|
House lawmakers and environmentalists are pushing the Senate to adopt a recently approved House measure that requires EPA to study mercury levels in Great Lakes and coastal waters, because they hope the study will help them strengthen the agency's controversial 1995 water quality polices in the Great Lakes.
The House during floor debate of H.R. 2537 April 16 approved an amendment from Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), which requires a review and update of existing monitoring procedures for mercury levels in the Great Lakes' coastal recreation waters.
The Kirk amendment further mandates that EPA "develop updated recommendations on testing for the presence of mercury affecting the coastal recreation waters of the Great Lakes," including tests on both sediment found in the Great Lakes, and fish tissues.
H.R. 2537 reauthorizes the Beaches Environmental Assessment & Coastal Health (BEACH) Act, a 2000 amendment to the CWA that provides grant funding to states to monitor for bacteria and pathogens in marine and Great Lakes beaches. The bill increases the overall funding available to $40 million and expands the use of the grants to include pollution source tracking and prevention efforts.
In an interview with Inside EPA, Kirk said he offered the mercury study amendment because of problems his constituents in the Great Lakes region are facing with mercury. Recent studies, he said, show that pregnant women in Illinois have been found to have as much as 14 times the normal background level of mercury in their blood streams, raising concerns that his district is a "mercury hot spot." According to a 1996 Congressional Research Service report on Great Lakes water quality, long term exposure to the heavy metal is believed to increase the risk of "cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations and reproductive problems."
Kirk said the research conducted under his amendment could lead to a revision of EPA's 1995 Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, a controversial guidance that establishes water quality criteria for 29 pollutants, with a particular focus on persistent bioaccumulative toxics like mercury. The research could also lead to new limits on mercury discharges and tighter emissions controls for coal-fired power plants, he said.
Much of the mercury in the area's waters is believed to come from coal-fired power plants throughout the Midwest, he stated, adding that power plants as far away as China also contribute to the area's water contamination.
Sources with the Alliance for the Great Lakes say the research from Kirk's amendment could also help to enforce current discharge limits in the region. Since the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative was issued in 1995, "there hasn't been a tremendous effort" at the state level to enforce compliance with the pollutant limits it set out, one alliance source says.
Because of mercury's bioaccumulative properties, "it is important for us to stay focused on getting as close to zero as possible" when it comes to mercury concentrations in the water, the source says.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) reintroduced his companion legislation, S. 2844, April 10. But Democratic sources say it is too early to know whether the Senate version will also include the Kirk amendment.
Meanwhile, sources say a proposed-but-withdrawn amendment to the BEACH Act requiring EPA to study the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in coastal recreation waters could be introduced as new stand-alone legislation.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) offered and then withdrew an amendment on PPCPs during the April 16 floor debate of H.R. 2537. And sources with her office say she plans to resubmit the amendment "relatively soon" as separate legislation
The amendment called for the identification of which PPCPs are present in waterways, and at what levels they exist. The amendment also required the identification of the sources from which the PPCPs came, and mandated EPA to present a report to Congress no more than one year after the date of enactment.
McCarthy staff say the congresswoman submitted the amendment because "she thought of this as a way to spark debate." But she knew that the BEACH Act was not the proper place to take up the issue, and so she withdrew it immediately, sources say.
Officials with the American Water Works Association (AWWA), which represents drinking water utilities, say they support the concept of additional research on PPCPs because more information would be beneficial. "We're interested in the issue," a source with the group says, adding that "if this is a problem we want to address it."
While an Associated Press report earlier this year on the presence of trace amounts of PPCPs in municipal drinking water systems has prompted congressional concern, the mere presence of PPCPs may not be a cause for panic, the AWWA source says. Only through more research can the possible dangers of PPCPs be determined, the source says, noting that "we can't just begin to to regulate everything we can detect . . . It does not make sense to regulate only based on detection."
Sources with the environmental group Clean Water Action agree that research is the first step in determining what, if any, PPCPs should be regulated. "We don't claim to know everything about them, but we do know it's worth a hard look," one source says. -- Naomi Smoot
|
