EPAWATCH
Feds launch civil rights investigation in NYC The federal government has launched an interagency, civil rights investigation into the environmental and health concerns raised by poor African-American and Hispanic communities in New York City (NYC), according to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The investigation was announced March 6, following an eight-hour meeting between officials from federal departments, including EPA, Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, Health and Human Services, CEQ, and many NYC community leaders, said Mary Helen Cervantes-Gross, spokesperson for EPA Region II. CEQ's Bradley Campbell announced a list of 20 issues that a New York City-based interagency task force will consider, although those issues have not yet been agreed to by all agencies. A similar task force, comprising local residents and federal officials, has been formed in Los Angeles. On the same day, EPA announced the partial acceptance of an environmental justice complaint, which was signed by Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) and as many as 17 South Bronx church and community groups. Filed under Tide VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the petition alleges that the city and state violated the civil rights of the Black and Hispanic community members by allowing 35 garbage transfer stations and "dozens" of other waste facilities to be built in their South Bronx neighborhoods. The South Bronx petition joins 26 other civil rights petitions that have been on file with EPA, some since 1992.
Proposal relaxes dumping rules for lead paint debris Home contractors and others disposing of lead-based paint debris would no longer have to test the
waste prior to dumping under two rules proposed in December. The proposals would drop requirements that construction debris contaminated with lead-based paint be tested and, if lead levels are high enough, be disposed as hazardous waste. The draft rules also would end disposal of lightly contaminated debris in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, because these dumps leach lead more often than other landfills, according to the Federal Register. Instead, EPA proposes that all lead-based paint debris be disposed of in construction and demolition or hazardous waste landfills or incinerators, regardless of whether it is hazardous or not. EPA reports that most test as nonhazardous. {Federal Register 1998, 63(243) 70,190-70,249). The purpose of the new rules is to protect children's health by removing obstacles to the cleanup and removal of lead-based paint in residential buildings, said Tova Spector, environmental protection specialist with the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. She said the move is projected to boost lead paint removal by reducing disposal costs from $316 per ton to $37 per ton. Lead poisoning affects the health of roughly 900,000 children and infants and can cause learning disabilities and mental retardation, according to EPA. But the proposed rules are unlikely to reduce removal costs "because most debris tests nonhazardous and is disposed in municipal solid waste landfills," said Jim Wachtel, executive director of the Alliance for Safe and Responsible Lead Abatement. He claimed that the switch to disposal in construction and demolition landfills threatens groundwater because these landfills don't have the liners, monitoring, and leachate collection systems found in MSW landfills. If finalized, the proposals "will pro-
1 9 2 A • MAY 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
duce larger volumes of waste and put more groundwater at risk," Wachtel said. Both Wachtel, who represents an alliance of lead removal industries and environmental groups, and landfill operators believe dumpers should be required to test leadbased paint debris, and if not hazardous, be allowed to put it in MSW landfills. "Municipal solid waste landfills are the most protective of the environment," said Brian Guzzone, with the Solid Waste Association of North America. EPA is wrong when it claims that municipal landfills leach lead much more aggressively than construction landfills, he said. "We have serious concerns about directing leadbased paint debris to facilities with little or no environmental protection and/or regulatory oversight," he concluded. "If they have any new data on leachate, we'd be happy to look at it and take it into consideration," said EPA's Rajani Joglekar. The comment period for the proposals ended April 2.
