Document YjmBGgJQQwoY8RKYgwGrpeG8O

INSIDE THIS ISSUE Policymaking Profiles The International Life Sciences Institute focuses on science, shuns policy..........................p25 The new Risk Assessment & Policy Association comes to a defining moment................................. p24 EPA Senior Scientist Alan B. Rubin provides insights on successful stakeholder meetings ..........p29 Novigen Sciences' H. Michael Wehr reviews major microbial risk assessment developments tied to international activities.....p30 Does EPA's Futures project have a future?................................p27 Costs may doom EPA nationallevel exposure survey............ p9 EPA seeks public input on Multiple Chemical Sensitivities..........pi 1 EPA scientists charge reorganization threatens science's integrity .. pi 3 Florida Superfund site residents will all be relocated..............pi4 FDA criticizes EPA cancer guide lines' default assumptions... pi 6 Tracking the Debate A rundown of key meetings ....p36 Reviewing the Literature Important new documents...... p40 Newsbits............. ao.2 Strong Benefit-Cost Push Seen For Next Congress Various signs point to a strong momentum for benefit-cost reforms continuing next Congress, no matter who's in power -- page 3 ' Appropriations Bill Mandates Endocrine Disruptors Study Congress has tasked the National Research Council with reporting on effects from natural and synthetic hormones -- page 5 EPA Peer Review Practices `Uneven,' GAO Finds EPA is unevenly implementing its June 1994 peer review policy, a new GAO report finds, citing nine examples -- page 6 Edited exclusively for scientists interested in environmental policymaking and policymakers interested in science STLCOPCB4033342 is very strict and "companies are afraid of getting sued." IWSCIENCE Lack of stakeholder involve ment has been another impedi ment. With the exception of 3M's proposal, saicTvan Loben Sels, most projects have not incorpo Birth defects, other disorders linked to Superfund site exposure, ATSDR says rated the significant stakeholder participation called for by XL. En The debate over whether hazard -A| vironmental attorney Carol Wiess- ous waste sites endanger public ner, with the Minnesota Center health has raged since Superfund for Environmental Advocacy and legislation was passed in 1980 :-/^:comprehens[veLreviewof;healttwA a 3M project participant, ex and the Agency for Toxic Sub ;istubies:byjhe'Agencyifo(rToxic'""J'iJ plained that for a stakeholder group to be successful, project stances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was created to investi Substanceffand-. Disease-Registry)?-} I hasircrentifi8ifeseverallheattfiSef-U;T, J leaders must'get the right mix of gate the issue. Now, based on a community representatives. Be comprehensive review of health cause stakeholders usually lack studies it has conducted or spon ^^BttihCTdfect^iaicBitfte^clefgliDSr technical expertise, they also must be provided with technical sored since 1983, ATSDR has de termined that birth defects and A'ahWpalatesti.ci[diacldiscrdersAandBi ^uppefpndllQweefrmteEaductiQns^tg assistance, i ,f other disorders are associated John Kessler, EPA director of with living near-Superfund sites. emerging strategies, said EPA is The agency presented the first learning through Project XL and U drafting principles for superior environmental performance. EPA planned to HoId fan internal public glimpse of its review in August at the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology conference in .Alberta, Canada. The .-C*sKfe^tr^clfean(fi'ean1fBfmAlil ^aijtments^e^reportedtamdncgglff ilcOTciraftwE'ttwefffiax^Mdi.tifcTCESl meeting to reevaluate Project XL. EPA has also `drafted a guidance findings support previous ATSDR statements about the health risks AAsBecceasedLpiJimona'rAffinction^Al spelling out new ground rules associated with hazardous waste ;^wa&observedf;ir^ersransi;exposed-v^ for developing}!. projects, which pledge| faster response to sites, but they provide a firmer foundation for the conclusion by /JoVmissibjiSrrFon|imejtei^n'dS^ Tpbosphatasorer'pfqcessingjfaciifiiesiya proposals. However, Andy Ronschak, combining health data from many Superfund sites. AndgIo&ulihfayefsiim/ea1l?expose`dJ8^ Minnesota Project XL coordina "When- evaluated in aggregate, tor, and others Relieve national legislation is' necessary to make [the data indicate that) proximity to hazardous waste sites seems to :Sig.B^^|a^1asfeffia^prpxi^|p the program effective. Wiessner be associated with a small to agreed, sayjng legislation that au moderate increased risk of a vari ^iGfHa^fdpuEwast^sftesishVwetf^SS1' thorizes ERA to waive federal en. S\ vironmentil statutes for experi ety of adverse health outcomes," said Jeffrey Lybarger, director of jJaWncteased^0tad&c^mratesp4^^ gaBnbtmafe.blqo^cair^associate^^p mental programs would help the agency's Division of Health overcome; barriers. 1 Studies. Birth defects appear to Others question whether be one of the health effects linked Project XL is the rigigt framework with many sites. Communities ATSDR exposure registries. The for experimenting with regulatory also report increased incidences agency maintains registries on m notation. Alfred Marcus, a Uni- of neurotoxic disorders, dermati people who live near Superfund rsity cjf Minnesota professor tis, leukemia, cardiovascular ab sites and are likely to have been and 3M|project facilitator, said, "I normalities, respiratory problems, exposed to trichloroethylene, think we can do betterfin terms and immune disorders near some benzene, trichloroethane, and of che Environment. The 3M Superfund sites. The review con dioxins. Company's XL project cbuld have cluded, however, that there was The review began as an agency achieved better environmental no clear association between sites effort to pull together its own performance at lower co?t to both and cancer or kidney disease. findings to report to its