Government▼Watch EPA won’t regulate dioxin in sewage sludge The U.S. EPA announced on October 17 that it would not regulate dioxins in sewage sludge used as farm fertilizer, because new studies indicate that the human health and environmental risk from such usage is insignificant. The decision is a turnaround for the agency, which proposed in 1999 to limit dioxins in sludgeincluding chlorinated dibenzo-p-dixoin, chlorinated dibenzofurans, and coplanar polychlorinated biphenylsto the toxic equivalent of 300 parts per trillion. The agency released its decision on the day before a court-ordered deadline that required the government to resolve a decade-long controversy over the risk posed by dioxin
in treated sludge. The deadline was part of an agreement settling a lawsuit filed by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group. EPA’s decision on sludge was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2003. About 5.6 million tons of sewage sludge is produced each year in the United States, and more than 3 million tons is used as fertilizer. This land-applied sludge is a major source of dioxin exposure in the United States, second only to backyard trash burning. NRDC’s Nancy Stoner, director of the group’s Clean Water Project, contends that EPA’s decision violates the Clean Water Act. Amendments ap-
proved by Congress in 1987 require EPA to set limits on pollutants in sludge, but the agency has not done this for dioxin or any other organic pollutant. “This decision shows the agency under this administration has forgotten its mission,” Stoner says. EPA’s Geoffrey Grubbs, director of science and technology in the Office of Water, says that peer-reviewed studies conducted over the last five years show that dioxin levels in the environment have dropped dramatically because of tougher emissions limits for incinerators. Even in the worst-case scenario—a study of farm families that only consume food and dairy products from land fertilized with sewage sludge—minimal added risk was shown. Their risk is only
Great Lakes Chemical Corp., the manufacturer of two brominated flame retardants known as the Penta and Octa formulations, will voluntarily stop producing the chemicals by the end of 2004. Company officials announced their decision on November 3, saying they have developed at least one new alternative. The move comes hard on the heels of new California regulations to ban both flame retardants in 2008. The European Union has already banned both. The two formulations are major sources of the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) that recent studies indicate are rapidly bioaccumulating in humans, wildlife, and the environment—doubling every two to five years (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 50A−52A). Banning a chemical in the United States can take years of study and risk analysis. Rather than wait for a regulatory ban, U.S. EPA officials sought a voluntary phaseout with the manufacturer. Both chemicals have been used by the furniture industry for at least 20 years: Penta in upholstered furniture and Octa in the plastic housing for electronics. Great Lakes Chief Executive Officer Mark Bulriss described Penta and Octa as “safe and effective”. He added that the company is developing “a new generation of environmentally responsive” flame retardants, including Firemaster 550, to replace Penta. An existing product, Great Lakes FF-680, will substitute for Octa. EPA’s Acting Deputy Administrator Stephen Johnson praised Great Lakes for taking action “as expeditiously as possible” and said that the phaseout will accelerate the shift to
14A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / JANUARY 1, 2004
safer alternatives. Agency officials noted that they don’t currently believe there is a need to remove or replace products that contain these chemicals. Great Lakes is the sole manufacturer of Penta, which has been used to flame-retard the flexible foams found in upholstered furniture. Its replacement is a phosphorus–bromine flame retardant. EPA has completed a preliminary The EU has already banned Penta assessment of the substi- and Octa, which are used to treat tute and concluded that it furniture foams. is not persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic to aquatic life. The substitute also meets fire safety performance standards for use in consumer products, according to an agency spokesperson. Officials with environmental groups say they welcome the phaseout, but they note that similar work is needed on yet another flame retardant, Deca-BDE. Research shows Deca could be the source of some of the PBDEs in the environment (see “Research challenges assumptions about flame retardant”on p 8A). —REBECCA RENNER
RHONDA SAUNDERS
In U.S., flame retardants will be voluntarily phased out
© 2004 American Chemical Society
