EPA issued a recall of specific formulations of the pesticide in January. It also required Cheminova Agro of Denmark, the sole U.S. manufacturer of the pesticide, to add an odor agent to existing and future products.
New radionuclide drinking water tests approved EPA approved the use of 66 additional analytical methods for compliance with interim radionuclide drinking water standards and monitoring requirements in a final rule issued March 5 {Federal Register, 1997, 62(43), 10168-74). The new rule does not supersede any of the 14 previously approved methods, said William Diamond, director of the standards and risk management division in the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. However, Diamond said the new analytical methods are more accurate and can be less costly to use than existing methods. The new methods apply to gross alpha; gross beta; tritium; uranium; radium-226; radium-228; gamma emitters; and radioactive cesium, iodine, and strontium. The rule stems from a 1991 rulemaking that proposed both analytical methods and national standards for radionuclides in drinking water. That rulemaking was dropped after Congress questioned the need for a radon standard of 300 pCi/L, when the national median level at that time was 600 pCi/L. Congressional opponents of the proposed rule, concerned about the costs of removing radon from water supplies, required the agency to obtain an independent risk assessment and cost analysis on radon in drinking water before establishing a standard. Diamond said the agency will ask the National Academy of Sciences this year to do the independent analysis. Congress has required that the agency propose a radon standard by 2000. The agency is also working toward a standard for uranium by 2000 and is reviewing the current standards on radionuclides, said Diamond.
Wetlands plan due out this summer EPA is working on a plan to make wetlands regulations more userfriendly to landowners by speeding
up decisions on construction permits and clarifying when landowners can or cannot build on or near protected areas. According to the agency's wetlands program head John Meagher, EPA is working with the Army Corps of Engineers, which issues wetlands construction permits, to set strict permit deadlines for all involved federal agencies. These permits cover a range of activities, including housing construction, farming, forestry, ranching, mining, industrial and commercial construction, and road construction. "We want to make sure people get quick answers from the government [about construction approvals]," said Meagher. EPA also intends to include wetlands in long-term regional watershed management plans, which are developed by local government agencies, businesses, and landowners. "In the course of developing the watershed plan, the landowners have a say in what happens to their property," said Meagher. The agency plans to get states more involved in wetlands protection by encouraging them to use Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which allows diem to deny federal wedands permits that violate state water standards. "They can move on to more comprehensive approaches to wetlands preservation like a state permitting program, a separate state watershed management program, or a state wetlands conservation plan," said Meagher, adding that EPA plans to offer grants to help start state programs. Under the plan, EPA would also step up efforts to secure agreements from large business sectors, like forestry and the golf industry, on voluntary wetlands protection plans, said Meagher. The agency wants to make agreements that address planning, design, and construction of projects as well as land management practices.
Credible evidence rule draws industry suit The Clean Air Implementation Project sued EPA over its new credible evidence rule, which allows enforcement officials and citizens to use continuous emissions-monitoring data to prove an industrial facility has violated clean air regulations. In the suit, filed with the District of Columbia Circuit Court on March 4,
the group said the rule [Federal Register, ,997, 62(36)) 8314) makes Clean Air Act regulations more stringent. William Lewis, attorney for the group, said continuous emissions monitoring should not be used as an enforcement tool because it opens industry to enforcement actions based on data that reflect routine emissions variations from plant startups, shutdowns, and other functions. "Emission limits are based on die use of a reference-test method approach and periodic monitoring, not continuous monitoring," said Lewis. He added that enforcing the limits with continuous monitoring makes the limit more stringent. EPA requires many industrial facilities, including power plants and some hazardous waste incinerators, to attach continuous emissions monitors to stacks and submit regular emissions data reports, usually quarterly. Otiier data available under the credible evidence rule would come from the proposed Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule, which would require industry to either monitor the operation of pollution control equipment or document that facilities are operating within established industrial best practices (ES&T Mav y199 189A). EPA says in the preamble to its final rule diat it can and will use continuous monitoring in enforcement actions. Reference test methods, which are periodic emissions tests used for permitting or in response to suspected emissions violations, became EPA's only way to prove violations after the 1984 case U.S. vs. Kaiser Steel Corp., which said, the agency could not use continuous emissions data to enforce standards said Charles Garlow Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Congress reversed the Kaiser Steel decision in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments by allowing any credible evidence for standards enforcement "We have gotten several court rulings in our favor over the past year using continuous emission data to enforce emission standards " said Garlow James Pew, Natural Resources Defense Council attorney, said environmentalists have already started using continuous emissions data in suits against utilities. "What [industry] is asking the court to ban is valid evidence, which is unprecedented in the legal system," said Pew.
VOL. 31, NO. 5, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 2 1 7 A
