argued that the agency would be prudent to propose a regulation in 1997 anyway, before all the scientific uncertainty is nailed down. Assuming that EPA promulgates a new regulation next January, it would still take another three years to monitor and classify areas for attainment or nonattainment of the proposed standard, and another year before states would have to submit pollution control plans. Any new PM standard would therefore not become law until 2002 at the earliest, which would give the agency five more years to conduct research on PM "before [regulated industries] start spending real money." Bachmann acknowledged that a PM2 5 cap at the lower end of the proposed range "ultimately could be a very expensive standard." Unlike PM10 particulates, which generally consist of dust and other windblown matter, PM2 5 particulates tend to result directly or indirectly from combustion products from such sources as diesel-fueled vehicles, sulfur-emitting utility plants, and other industries. Bachmann emphasized that the only expense from 1997 to 2002 would be in setting up monitoring networks and that governments would bear much of that cost. According to the current courtimposed deadline, Browner has to decide this June whether to change the standard for PM. Unless the documents are revised, the agency faces that decision without CASAC's official s eal of approval. Said Wolff, " [EFA] basically uses CASAC as a shield to avoid lawsuits. And they're not going to have that shield." Which is why, without trying to guess what Browner ultimately will decide, Bachmann predicted, "There is no way this agency is going to make a final decision for something so momentous on [the basis of] something that the scientific community doesn't feel is of good quality." —TONY REICHHARDT
NEWSSCIENCE Industry opposition stops release of EPA sediment contamination point source report An EPA analysis that ranks the importance of point sources in sediment contamination nationwide will not be released because of industry criticism, according to EPA. The report, "National Sediment Contaminant Point Source Inventory: Analysis of Release Data for 1992" will "never be a final EPA document and will never be transmitted to Congress," according to Betsey Southerland, acting director of EPA's Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science Division. The report will, however, be available to anyone requesting it from her office she said The point source survey was to be the first stage of EPA's threepart effort to meet the requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. Surveys of contaminated sites and nonpoint sources are the other components of EPA's National Sediment Inventory. Point source data for 1994 will be included in a different EPA report but only for sites where there is sediment monitoring data said Southerland. That report is expected to be out in draft form this spring. Critics argued that without information about specific site conditions, point source data could suggest problem areas that do not exist and miss other sites, an argument backed by Keith Philips of the Washington State Department of Ecology, who reviewed an early version of the report. "Site information is very important," he said. "A point source discharge entering a quiet body of water may well cause a problem, but if the ters a high-energy environor tidal zone for
Critics argued that an inventory of potential sediment contamination point sources would be misleading unless combined with site-specific data. EPA and states are gathering sediment data through a cooperative program. EPA Region 5 and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality staff collect sediment core samples from the Saginaw River (above).
example—dispersion mitigates the potential problem." Industry groups "convinced EPA" not to publish the national point source data by itself, according to agency officials. A coalition of 39 Great Lakes conservation and environmental groups had called for the report's release in a December letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Sierra Club Great Lakes policy specialist Patricia King stated that "the point source inventory is important for targeting monitoring to locate contaminated sites that have been missed by other screening methods." "We're extremely disappointed that EPA has allowed the chemical industry to censor this basic
VOL. 30, NO. 2, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 6 9 A
information that should be made available to the public," said King. "We question what the chemical industry has to hide." Environmental groups are discussing their official response to EPA's decision and are planning to release some of the information independendy. The 1992 act required EPA to "conduct a comprehensive national survey of data regarding aquatic sediment quality in the United States." The agency must "compile all existing information on the quantity, chemical and physical composition, and geographic location of pollutants in aquatic sediment, including the probable source of such pollutants and identification of those sediments that are contaminated." The act required that diis information be reported to Congress in 1994 and every two years after According to EPA, industry groups, including the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, and the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Authorities, mounted a strong attack on the report, criticizing its rationale, methodology, and data handling. For the point source inventory, the agency searched 1992 data from the Toxics Release Inventory and the Permit Compliance System (PCS) for releases of chemicals known to cause sediment contamination. To express the impact of these discharges, the release data were combined with information about chemical toxicity and fate to calculate a relative hazard score. The hazard scores were used to sort the data according to the chemicals, geographic areas and industries of greatest potential concern Industry critics attacked the hazard ranking scheme, arguing that it was impossible to rank chemicals nationwide. EPA's handling of the PCS data for monitored releases that fall below detection limits was also disputed. Critics said EPA's approach of assuming nondetect values are equal to half the detection limit may greatly overestimate chemical releases. But other water quality scientists describe EPA's handling of die nondetect data as conservative. REBECCA RENNER
NEWS TECHNOLOGY DOE labs join Cal/EPA in program to evaluate new environmental technologies Department of Energy scientists and labs in California will begin working with the California Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate new environmental technologies under a recently signed pact. The agreement, reached Dec. 5, allows the state to contract with DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence-Berkeley Lab, and a branch of Sandia National Lab in Livermore to evaluate technologies for the state's environmental technology certification program The evaluation program started last year, and through it manufacturer claims for some 15 technologies have been certified and a handful of others are in the pipeline, according to a Cal/EPA spokesperson. Its goal is to speed acceptance and use of new and innovative environmental technologies by providing an independent state evaluation. The program's focus has been on hazardous waste-related technologies for treatment monitoring remediation pollution prevention and measurement {ES&T,eb 1995 72A. "We wanted to build our talent base, and there is lots of talent in the national labs," said G. Wolf-
gang Fuhs, manager of technology evaluation in the state's Department of Toxics Substance Control. "Through the contract, members of their staff can join our evaluation teams and look into the soundness of, for instance, certain treatment or measurement technologies." DOE, he added, has scientific expertise and equipment the state lacks. The overall certification decision would remain with the state, however. The labs would evaluate technologies, when requested by California, and submit a report for state review. Fuhs noted that DOE labs will also make good testing grounds for cleanup technologies because they are contaminated themselves. Indeed, Lawrence Livermore is a Superfund site, said Richard Ragaini, senior scientist in DOE's Environmental Restoration Division, and DOE is trying several new technologies there and at other DOE Superfund sites. Besides providing technics! expertise the California pro £fram may give DOE a better understanding of what is needed to bring a DOE-developed technology to commercialization Ragaini said
Cal/EPA offers deal to cut certification cost Through a $1.7 million federal grant, the California EPA plans to expand the state's environmental technology certification program. A portion of the grant, which came from the federal EPA's Environmental Technology Initiative, will provide a 45% subsidy in fees that technology manufacturers usually pay to have the state examine their technologies. The remainder will help California increase the size of its program. The two-year-old state program provides a means for environmental technology marketers to get claims for a new technology certified. Such certification improves acceptance and increases sales of a new
7 0 A • VOL. 30, NO. 2, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
technology. Currently only hazardous waste-related technologies are eligible, but expansion to water and multimedia technologies is being considered. With the three-year grant, the federal EPA intends to help California develop a model other states may use to develop their own technology certification programs, according to a Cal/EPA official. Consequently, the state wishes to increase the number of applicants for certification of new technologies. For more information, contact Tom Scheffelin of Cal/EPA at (916) 327-5789. Applications for reduced fees are due March 15. —JEFF JOHNSON
