We regularly highlight environmental topics that shape the lives of ordinary citizens in thousands of communities around the nation.

New Year's Surprises

04 January 2010

Dr. Peter deFur
Emily Russell

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), like most other federal and some state agencies, is prone to releasing important proposals and regulatory plans at times when the public’s attention is elsewhere. Christmas and New Year’s are such times, when less attention is focused on our government agencies and more on our families and friends.

With the holiday season at an end, we at ESC cast an eye over the legislative events in Washington from recent weeks, and it turns out that EPA issued a few hugely significant proposals. First, the Agency proposed an interim soil cleanup standard for dioxin. Second, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) released a Community Engagement Initiative Proposed Action Plan, and third, EPA will publish a list of Chemicals of Concern and potentially regulate the chemicals that are used in the manufacture of everyday products. These proposals deserve careful scrutiny and public attention because their contents can, and should, affect the quality of the environment and public health. The questions we hope the public asks are: 1) Will the effects be positive? and 2) Will the improvement go far enough? We will track these issues as they develop; in the meantime, continue reading to start the New Year with a brief summary of each EPA plan.

First, the dioxin proposal: Dioxin is a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemical that is actually a whole group of chemicals. EPA plans to reduce the soil cleanup standard from 1,000 to 72 parts per trillion (ppt), as an interim standard. The full description can be found at the EPA web site. (The Federal Register notice has not been published yet, but this information will be posted on the EPA website when it becomes available.) Dioxin-like compounds cause a range of health effects (see ESC web site for a list of references) and are widespread in both contaminated and “clean” sites because the sources include emissions from incinerators and some industrial stacks. At contaminated sites — present and future — the cleanup work addresses chemicals that are present in excess of a cleanup goal or standard. The old cleanup number for dioxin in soil, 1,000 ppt, was set decades ago. The new one, 72 ppt, is supposed to account for all the new information. However, the state of Washington already has a cleanup standard in place for dioxin – 11 ppt, quite a bit lower than EPA’s proposal. Can both numbers provide the same or equivalent protection? What is the difference in other states? These questions and others should be raised during the public comment period so that the EPA sets a standard that is truly protective.

Second, the Community Engagement Initiative: EPA assistant administrator for solid and hazardous waste, Mathy Stanislaus, has requested public comment on the Community Engagement Initiative Proposed Action Plan. With the Action Plan, OSWER hopes to “refocus and renew its vision for community engagement, build on the good practices, and apply them consistently in EPA practices.” The Plan is an outline of OSWER’s guiding principles, goals and actions, for the purpose of showing communities how OSWER intends to work with them during the cleanup of contaminated sites. Visit this site to read the Plan and for information on how to submit your comment or opinion on how the EPA can improve its interaction with community members as it manages hazardous waste.

Finally, EPA plans to regulate several groups of chemicals in commerce. EPA has long had the authority to regulate chemicals in commerce under the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, but has rarely used that authority to recall or limit chemicals. Under a proposal released in late December 2009, the following groups of chemicals will receive EPA’s regulatory attention: phthalates, PBDEs, PFOAs, and chlorinated paraffins. Each group has gained the attention of the environmental health community and been the subject of toxicological investigations and even legislative or Congressional action. All are used in industrial applications or are used in manufacturing consumer products. It’s time that EPA turned its regulatory attention to these groups of chemicals because they are all persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic and widely used.

It seems that finally we have action out of EPA regarding toxic chemicals, and it all seems to be moving in the right direction. EPA deserves at least an “atta boy” for getting the ball rolling with these efforts.

The most important thing you as citizen can do is submit comments on these proposals to show your support and your opinion on these issues that weigh heavily on public health and our natural resources. Visit the websites listed above for more information on how to get involved.