• Senate OKs Moscow Treaty to Reduce Nuclear Stockpiles
  
• New York Power Plant Emissions Bid Denied
  
• California to Lower Arsenic Level in Drinking Water
  
• Climate Change Could Bring Severe Weather to California
  
• Court Rejects Predator Killing Scheme in Idaho
  
• Diluted Bleach Cleans Contaminated Water Cheaply
  
• Compost Controls Erosion on Iowa Road Embankments
  
• Washington Adds 27 Sites to Hazmat Cleanup List
  

Senate OKs Moscow Treaty to Reduce Nuclear Stockpiles

The final vote was 95 to zero in favor of the treaty. Ratification by the Russian Duma is required for the treaty to enter into effect. The Duma is expected to ratify the treaty within a few weeks.

Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed SORT, also known as the Moscow Treaty, on May 24, 2002. It requires the United States and Russia to each reduce its number of deployed strategic warheads.

Under the accord, the current U.S. total of 6,000 and the Russian stockpile of 5,000 strategic nuclear warheads will be cut to no more than 2,220 each by the end of 2012.

Although SORT requires that the warheads be removed from their delivery systems, it does not require they be destroyed. Both sides can keep as many warheads and delivery vehicles as they see fit.

The United States has indicated it will store some 2,000 warheads for possible future redeployment. Russia has not made any comment on what it might do. Arms control organizations fear this weakens the accord, which does not contain new verification measures to confirm both parties are carrying out the terms they agreed to.

The treaty is "little more than a gentlemen's agreement," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies.

The lack of real teeth in the accord could allow each country "to continue deploying and storing thousands of nuclear warheads more than two decades after the end of the Cold War," Kimball explained. "SORT should be seen as a beginning, not an end, for further U.S. Russian nuclear arms reductions."

New York Power Plant Emissions Bid Denied

Spitzer had argued implementation should be put on hold until the multi-state lawsuit seeking to block the administration's revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) provision of the Clean Air Act.

Twelve states have joined New York in a legal challenge to last year's changes to the NSR, a provision under the Clean Air Act that forces power plants to upgrade air pollution controls when the facilities are upgraded or modified.

Critics of the administration's changes fear they will exempt thousands of industrial air pollution sources from the NSR provisions.

The court's ruling found that state officials "have not satisfied the extremely stringent standards required for a stay pending court review."

Stays in cases that involve federal regulations are rarely granted by the DC court. The ruling does instruct the court clerk to move the case onto the court's calendar quickly.

A spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an industry trade group, said the industry was pleased with the decision that will allow states to move forward with "the court has allowed the first step toward clarification of the NSR program to proceed."

The industry contends the Bush NSR revisions clarify a confusing statute that has prevented power plants from conducting routine maintenance and upgrades. The plan allows power plants to expand their operations without having to employ modern pollution controls. Under the original NSR provision, any expansion or upgrade that increases pollution must be matched with pollution reductions.

The state lawsuit challenging NSR revisions is only one of a number of legal challenge's to the administration's clean air policies. States are suing EPA for failing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from the nation's power plants, and several environmental groups are challenging the NSR revisions.

California to Lower Arsenic Level in Drinking Water

The agency conducted an analysis of all available scientific studies on the health effects of arsenic. The proposed four parts per trillion is based upon studies of "hundreds of thousands of patients in Taiwan, Chile and Argentina with lung and bladder cancers associated with elevated levels of arsenic in drinking water," the agency said today.

OEHHA estimates that a level of four parts per trillion of arsenic in drinking water would cause not more than one additional cancer case in a population of one million people drinking two liters of water daily for 70 years.

"Arsenic is a naturally occurring element, but it is also one of the most toxic substances commonly found in drinking water," OEHHA Director Dr. Joan Denton said. "Our public health goal, when adopted, will establish a long term objective for the reduction of arsenic in California's drinking water."

The existing state and federal drinking water standards for arsenic have been set at 50 parts per billion for many years.

A new federal arsenic standard of 10 parts per billion will take effect in 2006. States may adopt a new standard that is equal to or more stringent than the federal standard. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established a long-term Maximum Contaminant Level Goal - the federal counterpart to OEHHA's public health goal - of no arsenic in drinking water.

Arsenic is found naturally in air, water, soil, mineral deposits, and food. While arsenic in water typically is naturally occurring, the improper disposal of waste chemicals can also contaminate water supplies with arsenic.

Long term exposure to arsenic in drinking water can increase the risk of lung and bladder cancer and, to a lesser extent, increase the risk of skin, liver and kidney cancer. Other serious health effects include heart attacks, stroke, diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, liver and nerve damage, abnormal skin growths, and some reproductive and developmental problems.

