Broad support for adding dioxin to TRI reports By the time the comment period ended Sept. 5, EPA had received more than 400 letters of support— and some industry opposition—to a proposal that would add dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to the list of chemicals reported under the annual Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The May proposal to add dioxin and 27 dioxin-like compounds to the TRI list followed a petition from an environmental group, Communities for a Better Environment. The added chemicals will include 7 polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), 10 polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and 11 co-planar polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These compounds, EPA said in its proposal [Federal Register 1997, 62(88), 24887-24896), "are highly toxic, environmentally persistent,... and are known to cause chloracne, immunotoxicity, reproductive/developmental effects, and cancer in experimental animals. It is reasonable to anticipate that these chemicals will cause cancer and other serious adverse effects in humans." To add the new chemicals to the list, EPA will have to lower its reporting thresholds because dioxin is usually emitted in quantities that would be exempt under current TRI requirements. EPA said it would propose changes to threshold reporting limits and address the effective date of the new reporting requirement when the agency issues a final rule in 1998. A comment from the Isaac Walton League was typical of the widespread support from environmental and conservation groups. "This requirement is so long overdue that significant fish, wildlife, and human damage has already occurred," the group said. Others said the agency should add all 75 dioxins, 135 furans, and 209 PCB congeners to the list. The petitioner, Los Angeles-based Communities for a Better Environment, said it was concerned because of dioxin emissions from the petroleum industry, which "has emerged as an issue warranting immediate attention." Industry opponents included the Chlorine Chemistry Council and the Integrated Waste Services Association. The high cost of testing for dioxin compounds was one of the major objections. "It has the potential
to severely increase the cost of reporting without any public benefit," said the association, which represents 65 companies with waste-toenergy incinerators. Waste incinerators are considered a major source of airborne dioxin emissions, although EPA said the new rule also would affect chemical manufacturers who produce "chlorinated organic compounds," steel producers, smelters, or other industries that burn coal, wood, petroleum products, and used tires. The rule also would affect companies treating and incinerating PCBs, EPA said.
Industry fighting proposed changes in mineral waste law EPA has been buried under a pile of negative comments from industry for its plan to narrow the scope of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exclusion for mineral wastes. The comment period on the proposed RCRA changes ended Aug. 12. The agency on May 12 had proposed a tightening of the "Bevill Amendment," currently exempting most fossil fuel combustion wastes, cement kiln dust, and mineral processing wastes from hazardous waste regulation. The proposal, said the agency, is part of a broader plan to limit hazardous waste landfilling "unless the waste meets treatment standards established by EPA." The aim, said EPA, is to "substantially diminish the toxicity or mobility of hazardous waste so that shortand long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimized." Although landfill restrictions are supported by environmentalists, the proposal will have widespread impact on several industrial sectors, particularly mining and steel, where ore residues and scrap material are often stockpiled prior to recycling. Not surprisingly, EPA received more than 100 comments by the August deadline. The National Mining Association (NMA) filed 133 pages of detailed objections. Among other complaints, industries are upset that EPA will no longer allow temporary land storage even if materials are destined for eventual recycling. The association estimated that the cost to Arizona's copper industry would amount to "hundreds of millions of dollars annually."
5 0 0 A • VOL. 31, NO. 11, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
EPA spokeswoman Tanya Meekins said the agency tentatively hoped to publish its final decision next May.
