New manual standardizes radiation cleanup testing Monitoring for radioactive contamination at hundreds of U.S. cleanup sites will be more consistent under draft guidelines created by EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), die Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Energy (DOE). The "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual" will show regulators and cleanup contractors how many samples to take and where to take them t o VPT"ify cleanup levels for surface soils and buildings William Beck, program director for the Environmental Survey Site Assessment Program, which does testing on cleanup sites for NRC and DOE, said consistent testing can prevent the need for a second cleanup when contaminated land changes hands. "In the past, you never knew what to expect from a site [supposedly] cleaned up," said Beck. This approach should cut costs and catch patches of elevated radioactivity that other testing methods might have missed, said Colleen Petullo, chair of the work group that created die manual. Petullo said the guidance manual does not set cleanup standards but offers a methodology for verifying that a standard has been met. She said the guidance is flexible enough to work with existing standards governing radioactive cleanups. The manual should be ready for use in December said Petullo adding mat die agency will take comments on the draft until July 7 Beck said the real key to speeding cleanups would be a national radiation cleanup standard. EPA and DOE were working to develop a common radiation standard but dropped the effort when they could not agree on acceptable levels. NRC is currently working on a standard, but it will not become a national standard unless EPA, DOE, and DOD sign on. EPA said there C3.n be thousands of sites, ranging from medical research facilities to military bases, that require some type of remediation.
Superfund administrative reforms working, says report EPA's efforts to change the way it handles cleanups are taking hold in regional offices, where most cleanup site decisions are made; and cleanup
costs are dropping, according to a report by the Superfund Settlement Project, a group of large corporations involved in cleanups. "EPA's Superfund Reforms: A Report on the First Year of Implementation" evaluated 2 of EPA's 10 regional offices and found that agency staffers are considering a wider range of cleanup methods, reducing oversight, and offering more funding for "orphan shares" shares of parties who contributed to the pollution but are no longer around to help pay for cleanup. The report found that Region 3 (mid-Adantic states) cut $25 3 million from six sites and Region 1 (New England) cut $57 million from seven sites by updating cleanup methods The report also found tiiat the federal government contributed $23 million for orphan shares at seven sites and cut back on oversight at 38 sifps in the two regions EPA instituted numerous administrative reforms in October 1995, after Congress failed to reform the Superfund program. EPA's reform efforts drew criticism from Capitol Hill, where the agency was accused of trying to head off congressional reform efforts, and from industry and environmentalists, who thought the reforms went either too far or not far enough. Despite criticism, the industry report bolsters EPA's claims that its reform plan is working. In the agency's "Superfund Administrative Reforms Annual Report Fiscal Year 1996," EPA claims that the reforms will save more than $400 million in future cleanup costs.
Report sees ecosystem protection trend A January report from the Office of Research and Development says the agency must look more closely at issues ranging from wetlands to endangered species because of a growing demand to protect ecosystems. "Priorities for Ecological Protection: An Initial List and Discussion Document for EPA" cautions that change will not come easily because of the agency's strong focus on human health-based regulation. "The big question people have is, What are we going to protect?" said EPA staffer Anne Barton, who is in charge of the report. Barton said that because very few laws or regulations specify ecological endpoints, rules for air, water, hazardous waste, pes-
ticides, Superfund cleanup, and new chemicals have, in many cases, not accounted for ecosystem risks. "We hope this discussion will lead to agency-wide endpoints for ecological risk like we have for human risk," said Barton. The report offers a list of ecological resources to encourage staffers to consider ecological risks. The list includes aquatic communities in lakes, streams, and estuaries; regional populations of native species and their habitats; severe episodic threats (such as massive bird or fish kills); important ecosystem functions and services; wedands; endangered ecosystems; endangered species and their habitats; and "other special places." Aldiough tiiis report is not an official guideline for agency staff, it does mirror other efforts witiiin EPA to elevate ecosystem concerns in regulation. In 1992, the agency came out with "Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment," and it is currently completing "Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment," which is already available as a draft and should be in the hands of all agency staff by the end of the year (ES&T, Nov. .196, p. 472A).
Locomotive air emission limits proposed In January the agency proposed standards designed to cut back on diesel locomotive nitrogen oxide emissions by two-thirds, or 600,000 tons annually. The standards would also cut down on locomotiveproduced hydrocarbons and particulate matter by 15,000 tons and 10,000 tons, respectively. Unlike clean air restrictions on other mobile sources, the locomotive standards would include existing units, which die industry remanufactures several times during an average 40-year service life. EPA said the proposed rules would be the first emission regulations on diesel locomotives. The new standard will cost the industry $173 per ton of emissions removed, according to EPA {Federal Register, 1997, 62(28)8 6366-6407). The proposed standards would take effect in two phases, beginning Jan. 1, 2000. The second phase of reductions would go into effect in 2005 and include additional nitrogen oxide reductions and particulate matter reductions.
VOL.31, NO. 4, 1997/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS " 1 7 3 A
