EPAWATCH Proposed exemption for engineered pesticides EPA would exempt some naturally occurring pesticides in closely related plants from safeguards under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), according to supplemental notices to three 1994 proposed rulemakings {Federal Register, 1997, 62(95), 27132-55). The May notices explain how the FQPA would affect proposed tolerance exemptions for viral coat proteins, which protect plants against viral infections; plant pesticides derived from closely related (interbreeding) plants; and nucleic acids, which make up the genetic material that produces a plant pesticide. The aggregate risk section of the FQPA, which limits pesticide use based on a calculation determining total human exposure from all sources of similar pesticides applies only to pesticides considered some risk to human health Tolerance p v p m Y\ _
tions would effectively them from the aeeregate risk equation The notices concern some in the scientific community who say genetic engineering can alter plants in ways that would not occur outside of the laboratory, even when the gene manipulation is limited to closely related plants. Scientists do not know enough about genetically engineered plant pesticides to make a determination that they are safe, said Jane Risler of the Union of Concerned Scientists. For example, Risler said researchers might decide to introduce substances from a tomato's wild relative to tomato plants used for food production These submieht not have reached the food sUDDIV naturally or through traditional breedine therebv raising 'the safetv of the genetically enginppred plant "These (natural plant pesticides) are things we are eating all the time," said Elizabeth Milewski, assistant for biotechnology in EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. "We have a lot of experi-
Agreement targets Cryptosporidium in drinking water On June 4, after an intense four-month negotiation, an EPA advisory committee agreed to enforce extensive measures for drinking water facilities aimed at reducing the risks from the microbial pathogen Cryptosporidium. A complicated group of negotiated rulemakings has been under way since 1992 to balance the benefits of using disinfectants to control microbial pathogens with the risks of illness from disinfectant byproducts (DBPs) such as trihalomethanes. The rulemakings are an agency priority: In 1993, an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis killed more than 50 people in Milwaukee and sickened almost the entire city. The committee agreed that public water utilities serving more than 10,000 customers should lower maximum turbidity limits from 5 to 1 nephelometric turbidity unit (a measure of particles in water) for all of the effluent from the filters in a single plant. Because scientists have not reached a consensus on how to kill Cryptosporidium, the rule will focus on removing as much of the microbial pollutant as possible with filters. In future rules, EPA will pursue a risk-based, multiple-barrier approach, including source water protection, physical removal, and new inactivation technologies as they become available. Ozonation appears to be the most promising treatment for inactivating Cryptosporidium, although ozonation does not work well under 5 °C and there are few real-world studies confirming the lab data. Committee members planned to sign the accord on July 15. Although one member from the National Rural Water Association did not approve the plan because he believes it sets a precedent for unacceptably high expenses for very small systems, the agreement was expected to go forward. EPA will use the pact as the framework for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, intended to revise filtration and disinfection requirements, and for another rule to revise acceptable levels for DBPs.
ence to base our conclusions" that the plant pesticides are safe. In the May 16 notices, EPA solicited additional information that might demonstrate how genetic engineering could introduce new substances into the food supply under the proposed exemptions.
States, EPA agree to measure progress States and EPA have agreed on a range of measures they will use to determine the failure or success of environmental programs. A draft joint statement, which was undergoing revisions in June, lays out "core indicators" designed to replace the traditional methods of measuring environmental protection efforts starting in 1998. The agreement with the states is part of a larger EPA effort to move away from defining success by the
3 5 0 A • VOL. 31, NO. 8, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
number of enforcement actions taken or the amounts of fines assessed, said Ann Goode, chief of staff in the Office of Air & Radiation. "We want to measure environmental changes," she said. For example, states might use EPA's Toxics Release Inventory along with the agency's National Toxics Inventory to determine whether emissions are declining. For hazardous waste management facilities, states might look at the controls put in place to prevent air, soil, and groundwater releases. To measure success in lead programs states would look at the change in bloodlead levels. EPA has developed its own set of measures in "Environmental Goals for America, with Milestones from 2005," which lists a mix of scientific and administrative techniques that the agency says will fill the gap left by federal laws and agreements that
0013-936X/97/0931-350A$14.00/0 © 1997 American Chemical Society
do not specify a measurable result [ES&T, June e997, 264A).
