EPA WATCH EPA's lax oversight adds to wetlands losses Millions of acres of agricultural wetlands are endangered because EPA has turned a blind eye to improper U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) methods of identifying marshes and vernal pools, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) alleged in June. PEER, a government whistle-blowers group, filed a detailed complaint asking the Inspectors General of EPA and USDA to investigate the agencies' intentional disregard of Clean Water Act (CWA) violations. A Clinton administration official said the allegations are exaggerated and that the two agencies working to correct the problem Under a government reinvention effort to streamline regulations for farmers, EPA, USDA, and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 1994 signed an agreement in which the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—a USDA branch originally created to verify crop subsidies—would be solely responsible for identifying wetlands on farms, said an administration official who asked to remain anonymous. The PEER complaint alleges that the NRCS's determinations were scientifically invalid and biased toward not identifying wetlands Prior to the 1994 agreement, the Corps conducted technical and precise wetlands determinations before issuing permits that allowed farmers to destroy wetlands for tilling, said the official. "The agreement said that if NRCS would change and conduct determinations the way the Corps had, the Corps would accept them for Clean Water Act permits," the official said. A 1997 internal NRCS survey obtained by PEER showed that 60-80% of the 3 million wetlands determinations performed by NRCS since 1985 were faulty and tended to underestimate the wetlands acreage, said Todd Robins, PEER's general counsel. For © 1999 American Chemical Society
example, not only did NRCS not implement Corps criteria when making a determination, it based its determinations on aerial photos taken in late summer when the most vulnerable vernal pools were dry, PEER alleges.
identify wetlands. The agencies have agreed mat die CWA should provide the definition of a wetland. The negotiations, however, are rocky. In response to PEER's complaint, EPA's Inspector General launched a survey in August investigating EPA's oversight of wetlands determinations, said John Walsh, deputy divisional inspector general. But he added that a detailed audit may not be warranted. However, the National Wildlife Federation and three other environmental groups filed a lawsuit in July against the NRCS in South Dakota for relaxing the definition of wetlands in that state.
Scientific evidence does not support TRI lead requirement, critics say Wetlands may be at risk because of faulty estimates of actual wetlands acreage.
Anonymous EPA employees told Robins that top agency officials were aware of NRCS's deficiencies, but under political pressure from the agricultural industry, issued orders to EPA staff not to exercise their legal oversight of NRCS's wetlands determinations, Robins said. An April 1995 memo from Bob Wayland, director of EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, to regional wetlands coordinators carried out this order, telling staff that "current wetlands determinations are valid and would not be subject to change " The memo was signed at about the same time that gressional hearing was held to criticize EPA's oversight of the wetlands program Robins said Both Robins and the Clinton administration official agree that the current situation leaves wetlands on farms unprotected from development. The signatories to the 1994 agreement are trying to draft a new pact tiiat will use procedures under the CWA to
EPA's proposal to significantly lower the reporting threshold of lead and lead compounds under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) has the lead industry questioning the scientific justification behind EPA's decision. "Unfortunately, there's no indication that [the proposed rule] will do anything good other than add paperwork requirements," said Jeffrey Miller, executive director of the Lead Industries Association, Inc., a trade organization located in Sparta, N.J., that represents producers, recyclers, and industrial users of lead. "Lead levels in the environment are dropping now, and rapidly, and that's proceeding without any increase in reporting requirements, so it's hard to understand why this is necessary" Indeed, children's blood lead levels, the proposed rule's primary target, have fallen since lead was banned in paint in 1978 and phased out in gasoline during the 1980s, but EPA has determined that the lower reporting threshold is warranted nonetheless. Because lead does not biodegrade, it remains in the environment and available as a hazard, and data show that it concentrates in aquatic organisms and humans
OCTOBER 1, 1999/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS " 4 0 7 A
