EPA WATCH Enforcement now a top priority for TRI reports Companies that file inaccurate information will be the new focus of enforcement efforts by the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), said Thomas Marvin, EPA's TRI enforcement coordinator, at an October meeting of the Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action. The agency predicts the move will boost the quality of the TRI data. Since TRI's inception in 1987, EPA has concentrated enforcement on those companies that don't submit the required annual reports on quantities of listed toxic chemicals they have released. "But now that the program is well established, we believe it is ready to evolve to the next phase," said Marvin. He cited increasing public pressure for reliable information and a number of recent data-quality studies as driver! of the enforcement initiative (ES&T 1998 32(17) 368A). Environmental groups that consider TRI reporting key to keeping industrial releases down point out that the reports often do not reflect what is being released to the environment. "Although there are not huge inaccuracies in the TRI data, the numbers can vary significantiy for no reason at all," said Tom Natan, research director for the National Environmental Trust. Another cause of inaccuracies, saic Lois Epstein, with the Environmental Defense Fund, is that "EPA didn't provide a good definition of in-process recovery versus on-site recycling of waste." If a company redefines recycling as in-process recovery, waste amounts can drop significantiy. But some company officials question how enforcement actions could be taken against numbers that are merely estimates based on the best available information. "If this shift is going to be made, companies should be given the opportunity to correct the errors before enforcement is
taken," said Barbara Mullis, director of quality assurance and regulatory affairs for Tricon Colors LLC.
NOx rule expected to elicit water quality benefits The much contested air quality rule aimed at controlling nitrogen oxide (NCy emissions could reduce annual nitrogen loadings to East Coast estuaries by as much as 40 million pounds by 2007 and save up to $238 million per year in avoided nitrogen removal costs, according to EPA estimates. Under the rule, 22 eastern states and the District of Columbia are required to submit state implementation plans addressing NOx emissions that contribute to the nonattainment of ozone standards in downwind states {ES&T 1998, 32(13)) 308A)) By reducing these smog-causing emissions by 28% overall, EPA expects atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, which is a major source of nutrient loading to estuaries, to fall as well. And while this reduction will not take the focus off other point source and nonpoint source dischargers, "this accounting should give a more accurate and realistic reading for those [total maximum daily load] sources that do need to clean up and even the pressure out a bit" with respect to loading reductions, said Julie Thomas EPA's air quality liaison to the Chesapeake Bay Program. Some states agree that the new rule will improve water quality programs. "Obviously, it will reduce acid rain and maybe toxic emissions such as benzene and mercury," said Larry Breuss, ozone section chief for Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources. "Taking these things out [of the air] means they don't get deposited on the ground or water." Likewise, Bob Summers, deputy director of technical and regulatory services for Maryland's Department of the Environment, said that "this is a clear example of environmental
6 4 A • FEB. 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
issues that are really multimedia problems." This highlights the importance of air and water quality sectors working together. To determine the cost savings from the rule due to avoided water pollution control, EPA looked at the cost of removing nitrogen from sources ranging from wastewater treatment plants to agricultural practices and averaged the cost on a per pound basis.
Oregon state, local officials oppose Superfund site listing A 5.5-mile stretch of the Willamette River in an industrial area of Portland, Ore. may soon be listed as a Superfund site. But city and state officials, as well as the owners of 17 land-based hazardous waste cleanup sites, aren't ready to give up their four-year fight to keep local control over the site's cleanup. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is creating an alternative cleanup plan (due in May) with $500,000 provided by local government officials and a group of industries. "We believe we can get more cooperation from responsible parties if we manage this cleanup locally," said Bob Applegate, spokesperson for Gov. John Kitzhaber (D). Projects to clean up the Portiand harbor are underway and will be in place through 2011 to control combined sewer overflow streaming into the port, said Rich Rodgers, spokesperson for Portland's environmental services. It has invested more than $1 billion to bring the harbor into compliance with the Clean Water Act, he said. Superfund listing often brings loss of property value and years of high-priced litigation, which property owners fear. But activist groups say Superfund listing may be the only way to clean up the river. Studies by EPA and DEQ show that a century of industrial and ship-
ping activity has imbedded polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, tributyltin, heavy metals, and wood preservatives in the harbor's river sediments. But the state does not have cleanup standards for sediments in freshwater to guide remediation goals. The cleanup process, which could include dredging and capping, remains unclear.
