EPAWATCH Large systems to monitor drinking water sources
EPA begins endocrine disrupter screening plan
Under the final information collection rule {Federal Register 1996, 67(94), 24353-388), large drinking water treatment systems will collect microbe and disinfection byproducts data needed to move ahead on two delayed drinking water rules. The regulations—the proposed interim enhanced surface water treatment rule and the second phase of the disinfectants/disinfection byproducts rule—have been stalled for two years, awaiting data the information collection rule (ICR) will provide (ES&T, March 1996, 106A). According to the Office of Water, the rules are scheduled to be finalized in 1998 and 2000, respectively. The ICR requires testing to be conducted at more than 300 of the largest public drinking water systems, those serving 100,000 or more people. EPA also will fund a study of smaller systems. The rule was proposed in February 1994 and was supposed to be finalized in June 1995 (ES&T, Jan. 1995, 20A). The effort will cost the public systems about $130 million and is EPA's largest study involving detection of biological contaminants, said Steve Schaub of the Office of Water. The systems will report data monthly for 18 months beginning in 1997. EPA will compile the data and use it as the basis for the amendments to the pending regulations. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) is concerned about how the data will be interpreted and its quality, according to spokesperson Dane Pedersen. The information collection rule calls for use of the indirect immunofluorescent method to detect Cryptosporidium and Giardia, despite the method's marginal performance in lab and field tests (ES&T, May 1996, 188A). However, Schaub said EPA will continue to develop new methods and modifications to the method that will more effectively detect microbes.
EPA is developing a screening and testing strategy for identifying endocrine disrupters based on the recommendations of a 23-member panel formed to help identify endocrinedisrupting chemicals. On May 16 the panel unanimously called for development of the strategy in six months. "There are screens in existence, and within six months we want to have a framework in place to determine if these screens will help or if new ones need to be developed," said Ronald Kendall, a panel member and director of the Institute of Wildlife and Environmental Toxicology at Clemson University. EPA will hold meetings over the summer with scientists from government, industry, and public interest groups to determine the screening technologies that exist, said Richard Hill, a science advisor with EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). "A lot of the assays are new and novel and they haven't had a full review," warned Hill. EPA also plans to compare notes with United Kingdom researchers involved in similar work, Hill said. Discussions of the organization of a second panel that will write the strategy have been ongoing at OPPTS, and EPA expects to form the panel by summer's end, Hill said. The panel will use the work from technical and U.S.-U.K. meetings and a mission statement written by the 23-member panel to develop the strategy. After the strategy is in place, OPPTS will use it as the basis for endocrine disrupter testing guidelines, he said. EPA needs a screening strategy to select which chemicals from a list of thousands must be tested as possible endocrine disrupters, said Lynn Goldman, OPPTS assistant administrator. Nearly 600 pesticides and 78,000 chemicals are in commercial use, several chemicals are no longer
0013-936X/96/0930-327A$12.00/0 © 1996 American Chemical Society
produced but persist in the environment, and several hundred new chemicals are introduced each year. "We do not have the scientific capacity in our nation to do testing on every chemical," she said.
EPA-industry collaboration focuses on PM controls Advanced detection and control technologies for fine particulates and other air pollutants from stationary sources are expected from a new agreement with a pollution control industry group, an air official said. The agreement provides Institute of Clean Air Companies' (ICAC) members with access to EPA facilities and researchers to conduct labscale testing of pollution measurement and control devices that are in development. ICAC will survey its members and identify any promising pollution control projects, especially for fine particulate matter, and propose them to EPA. If a proposed project meets EPA's criteria, the agency will assign personnel and facility space for further development. Selected projects must address an agency need and merit the commitment of laboratory resources, said G. Blair Martin of the Pollution Prevention and Control Division. ICAC members will fund their own research, and EPA will provide technical support, Martin said. The agreement is in effect for one year, though it can be extended.
ORD to establish peer review advisory panel A federal advisory committee is being formed to advise the Office of Research and Development (ORD) on its peer review process and laboratory functions (Federal Register 1996, 6i(92), 21463). "We felt a really strong need to get independent scientific advice on a [frequent] basis," said Peter Preuss, director of ORD's National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance.