oversight the company and the regulatory During the past year, Lybarger board and Congress, said Lybar 1 agencies than will now happen." and Robert Spengler, associate ger. The findings have been pre in large part, he blames t|te exist director of science for the divi sented to the House and Senate ing regulatory and legal structure, sion, have reviewed 134 health committees responsible for Su i which is technology based and uses source-by-source controls. studies. These include several epi demiological investigations and perfund reauthorization and to EPA's Office of Solid Waste, which 'EP|v didn't see a way of getting dozens of situational studies, operates the cleanup program. around that limitation." which typically cite a few cases. Spengler and Lybarger plan to Marcus added, "On both sides, Spengler and Lybarger also re submit their review for journal there is an issue of trust that has viewed the extent and types of publication next year. to be overcome." --JANET PELLEY i"v health problems reported by the nearly 8000 people listed on four "ATSDR's findings provide fur ther evidence that there are .-k-rv * STLCOPCB4033343 ueaitn enects assog^tecL&ith hazardous waste s/es.'^said a spokesperson io-fEPm Office of Solid Waste, "Th^yj&o under score the need forongoing fund ing of Superfund.'' ATSDR esti mated that 11 million people living within a mile of these sites could be affected by exposure. Environmental justice advo cates say ATSDR's findings sub stantiate their claims that disad vantaged communities, often located near sites, face dispropor tionate risks. Poor, minority com munities will welcome the find ings, said Rabbi Daniel Swartz, associate director of the National Religious Partnership for the En vironment, which works on envi ronmental justice issues. "It's good to have concrete evidence to back up people's anecdotal tales." ATSDR's work will help state health officials answer the pub lic's concerns and determine if states need to take additional ac tions, said Alice Stark, who directs the New York State Department of Health's Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology. The agency's findings, however,, do not permit a general state ment about the risks a Superfund site may pose. "It's not a question anyone can -say yes or no to," Stark said. "Each site is different." ATSDR does not have enough information to prove Superfund sites caused the health effects researchers observed, stressed Lybarger. Nor can it tease out the chemicals that pose the greatest risk, because people sue normally exposed to mixtures. However, the study shows associations that merit future research. The findings warrant attention, but the health community needs to know the basis of comparison for its risk evaluation, said Jerry Poje, director of international programs and public health at the National Institute of Environmen tal Health Sciences (N1EHS). Haz ardous waste sites may present a small-to-moderate risk to the vast majority of people, he said, but some vulnerable subpopulations may be particularly affected by these sites because they already face other health problems. William Suk, who directs the NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program funded by EPA, had not HUiilHR OPOSOfif ^>e^np'ni^rji|j^^ha.sej3df^0Qe;piidiectan^^^^ aPAV^ationalSuMnEmpsifrBti^ess^ i^^tSu^'ey'f|NfiB(AS) 5conciudeliJsI^C: I)ac^irjwa's^rawhOTraugHJ0.8rjjm-wide:^ lores.jnto.'theirnonitorjiocated.nearieachs larttcipantsicollarhonehAir-iPollutantsu&^ss^iVj vere'caunhthy:aTeflonJilter,jaside,the-.>is SeseVrEhersalsoiMnltQfedSufijpcts'il aQaastwellssvBjeoil3nd.iarabientia)rani andsrotmd;iher4iomesJnrmeayyanetals;s sayeraljpesticidesanaibplycvclic aro ,, maticgrydrocaroons.flliisasione.iofahreemroiectsyauncheddast'summerzinder. \lHD(ASfSS:ClSepfemberil995.398A);toiieterjfiineiheIdistribution:;oflexpbT,:& seen the study but is familiar with much of the underlying research. ATSDR does solid work, Suk said, but substantial data.gaps limit the conclusions it can draw. Ex posure levels, for example, are ` very hard to determine, and the scientific community has little information about the toxicity of "Proximity... seems to be associated with a small to moderate increased risk of a variety of adverse health outcomes." Jeffrey Lybarger Director, ATSDR Division ofHealth Studies many of the chemicals and chem ical mixtures found at Superfund sites, he said. Suk called on Congress to increase health re search funding as it reauthorizes Superfund. However, Nandan Kenkeremath, majority counsel for the House Commerce Committee, is skeptical about ATSDR's findings. "Our genera] view is that we are wasting money on excess hypo thetical and imaginary risks," he said. Superfund sites often are in industrial or other areas where people are exposed to toxic agents from many sources or in poor communities where lack of ' medical care.could explain dis ease incidences, he added. Nevertheless, the House's pro posed Superfund reauthorization bill (H.R. 2500) would give ATSDR more authority in some cleanup decisions, such as remedy selec tion. "Our bill takes a very strong stance on public health driving Superfund decisions," said Kenkeremath. The Republican-led House felt comfortable increasing ATSDR's authority because in sev eral cases the agency has gone to a Superfund site, tested children's blood-lead levels or other prob lems, and found a significantly lower health risk than EPA's risk assessments predicted. ATSDR has a broad range of responsibilities that include eval uating the nature and extent of contamination at Superfund sites, evaluating the existence of expo sure pathways, determining the size and susceptibility of exposed populations, and conducting health studies that compare disease and mortality data with ex posures to site-related contami nants. --PATPHIBBS , 4 3 O A VOL. 30, NO. 10, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS DSW 133386 STLCOPCB4033344