Radon in drinking water standard is withdrawn EPA has withdrawn its 1991 proposal to regulate radon-222 in drinking water. The agency said a new standard would await a National Academy of Sciences toxicity assessment, which is expected next summer. The agency was directed to withdraw the proposed standard by Congress under the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996. EPA had in 1991 proposed a maximum contaminant level of 300 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) of water. This standard was opposed by water system operators who said EPA's assessment of risk was off by several orders of magnitude. Echoing an ongoing debate over the risks of lowlevel radon exposure, they also said the cost was excessive, given the minimal health benefit. Although ingestion is the most common form of exposure, radon, a known carcinogen, also vaporizes in the shower. Drinking water, however, is not the only source of radon in the home. Because it is produced by the normal decay of naturally occurring uranium, it also can seep into homes from underground geologic formations. Among other things, Congress told EPA to consider a "multimedia approach," one that would give states an overall target for radon reduction without specifying that the entire decline comes from a new drinking water standard. "The major threat to public health from radon is not from drinking water," said Dan Pedersen, a regulatory engineer at the American Water Works Association. Following EPA's withdrawal announcement Aug. 5, the association released an advisory over the Labor Day weekend recommending that all water treatment plants voluntarily take action if radon levels exceed 4000 pCi/L. Aeration is the most common form of treatment to remove radon from drinking water. "We're not saying that 4000 pCi/L is where we think [the new standard] ought to be; we are saying that, if you have 4000, you better do something about it," Pedersen said. Environmentalists, meanwhile,
are concerned that EPA's withdrawal means that water consumers will not have protection from excessive radon. "From a public health standpoint, this is a major concern to us," said Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Panel urges continuation of "impressive" SITE program An effort to foster innovation in the Superfund hazardous site cleanup program has been "impressive" and should be continued, a Science Advisory Board panel has recommended. Reviewing the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program at the request of EPA, the board concluded in a July report: "The need for improved technology to prevent, reduce, or remediate environmental contamination remains a national priority. The agency should build upon the success of SITE." "We've been doing what we thought was good work for 10 years, so it's great to get the recognition," said Annette Gatchett, EPA associate director for technology and head of the SITE program. EPA developed the SITE program following congressional passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Although participation by vendors in the SITE program has been voluntary, it has given EPA and Superfund contractors an opportunity to test 77 innovative new approaches to hazardous site remediation. The board said the SITE program has cut cleanup costs from $5 million to $200 million in each of EPA's 10 regions. Despite the praise for EPA's SITE program, the advisory board recommended several changes. The board said EPA needs to do a better job disseminating information about the program so contractors could decide which, if any, of the innovative technologies "best suited their situations." The board also recommended that EPA compile "more complete and consistent cost data" because "often times cost is the pivotal decision criterion in selecting a technology" at a Superfund site. Gatchett said the agency held a meeting Sept. 8 to discuss ways to implement the Science Advisory Board recommendations. "It presents a whole new way to do business," she said.
A Little Knowledge is a Less Dangerous Thing Chemical Health & Safely
B
ut only if it's knowledge of the top developments in safety, concentrated into one concise, well-focused publication. Knowledge that includes:
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1996
Volume 3 Number6
E=
Practicing successful waste minimization
Chemical hood performance
Noteworthy releases from the National Toxicology Program. Government regulatory updates, including what's on the horizon. Safety-related rulings in the courts. And other significant articles and case studies that a Laboratory Manager like you can really use.
Turn to Chemical Health & Safety to Make Work a Little More Secure
1997 Subscription Rates (bimonthly, 6 issues)
There's no risk...
ACS Members $30 $35 $39 $41 CHAS Division $ 1 8 $ 2 3 $ 2 7 $29 Members Kfate™
$30 $35 $39 $41
Nonmembers $275 $280 $284 $286 ACS Student ^2^
$27so $3i50$335o
Simply subscribe. Read. And if you're not soon saving time and energy—and reducing safety worries with each issue— call and we'll rush a refund for all unmailed issues. Don't wait. Don't worry. And don't work so hard keeping up with the constantly changing world of safety. Just make the call.
* includes air service
To subscribe, call
1-800-333-9511 ACS EssentialPUBLICATIONS Resources for the Chemical Sciences Published by the American Chemical Society and the ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
HAS 7C00/12/2277M |
VOL.31, NO. 11, 1997 /ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES TECHNOLOGY/ NEWS • 5 0 1 A
