally, EPA omitted PCB release to the atmosphere from hot water in cooling towers in communities along the Hudson River. Water at cooling tower temperatures may release PCB into the air more than 10 times faster than rates determined from the surface of cold water and multiple orders of magnitude more rapidly than in EPA's models. Together, EPA's procedures reduced airborne PCB concentrations from above to below de minimis concentrations. This, in turn, eliminated the requirement for EPA's HRA to quantify inhalation risks posed by airborne PCBs; the HRA, therefore, considered airborne PCBs, but attributed zero health risk to them.

The 183-D Water Treatment Facility (WTF) discharges effluent to the 120-0-1 Ponds (100-D Ponds) located north of the 100-D Area perimeter fence. This report satisfies one of the requirements of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Milestone M-17-00B as agreed by the US Department of Energy, Washington State Department of Ecology, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-17-00B includes a requirement to assess impacts to groundwater from disposal of the 183-D WTF effluent to the 100-D Ponds. In addition, the 100-D Ponds are a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 treatment, storage, and disposal facility covered by the 100-D Ponds Closure Plan (DOE-RL 1993a). There is evidence of groundwater contamination, primarily nitrate, tritium, and chromium, in the unconfined aquifer beneath the 100-D Area and 100 Areas in general. The contaminant plumes are area wide and are a result of past-practice reactor and disposal operations in the 100-D Area currently being investigated as part of the 100-DR-1 and 100-HR-3 Operable Units (DOE-RL 1992b, 1992a). Based on current effluent conditions, continued operation of the 100-D Ponds will not adversely affect the groundwater quality in the 100-D Area. Monitoring wells near the pond have slightly higher alkaline pH values than wells in the rest of the area. Concentrations of known contaminants in these wells are lower than ambient 100-D Area groundwater conditions and exhibit a localized dilution effect associated with discharges to the pond. Hydraulic impact to the local groundwater system from these discharges is minor. The groundwater monitoring well network for the 100-D Ponds is adequate.