State law requires OEHHA to develop public health goals for all regulated drinking water contaminants. A public health goal is not a regulatory drinking water standard, and it is not a boundary between "safe" and "dangerous" levels of a chemical in drinking water. A public health goal represents a health protective level of a chemical in drinking water that can serve as a long term goal for California's drinking water providers and regulators.

Once the arsenic public health goal is finalized, the California Department of Health Services will develop a new state drinking water standard for arsenic that, by law, must be as close to the public health goal as is economically and technically feasible.

A copy of the draft arsenic PHG document can be viewed or downloaded from OEHHA's Web site, www.oehha.ca.gov. OEHHA will hold a public workshop to accept public comments on the draft document on May 2 at 10 a.m. in the first-floor auditorium at 1515 Clay Street, Oakland. OEHHA will also accept written comments on the draft document until May 2, 2003. Comments can be mailed to OEHHA's Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section, 1515 Clay Street, 16th floor, Oakland, CA 94612.

Climate Change Could Bring Severe Weather to California

After studying computer model simulations of the next 40 to 50 years of global precipitation, scientists found that the Sierra Nevada region could experience substantial increases in heavy precipitation and extreme precipitation if greenhouse gas emissions increase.

Heavy precipitation is defined as an excess of two inches of rain per day, extreme is an excess of four inches of rain per day. Most of these increases occur during the winter, currently the wettest season in the region.

Models have shown increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) could alter the hydrologic cycle of the Western U.S. because increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere trap heat and warm the air. Warmer air holds more water, and when this air rises it tends to rain water back to Earth.

This study compared a projection that greenhouse gas concentrations stay at levels found in the late 1990s with a projection that assumed increases in greenhouse gas levels by one percent per year from 1990.

The comparison, according to the study's author and University of California at Los Angeles atmospheric scientist Jinwon Kim, found the projection with greenhouse gas increases translated into increases in both the number of wet days and large increases in heavy precipitation events for the region during the cold season from October to March. The model showed increases of heavy precipitation events increased by 10 to 15 days per year and an increase in extreme precipitation events of five to 10 days per year.

The study found that when greenhouse gas emissions increased, the average number of wet days per year over the southern and northern Sierra Nevada basins increased by 37 percent for the southern basin and 32 percent for the northern basin in the second projection.

"Since the primary concern for reservoir management is to reduce flooding risks that require maintaining the storage space to capture excessive runoff, the reservoirs may have to maintain lower water levels," Kim said. "This directly decreases the water resources."

Court Rejects Predator Killing Scheme in Idaho

The court ruled that the predator control plan, which is a joint effort by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services division and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, lacked adequate environmental analysis. The plan was designed to suppress predators believed to prey on sage grouse across large tracts of southern Idaho.

The ruling was a victory for a coalition of conservation groups that had filed suit in April 2002 to stop implementation of the plan. In response to the lawsuit, USDA had agreed to postpone the program until 2004.

"The [environmental assessment] contains an unusual twist," U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Winmill wrote in his ruling. "It proposes to kill sage grouse predators in specific locations but does not study those locations."

This latest ruling marks the third consecutive year that USDA's plan has been stopped through legal challenges.

"The court saw right through Wildlife Services' attempts to justify its inadequate environmental analysis," said Mike Leahy, natural resources counsel for Defenders of Wildlife. "Wiping out predators under the guise of studying sage grouse is a bad idea to begin with."

The approach of the federal/state plan is "totally out of line," said Jon Marvel, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, a non profit group that aims to protect and restore western watersheds. "If the agency continues to flout the environmental laws of this country in its obsession to kill wildlife, we will track every step in its management of public lands."

Conservationists contend it is degraded habitat not predators, that is causing the sage grouse populations to diminish. Some 80 percent of habitat vital to sage grouse has been destroyed. A large upland game bird, the sage grouse is considered by many to be a symbol of Idaho's high desert country.

In January 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected a request for emergency Endangered Species Act protection for some populations of sage grouse.

Diluted Bleach Cleans Contaminated Water Cheaply

Eric Mintz, chief of CDC's diarrheal diseases epidemiology section, said the formula was developed with scientific help from the World Health Organization and other support from the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Pilot programs using this formula have proven effective in 15 nations, including Bolivia, Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, and Haiti, where people are exposed to drinking water tainted by sewage, natural bacteria and parasites. The product is now being test marketed in the Philippines.

The goal, Mintz said, is to make the product available to the more than one billion people around the globe who lack access to safe drinking water. A bottle of the diluted bleach is enough to last a family for a month and sells for about 15 to 30 cents.

