| Special
Reports
An Estimate of the
National Cost for Remediation of MTBE Releases from Existing
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites.
Download: Full
Report (Adobe PDF)
The intent of this
paper is to provide a balanced, scientific approach to
estimating the national cost for remediation of methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) releases from existing leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) sites. A draft version of this
paper was distributed to a limited number of external peer
reviewers, who subsequently participated in expert panel
discussions, hosted by AEHS, to finalize the paper. Panelists
included members of state and federal regulatory agencies,
including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (EPA OUST) and local professors.
Through this limited peer review process, ENSR received
suggestions related to clarifying the scope and context of
this study, and providing additional detail for their
calculations and analysis. These suggestions are incorporated
into this paper. The result is an estimated $2.0 billion for
the remediation of MTBE releases from existing LUST sites. A
sensitivity analysis, which was added to the analysis as a
result of the peer review process, presents a discussion of
cost variations that could result from altering the baseline
assumptions.
Click
here to download the full report.
Peer-Review
Panel Report for the Fox River Human and Ecological Risk
Assessments
Download:
Full
Report (Adobe PDF)
This
report provides a critical analysis of two risk assessment
reports evaluating the effects of chemical contaminants in the
Lower Fox River in Wisconsin.
One risk assessment was prepared by ThermoRetec
Consulting Corporation (ThermoRetec) on behalf of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and dated February
24, 1999; the other risk assessment was prepared by Exponent
on behalf of the Fox River Group and dated January, 2000.
The assessments are for potential human health and
ecological impacts.
These
risk assessments and the reviews focus on the specific impacts
of PCBs in the river. Although
some comments are directed toward other contaminants, that was
not the charge to the review panel.
The panel consists of academic experts in the area of
chemical effects on health and environment.
Three panel members evaluated the human health risk
assessments; three panel members evaluated the ecological risk
assessments. Panel
members visited the site, engaged in meetings regarding the
site, met with members of the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources & the US Environmental Protection Agency, wrote
critiques of the Exponent and ThermoRetec assessments,
discussed items of concern, and, with this report, provide a
written commentary on their views of the assessments.
The
review panel found that the consultants used different
datasets and different approaches in their calculations.
For example, Exponent relied on concentrations from
sediment and biota samples collected in 1998 and 1999 for
ecological evaluation; ThermoRetec utilized a more extensive
dataset collected over the previous ten years.
Exponent used a Monte Carlo analysis for human health
assessment resulting in a range of risk; ThermoRetec 's
assessment resulted in a single point estimate.
Human
health risk assessment reviews by the panel are evaluated
separately and then compared with each other.
The ecological assessments are evaluated separately. Comments provide a critical assessment of strengths and
limitations.
Briefly,
the panel found both strengths and weaknesses in each risk
assessment.
Click
here to download the full report.
You
will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the PDF files.
Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader!
|