VOL. 30, NO. 8, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 3 2 7 A
The new Board of Scientific Counselors will directly advise Assistant Administrator Robert Huggett on the adequacy of the peer review process for the office's intramural and extramural grant programs, said Deputy Assistant Administrator Joe Alexander. The board will also oversee subcommittees that will review each of ORD's five laboratories and research centers, Preuss said. ORD received approval last year to conduct outside peer review of grants under the Federal Advisory Committee Act {ES&T, August 1995, 349A). Although not explicitly part of the ORD reorganization that began last year {ES&T, July 1995, 300A), the board is being formed to meet the goal of the office's long-range strategic plan objective to improve the agency's external peer review. About 12 board members currently are being selected, Preuss said, primarily from academia; industry and other groups familiar with environmental research also will be represented. Members will serve three-year terms. The board will meet three or four times per year, he said.
Court backs TRI additions; groups file appeal On May 2 a federal judge turned back challenges to the addition of chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory, a mandatory report of industrial releases. As a result an additional 286 chemicals must be reported for the first time on 1995 reports due August 1 {ES&T, March 1996, 107A). Four industry groups had charged that some of EPA's additions to the TRI were "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law." U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled for the agency, finding that "EPA went to great lengths to separately evaluate every chemical on the basis of relevant data." The agency "didn't do good science and cut corners [in reviewing] some of the chemicals," claimed Matt Weinstock of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). The association had directly challenged the listing of six chemicals and asked the court to require EPA to justify listing another 147. Three other industry associations had each challenged the addition of a single chemical. However, Kessler wrote
that EPA's scientific and technical judgments were "outside the expertise of a reviewing court." On June 27, CMA and other plaintiffs filed an appeal, Weinstock said. Despite the appeal, the industry groups will comply with the new listing requirement, he said. The judicial decision will allow EPA to move forward in adding other chemicals, said Maria Doa of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA had deferred 41 chemicals for further study in the November 1994 rule that added the 286 chemicals to the TRI {Federal Register 1994, 59, 61432-488), she said, adding that the agency would propose additions from these 41 chemicals near the end of 1997. Meanwhile, EPA proposed in June to require annual TRI reports from seven currently exempt industry groups: metal mining, coal mining, electric utilities, commercial hazardous waste treaters, petroleum bulk terminals, chemical wholesalers, and solvent recovery services. This would add 6400 facilities to some 24,000 facilities now covered by the law, according to EPA. The rule could become final by the end of the year.
Panel to address U.S.—Mexico air pollution Strategies for controlling one of the most severe air pollution problems along the U.S.-Mexico border will be developed by a new bi-national panel. Under a May 7 agreement between the two nations, the 20-member panel will be formed in late summer that will recommend ways to reduce pollution in the El Paso, Texas-Juarez, Mexico, airshed. This is the first panel established to deal with a specific border pollution problem, said Pam Teel of EPA's Office of International Activities. Since the 1970s, El Paso has not met air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, according to James Yarbrough of EPA's Region 6. On an average of 12-15 days per year the city exceeds the allowable levels for these pollutants, especially ozone. And the air in Juarez "is just as dirty if not dirtier than El Paso's," he said. The panel will be made up mostly of local officials and residents and will devise methods for improving air quality that are acceptable to both communities, Teel said. Its rec-
3 2 8 A • VOL. 30, NO. 8, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
ommendations will be used by the Paso del Norte Task Force, a binational committee with jurisdiction over border environmental issues, to implement pollution control measures for the airshed. No schedules have been set for the panel's formation, meetings, or recommendations.
Survey of 233 hazardous waste facilities planned Data on hazardous waste concentrations in waste management systems being collected this summer will be used to develop future rules, an EPA official said. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is conducting a voluntary survey of the 233 largest hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and recycling facilities to build a database. The database is intended to improve the regulatory impact analysis required for each rule making, said OSWER's Lyn Luben. It will be used to identify wastes that present a nominal hazard, support delisting criteria of the proposed hazardous waste identification rule {ES&T, January 1996, 11A), determine the effectiveness of waste management methods, and develop goals for the national hazardous waste program. It also will be available for public use, he said.
Hazardous spill report requirements changed The level that triggers accidentalrelease reporting for 202 extremely hazardous substances has been raised by a final rule {Federal Register 1996, 62(89), 20473-490). The rule replaces the uniform, onepound threshold for these substances with chemical-specific levels ranging from 10 to 10,000 pounds, according to Craig Matthiessen of the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, a facility storing an extremely hazardous substance on site must develop an emergency action plan if the stored amount is above a toxicity threshold, Matthiessen said. Facilities do not have to report spills that are below the new threshold amount. The rule also eliminates four chemicals from the list. It was scheduled to become effective July 8.