Petitioners request improved focus on "inerts" Increasing pressure from manufacturers and environmentalists is driving EPA to focus more on the "inert" ingredients in pesticide formulations. The Chemical Producers and Distributors Association (CPDA) has asked the agency to speed its approval process for inerts, while the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and eight state attorneys general have petitioned for full disclosure of inert ingredients on pesticide labels. The term "inert" covers everything but the active ingredients in pesticide products, from water and fragrances to emulsifiers, adjuvants, and surfactants. According to a 1998 report from the
NCAP, 26% of inert chemicals in use are classified as hazardous by various regulatory programs. While 2311 inerts are in use, only 7 are disclosed, NCAP found. At the January 1999 Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee meeting, an EPA official reported that manufacturers are waiting for tolerance levels, or an exemption from a tolerance, for 77 inert ingredients. Fifteen final inert decisions were issued during the 1998 fiscal year. The manufacturers say that at a rate of 15 decisions annually, it would take EPAfiveyears to address the backlog; however, new petitions continue to be filed with EPA. In a Jan. 7 letter, CPDA asked the agency to create a separate branch for inerts with additional staff and resources. A separate branch "would increase the likelihood that inert programs will receive proper attention, adequate funding, and increased accountability," CPDA President Warren Stickle wrote. Kerry Leifer, team leader for inert ingredients in EPA's Registration Division, said the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) "has certainly slowed our ability to approve inerts. EPA is grappling with how to better handle inerts, while balancing competing priorities mandated by the FQPA, including reviewing 9700 existing pesticide tolerances. Stickle charged that the inerts backlog thwarts the introduction of reduced-risk pesticides, such as ones with better surfactants that "stick" more effectively to plants, rather than rolling off into the environment. "Companies are not investing money in new inerts," Stickle said. Meanwhile, the agency has not responded to identical petitions submitted in January 1998 by the attorneys general, NCAP, and 180 cosigners, representing environmental, consumer, and labor organizations in 36 states, which argue that pesticide labels should list inert ingredients. The petitioners believe that full disclosure will encourage manufacturers to use less toxic ingredients. Twenty inerts have been classified as known or suspected carcinogens by federal or international agen© 1999 American Chemical Society
cies, 187 are considered hazardous air and water pollutants, and 118 are considered occupational hazards, according to NCAP Pesticide manufacturers generally consider the inerts in a product to be proprietary trade secrets. Although the law allows EPA to require disclosure of any risky pesticide ingredient, Leifer said the agency is reviewing how much additional disclosure the law permits.
Corps, EPA agree on sediment quality criteria The long-standing disagreement between EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) over sediment quality criteria (SQC) appears to have ended. Both agencies have agreed that numerical standards will not be used as legal requirements. Instead, the numbers to be known as sediment quality guidelines (SQG),
The agreement weakens the legal status of the criteria. —Emily Green, Sierra Club will be used as guidance in conjunction with biological tests. The agencies are ready to sign a memorandum of understanding sometime this spring, according to Corps and EPA officials. The agreement finally opens the door for EPA to establish a national approach for evaluating contaminated sediments, which often preserve a legacy and a layer of earlier pollution by persistent bioaccumulative compounds. Such evaluations are intended to play an important role in a wide range of regulatory decisions including Superfund cleanup levels, open-water disposal of dredged sediments and permits for industrial discharges, according to EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy, which was published last May. Last year, an agreement was scuttled over terminology
disagreements (ES&T, July 1998, p. 306A). Representatives from environmental groups who met with EPA officials last month said the current agreement takes the legal teeth out of efforts to clean and protect sediments. The numerical standards were intended to protect the most sensitive organisms. Replacing such comprehensive standards with a few biological tests that may overlook the most sensitive organism weakens the level of protection, said Jackie Savitz, executive director of the Coastal Alliance. EPA intends to regulate industrial discharges to protect fresh water sediments from further contamination, according to the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy. Stationary sources, such as factories, would have been requited to meet the numerical limits through their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, said Emily Green, Sierra Club sediment campaigner. Because the agreement weakens the legal status of the criteria, there is no obvious way to further control pollution from stationary sources, said Green. Both the Corps and EPA have agreed to continue discussing this issue. But the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the American Petroleum Institute have asked EPA not to put any further requirements on stationary sources. Despite assurances from both agencies that environmentalists would be included in any discussions about sediments, "we were brought in at the eleventh hour," Savitz said. The environmentalists concerns may be premature, according to EPA Ambient Water Quality Program manager Mary Reiley. She noted that states determine their own sediment quality standards; EPA provides advice. The EPACorps agreement is just the start of the long process toward generating national sediment quality guidance. The next step is a draft user's guide for state and federal regulators, which should be published for public comment this summer, she said. The guide will provide advice on how to evaluate contaminated sediments.
MAY 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 9 3 A