said Maria Doa, chief of EPA's TRI branch. Therefore, even small amounts can result in adverse effects. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that close to 1 million children still suffer from elevated blood lead levels, in spite of the actions taken in the 1970s and 1980s to limit lead releases. Elevated blood lead levels can lead to learning disabilities and behavioral problems, and at very high levels, seizures, coma and even death according to the CDC Currently, only facilities manufacturing or processing more than 25,000 pounds or using more than 10,000 pounds of lead and lead compounds annually are required to report their releases to air, water, and land. In August, EPA proposed to lower that threshold to 10 pounds per year {Fed. Regist,, 1999, 64 (148), 42,221-42,243) in line with a rule targeting persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals proposed earlier this year {ES&T, March 1199 p. .13A114A). Under the new reporting threshold, EPA estimates that 15,000 additional TRI reports would have to be filed, with almost 70% of them coming from small businesses. Those likely to be hit hardest are industrial boilers, those that manufacture electronic components and accessories, and those that produce motor vehicles and equipment. EPA's estimated price tag for the increased reporting is $116 million for the first year and subsequently $60 million annually. Most children are exposed to lead from lead-based paint or leaded dust found in older housing, said Brian Cook, technical branch chief in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "Kids who live in primarily urban, lower-income, minority areas are probably at greatest risk, not because these homes contain more lead-based paint, but because they may not be in as good of condition as other housing," Cook said. But Jerry Harshovitz, chief of the CDC's Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch in Atlanta, Ga., pointed out that children also are exposed to lead by playing in soil And industries still are releasing large quantities of lead, especially to land. Overall, some 2 million tons of lead are used per year in the United States, with about 75% of that com-
ing from recycled sources—mainly lead-acid car batteries, Miller said. According to 1997 TRI data, the latest year for which data are available, approximately 18 million pounds were released onsite to land, 1.3 million pounds to air, and 36 million pounds disposed off site, primarily to land, Doa said.
States, EPA discuss compromise plan to halt lawsuit over NOx plan Senior agency officials and state environmental commissioners in July began negotiating an agreement to control the regional transport of nitrogen oxides (NOJ. The meetings are being held to stem what is expected to be a drawn-out court battle over EPA's NO state implementation plan (SIP) call, the sweeping program to help eastern and midAtlantic states meet national ozone standards.
"We all recognize that it is going to be protracted litigation if it proceeds, and everybody who is a stakeholder will lose." —Skip Kropp W.V. Air Quality Office The meetings are an outgrowth of talks among officials from EPA and 13 eastern and mid-Atlantic states who are concerned that a May court decision canceled national plans to control ozone, or ground-level smog. The decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put a hold on the SIP call, which requires controls on the ozone-precursor NO in 22 states east of the Mississippi (ES&T Dec. 1997 p. 555A). The same court will hear arguments for and against the SIP call this fall but those involved with the litigation believe the battle could last well into 2003 The court was ruling on a petition filed by officials from West Virginia and Michigan who sued EPA
4 0 8 A • OCTOBER 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
over the SIP call. The officials allege that the program targets facilities in their states even though they believe it is not likely that NO x emissions float far enough eastward to prevent the New England and mid-Atlantic regions from meeting ozone rules, said Bob Hodanbosi, chief of Ohio's Division of Air Pollution Control. A few state officials, including those from West Virginia, are calling for additional, regional modeling to pinpoint which areas are affected by a state's downwind emissions said Skip Kropp West Virginia's Air Quality Office chief. If the SIP call litigation proceeds and the states finally put control requirements in place, the drop in NO^ emissions would not materialize until 2006 at the earliest, said Kropp. "We all recognize that it is going to be protracted litigation if it proceeds, and everybody who is a stakeholder will lose," said Kropp. The delay in a national ozone plan hurts power companies that cannot budget future control costs, puts on hold state air programs, and keeps the air dirty, Kropp added. In late July, EPA officials floated a possible fix: the midwestern and southern states targeted in the SIP call would meet by 2003 a less stringent, overall state cap on NO x emissions of 0.20 pound per million British thermal unit (mmBtu). The proposal struck a midpoint between the emissions rate of 0.25 lb/mmBtu pushed by the midwestern and southeastern governors before the SIP call was finalized, and the emissions rate of 0.15 lb/mmBtu in the final SIP rule. The northeastern states would still have to meet the SIP call's 0.15 lb/mmBtu. But as of mid-August, most state officials said the proposal was too vague to be of any help. The agency has hired a facilitator to move the discussions forward, and a meeting between the parties was planned for August 22. The talks are likely to focus on questions from the states that would flesh out EPA's proposal. But those involved say it is too early to guess whether a resolution will be found, despite the enthusiasm to short-circuit the litigation. "This is an endless do-loop if we don't all recognize that we need to drop our existing positions" and move toward a compromise in settling the court said KropD