But Bill Wilber of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program cautions against solely targeting agriculture: "That's not going to be a successful strategy. It'll miss another important source—urban runoff."
Nonpoint source statistics raise farm group's ire
The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) have filed separate lawsuits challenging final standards requiring the petroleum industry to handle certain refinery wastes as hazardous materials. Each group is criticizing how die agency made its listing decisions. The standards, which go into effect this month, add four petroleum refinery wastes to the list of hazardous substances under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) {Federal Register, 1998, 63(151) 42,109-42,189). The list already includes seven waste streams generated by petroleum refineries. EPA rejected 10 other waste streams, and an additional 15 are under study. According to EPA officials, the listing decisions are based on risk assessment results showing that concentrations of benzene, arsenic, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in these wastes may pose potential hazards when sent to landfills. EDF is challenging this assertion, saying the agency did not base its decisions on risk assessment alone, said EDF attorney David Lennett. EPA considered additional mitigating factors, such as the estimated low volume of generated material and chose not to list certain waste streams even though the assessed cancer risk for some of them is greater than 10"5, the commonly used level of acceptable risk, he said. CMA and API officials contend that the regulation lists too many wastes because it does not consider how the wastes are used by the industry. For example, they assert that the rule places improper restrictions on waste recycling by limiting the type of recovered oil that a chemical company can send back to a petroleum refinery and by requiring that the oil for recycling come from facilities that are associated with the refinery.
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has criticized EPA's claim that agriculture is the leading cause of U.S. water quality impairments. And AFBF contends that EPA's justification for greater federal oversight of the farm community is drawn largely from a "contentious and irresponsible" data set. EPA has specifically targeted farmers under the Clinton administration's Clean Water Action Plan, proposing a pollution-control strategy for animal feeding operations in September (ES&T1998, 32(23), ,55A). The statistics in question come from EPA's national water quality inventory, which is based on the Sec. 305(b) water quality assessments that states are required to submit every two years under the Clean Water Act. These assessments are "poorly done at best," said Rosemarie Watkins, the farm bureau's senior director of governmental relations. Because of resource constraints, states tend to place a low priority on water quality monitoring, testing only those water bodies that are suspected to have problems. Indeed, EPA noted in its 1996 national water quality inventory report (the latest year for which data are available) that only 19% of the total river and stream miles have been surveyed and that states do not use identical survey methods or criteria to rate their water quality. Nevertheless, "the 305(b) information is the best we have, and I speculate that the reason why the farm bureau is saving this is because they're on top of the list," said Barry Burgan, a marine biologist in EPA's Office of Assessment and Watershed Protection. "Of the waters we look at, agriculture is the leading source of pollution, and it affects 25% of all rivers and streams surveyed where there were pollution problems, contributing to 70% of all water quality problems in identified rivers and streams," Burgan said.
New hazardous waste rule faces court challenge
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
"HOT ARTICLES" on the Web Selected ES&T feature articles, news stories, and research papers are accessible free of charge on the World Wide Web. Visit the American ChemicaI Society's Publications Division home page (http://pubs.acs.org) and click f on,"HotArticles."Articles „ currently available include:
FEATURES UNEP Helmsman Topfer Addresses Environmental Challenges (January 1999) Taking Stock of Green Tax Reform Initiatives (December 1998) Low-Level Chemical Exposures: A Challenge for Science and Policy (November 1998) Scanning Probe Microscopy of Environmental Interfaces (October 1998) Toward a Nonpolluting Energy System (September 1998)
http://pubs.acs.org Questions, comments? Write to ES&T at
[email protected] FEB. 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 6 5 A