Lawsuit challenges data in national climate report The first lawsuit to be filed under the U.S. Data Quality Act (DQA) asks the government to cease dissemination of the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. The assessment, which attempts to identify regional effects from possible climate changes, was mandated by Congress and developed by an independent government advisory committee composed of industry, university, government, and special interest scientists. The controversial DQA, signed by former President Clinton, essentially requires that any scientific document issued by the government include clearly supportable data and any uncertainties related to the topic. When it was enacted, business officials vowed to use it as a “weapon” to reign in regulation unsupported by science. Environmentalists predicted it would be used to stop regulations (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 443A). As of October, the government had received 30 DQA petitions seeking changes, such as an attempt to block scientific research related to a regulation or to the minutes of a government advisory board hearing. Many have been rejected because the modification being sought didn’t meet the federal standards that outline an appropriate DQA request. The U.S. EPA has received 14 requests.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a nonprofit policy group dedicated to free enterprise, filed its lawsuit on August 6 and asked the federal court to order the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy to withdraw the assessment. The group claims it fails to meet the DQA’s scientific standards for objectivity and utility, because two of the models used “are incapable of providing reliable predictions.” These models led to “alarmist” predictions of regional effects and produced junk science, according to CEI lawyer Christopher Horner. Scientists working to model global climate change agree that it’s difficult to predict climate-induced effects on a small scale, such as a geographic region. Indeed, the uncertainty factor increases as the area being modeled decreases. Interestingly, one of the models cited in CEI’s lawsuit as generating alarmist scenarios produces results that are very similar to a model used at the well-respected Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab. The Bush Administration has increased funding for this lab as part of its climate change research program. With this in mind, CEI’s lawsuit may not get very far, several policy watchers predict. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
Fight over perchlorate risk goes public A U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel is assessing the human health effects of drinking water or eating food that contains perchlorate. Once the results are published in 2004, they should help settle the controversy among the federal agencies that have squared off over their interpretations of the risks posed by perchlorate contamination. In one corner are officials from the U.S. EPA, whose third risk assessment, published in 2002 after more than five years of study, recommended a safe dose that is equivalent to a concentration of 1 part per billion (ppb) in drinking water, assuming that drinking water is the only source of perchlorate. In the other corner are officials from agencies that face liability because of perchlorate contamination: the U.S. Department of Defense
PHOTODISC
0.003 new cases of cancer in a year, or 0.22 new cases in 70 years. EPA’s decision also cited an ecological risk analysis that, while more uncertain than the farm analysis, indicates that wildlife shouldn’t be significantly affected by exposure to dioxins in land-applied sewage sludge. Some academic scientists, including David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the State University of New York in Albany, question the government’s decision. Carpenter labeled the decision “irresponsible” given the fact that sludge is the second-greatest source of dioxin exposure in the United States. NRDC’s Stoner notes that dioxin is considered to be an endocrine disrupter and has been linked to negative immune and neurological system effects. —REBECCA RENNER
(DOD), the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. DOD funds backed many of the animal experiments used in the EPA assessment, and defense officials agreed to the experimental protocols used, but scientists at the two agencies differ strongly on their interpretation of the results. They also disagree on how to interpret studies involving adult humans exposed to perchlorate. Perchlorate is a component of rocket fuel that is increasingly being found in soil and water in the United States, according to EPA scientist Kevin Mayer. It prevents iodine from being absorbed by the thyroid; thyroid hormones are crucial to normal brain development in fetuses and infants. EPA’s assessment aims to protect this critical stage of development. As of June 2003, perchlorate had been detected at more than 100 locations in 29 states, primarily in groundwater, Mayer says. EPA’s proposed 1-ppb level in drinking water is still under debate. In the meantime, EPA officials recently set site-specific cleanup levels of 4 ppb at a California drinking water site and 1.5 ppb at a site in Massachusetts. At least 8 states have non-enforceable advisory levels for perchlorate in drinking water ranging from 1 to 18 ppb. The NAS panel’s findings might also influence officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as they debate whether perchlorate levels in food are a public health concern. —REBECCA RENNER
JANUARY 1, 2004 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 15A
