and implement an EPA-selected wetlands remedy. Under a unique risksharing provision, EPA and the state will share groundwater and wetland cleanup costs with the settling parties if they exceed the amount agreed to in the settlement.
Agency peer review "uneven," says GAO Implementation of a two-year-old EPA policy to improve independent peer review of agency science and technical work is described as "uneven" in a General Accounting Office (GAO) report released in October. EPA has made progress, but in some cases it has failed to closely follow its new policies and occasionally has not conducted peer reviews at all, according to "Peer Review: EPA's Implementation Remains Uneven" (GAO/RCED-96-236). GAO's report blames the failure on confusion among agency staff and management about what peer review is, its benefits, and how and when it should be conducted. For instance, GAO reports incidents in which EPA staff have confused public comment with peer review by outside experts. The report also said there was a lack of accountability to ensure that relevant research is properly reviewed. The more significant problems, GAO said, took place in EPA program offices and regions that have not conducted peer reviews in the past, rather than in the Office of Research and Development, which has 20 years of such experience. GAO acknowledges that EPA is working to address the problem; the report cites nine examples of good and bad peer reviews, all of which were supplied by EPA. Among studies adequately peer reviewed, EPA and GAO point to the risk assessment for Waste Technologies Industries' Ohio incinerator. Inadequately peer-reviewed studies and projects include mobile source air emissions Model 5a and an environmental impact analysis of tributyltin, an antifouling ingredient in marine paints. GAO's report notes that EPA had not fully followed its own peer review policies in the ca.se of the dioxin reassessment as well as the Great Waters program scientific report However GAO adds that the dioxin reassessment criticism was made by a peer review committee itself For the Great Water studv
GAO notes that the science was peer reviewed, but the conclusions and recommendations were not because some agency staff said these were inherently government functions and should not be peer reviewed. To improve the quality of peer review, GAO recommends that EPA educate staff about the need for and benefits of peer review as well as expand the list of research projects nominated for peer reviews.
Toxic releases from waste sites under investigation EPA's first effort to track releases from nonhazardous waste facilities, landfills, and waste piles found that inorganic chemicals were most often released into groundwater, according to a draft report released Sept. 24. Chemicals found to exceed groundwater or drinking water standards included chloride, lead, cadmium, and nitrates several which are listed by EPA as hazardous above certain levels. The draft will be one chapter in a larger report on the toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of releases from nonhazardous waste sites conducted to see if some nonhazardous constituents should be regulated more stringently, said Greg Helms in EPA's Office of Solid Waste. The report is required under a legal consent agreement reached with the Environmental Defense Fund, which sued EPA, charging that it missed several deadlines for reviewing substances that could be added to its hazardous waste list The final report should have been finished in midNovember EPA officials said Investigators reviewed existing monitoring data at 122 sites and found that 88% of releases were to groundwater and fewer than 7% were to soil or surface water. However, EPA noted that surface water and soil are not routinely monitored at these sites. Agency officials cautioned readers of the draft to interpret its findings "with care," because data were collected and analyzed over only four months and did not include any new sampling. At an Oct. 10 public hearing on the draft, manufacturers said they are concerned that the report will lead to additions to EPA's hazardous waste list, which they oppose. "We are just looking to see what is out there," replied Helms.
5 2 2 A • VOL. 30, NO. 12, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
Duluth lab begins to study causes of deformed frogs Researchers at the Duluth Laboratory's Mid-Continent Ecological Division have begun a project looking at a growing number of reports of deformed frogs in the upper Midwest. EPA's involvement follows work by David Hoppe, a herpetologist at the University of Minnesota, Morris Campus, who first began compiling incidents across the state of deformed frogs. In September, the Duluth lab organized a meeting of scientists from Minnesota, Wisconsin and Canada, who relayed widespread reports of deformed frogs being found in their locales At the meeting, researchers said many deformed frogs have been found at more than 100 sites in 54 of 87 Minnesota counties, according to an EPA scientist. Following publicity from the meeting, EPA has received many more reports from the United States and Canada as well as parts of Europe, the EPA staffer said. EPA's efforts will be led by a dozen agency scientists, all part of a team working on reproductive and developmental toxicology of aquatic organisms as well as endocrine-disrupter-related research. Through the frog investigation, the team intends to field test its lab-derived toxicological methodology and mechanisms research, EPA officials said. Determining a cause for the deformity is likely to be difficult, according to EPA. Several species of frogs are affected, and deformed frogs have been found in widely varying geographical regions, from relatively unspoiled national forests to heavily farmed areas. Most deformities have been in rear legs and appear to be developmental, but neurological abnormalities have also been seen. Scientists and the public have discussed a wide range of causes such as parasites, pesticides and other chemicals, ultraviolet radiation, acid rain, and metals. Few hypotheses have been ruled out, EPA officials said, except genetic causes because of the widespread nature of the problem and the multiple species involved. EPA staff stressed that it is far too early to guess at causes and whether the incidents are limited in scope or signal a much larger environmental problem.