Effluent trading limited in energy sector Energy companies will be reluctant to trade pollution rights under EPA's proposed effluent trading program unless the Clean Water Act is amended to specifically authorize the trades, according to a Department of Energy (DOE) report. "The Feasibility of Effluent Trading in the Energy Industries," released in May, says that the petroleum refining, oil exploration and production, petroleum distribution, electric power, and coal industries are not willing to risk future litigation and liability under a voluntary trading program that is not statutorily authorized. The proposed voluntary effluent trading program would allow regulated facilities to meet their technology-based water quality permit limits by paying another source discharging into the same watershed to cut back its pollution. In January 1996, EPA released a policy statement endorsing effluent trading in watersheds. The agency is currently developing the "Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading," a formal guidance document for local and state planners detailing five different types of trading, including point-to-point source trading, intra-plant trading, pretreatment trading, point-nonpoint so lirc e trading, and nonpoint-nonpoint source trading. Company officials need not worry about federal liability for effluent trading, because the trades would be written into water quality permits, said Mahesh Podar, director of the policy budget staff in the Office of Water. Podar said state permitting authorities are receptive to effluent trading, and many are already conducting demonstration projects. DOE officials were interested in the program because it might lead to significant cost savings for the energy industry, said John Veil of Argonne National Laboratory and author of the DOE report. Some waterrelated trades, such as wetlands and fisheries mitigation, show good potential for trading that could benefit some enerffv industries, the report said. Overall, however, the report found there is limited opportunity for effluent trading in the enerffv sector
Other industries, such as agriculture and wastewater treatment, could more readily trade on nutrient effluents, said Veil.
Hazardous waste facilities should avoid sensitive areas States and local governments should avoid locating hazardous waste facilities near environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and schools, say EPA officials, three years after deciding not to follow through on a proposed siting rule. The agency recommendations, released in May, consist of technical information generated while EPA was working on the proposed rulemaking in 1994, according to Virginia Phillips, siting team leader for the Office of Solid Waste. That rulemaking was dropped in part because localities and states were already trying to address these issues, said Phillips. The agency recommends that local planners consider weather conditions, geological features, groundwater, wetlands, population levels, and current land use when siting new facilities or new land units occupied by existing facilities. These considerations are designed to protect sensitive areas, those that may be disturbed or permanently damaged by hazardous waste contamination, according to the agency. For example, under the land-use category, the agency recommends that hazardous waste management facilities not be located near schools, nursing homes, day care centers, or hospitals because of possible adverse health effects on the elderly, children, and hospital patients. Under "unfavorable weather conditions," the agency recommends that hazardous waste facilities not be located in valleys or mountain regions, where stagnant air can concentrate pollutants. EPA is also interested in getting local residents involved early in the process because siting is always done before permits are issued, said Phillips. A recent EPA study of hazardous waste facilities showed that 29 new facilities will be built over the next 10 years. Nearly 100 new hazardous waste units will be added to existing sites. EPA staff are developing a separate set of recommendations that will address the possible social impacts on communities from hazardous waste facilities, Phillips said.
Closure of N.Y.-N.J. dump provides only partial solution The closure next month of the sediment dump site for the New YorkNew Jersey harbor, welcomed by state government officials, environmentalists, and harbor users when announced in May, leaves unanswered the larger question of how to dispose of the 2.5 million tons of contaminated sediment that flows into the harbor each year. The closure of the Mud Dump site is part of an agreement announced in July 1996 among the Clinton administration, state and port officials, and environmentalists. The New York-New Jersey harbor bottom is covered by some of the most contaminated sediment in the world, containing dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls, and a host of hydrocarbons and metals from Superfund sites and industries that have dumped waste into upstream rivers. EPA proposed a closure plan for the 2.2-square nautical mile Mud Dump site, located 3.5 nautical miles east of Highlands, N.J. {Federal Register 1997, 62(92), 26267-79). The site will be reopened and enlarged to 15.7 square nautical miles encompassing the surrounding degraded area. The plan includes a remediation strategy for the new area. Only the "cleanest" sediments, known as category 1, will be allowed into the site and spread on top of the sediment already accumulated there. But the proposal does not address the question of where to dump the more toxic sediments, known as categories 2 and 3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for approving dredging permits in the harbor, has developed 53 disposal options and is waiting for feedback from the state governors. The options include the creation of a capped island located in the open ocean, such as the islands in use near the Baltimore, and Norfolk Va. ports. Cindy Ziph of Clean Ocean Action said environmentalists are opposed to a dump solution. Two more steps must be taken, said Ziph: The technology must be developed to decontaminate the sediment, and a pollution prevention program must be implemented in the industries located upstream of the harbor. "Why would industries seek alternative technologies if they can dump the sediment?" Ziph asked.
VOL. 31, NO. 8, 1997/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 3 5 1 A