Mintz said that in Guatemala, his agency has worked with the Proctor and Gamble company of Cincinnati, Ohio, to sell a product called PUR, which consists of a sachet that treats 10 liters of water at a cost of about 10 cents to the Guatemalan consumer.

The PUR formula, he said, involves repeatedly stirring a solution composed of diluted bleach for water purification into a narrow mouth plastic jug with spigots for disinfecting and storing water. The result can reduce fecal contamination of beverages in homes and on food and water sold on the street. Street vendors often do not have a continuous supply of clean, running water for drinking, cleaning, cooking and preparing beverages.

The CDC, working in partnership with the United Nations Children's Fund and Population Services International, a Washington based nonprofit group, hopes to gain support to expand the water purification program at the Third World Water Forum being held in Kyoto, Japan from March 16 to 23.

More information about CDC's work with purifying drinking water is available at: http://www.cdc.gov/safewater.

Compost Controls Erosion on Iowa Road Embankments

The three year study, funded by the Iowa Department of Transportation and the DNR’s Solid Waste Alternatives Program, compared roadway embankments blanketed with compost to slopes where conventional erosion control was implemented. Researchers discovered that compost treated areas produced less than 30 percent of the runoff found at conventionally constructed embankments.

In conjunction with these findings, the DNR will serve as co-sponsor for a one day workshop designed to help municipal officials deal with the complexities of non-point source water pollution, including erosion control. The workshop, presented by the Urban Resources and Borderland Alliance Network, will be held March 20 at the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities building in Ankeny.

The workshop will include information on the benefits of compost for erosion control, as well as its use in meeting federal stormwater management requirements.

Tom Anderson, a DNR senior environmental specialist, said the findings could open up new markets for compost. “The use of compost to reduce erosion and runoff protects Iowa's water and helps to re-establish vegetative cover quickly,” Anderson said. “It also represents a tremendous market opportunity for Iowa made compost products that goes beyond road construction projects. Compost can be used for erosion control at just about any construction site, from shopping centers to single family homes.”

Iowa state, county and municipal agencies maintain more than 112,000 miles of roadways that require constant repair and expansion.

Researcher Tom Richard said the use of compost could be beneficial in situations where runoff and erosion control are required at times of the year when vegetation will not grow. “One of the most important benefits of compost treatment is the immediate erosion protection that’s provided before vegetative cover is established,” Richard said. “That would prevent damage that may otherwise occur before the next growing season.” Compost also provides an excellent environment for establishing vegetation, especially when compared to the disturbed soils typically left behind after construction.

Since passage of the Iowa Waste Reduction and Recycling Act in 1989, the DNR has worked toward reducing the quantity of organic waste going into Iowa landfills. This has given rise to a composting industry that produces about 320,000 metric tons of organic material annually at more than 70 facilities.

To attend the water quality workshop, contact Jennifer Welch of the Urban Resources and Borderland Alliance Network at: 515-964-1883.

Washington Adds 27 Sites to Hazmat Cleanup List

The 27 newly identified sites are located in 14 counties: Chelan, Clallam, Island, King, Kitsap, Lewis, Okanogan, Pacific, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, Spokane, Whatcom and Yakima.

The four sites removed from the list are located in Douglas, Kittitas, Pierce and Thurston counties.

Of 9,263 sites identified over the past 14 years as potentially contaminated, more than half - 5,130 - have been cleaned up. Of the remaining 4,133 sites, 861 have been confirmed as contaminated and ranked for cleanup.

About 3,049 contaminated sites currently have cleanups in progress. Some of them are on the state's ranked list, while the others are being cleaned up independently.

"We believe these new sites represent the past, not the present," said Jim Pendowski, the toxics cleanup manager for the Department of Ecology. "This is an important distinction because it means businesses and citizens are currently following regulations that protect human and environmental health."

Washington's industrial legacy is larger than expected. As properties change hands, more is discovered about past practices that might not have been very environmentally friendly, Pendowski said.

Bringing attention to contaminated sites by listing them is one step in the process of restoring properties to a full range of uses.

Cleanup is required at sites where levels of toxic substances are above limits set in the state's Model Toxics Control Act, a 1989 citizen initiative that established a program for cleaning and preventing toxic contamination.

The properties on the Department of Ecology's ranked, hazardous sites list are graded on a scale of one to five, with a score of one representing the highest level of concern.

The scores do not necessarily reflect the severity of the contamination, but are based on the site's location and the potential paths through which humans and sensitive environments could be exposed to the hazardous substances. A site with a number one ranking may have less contamination or less hazardous contaminants than lower ranked sites, but the risk of exposure is higher and cleanup needs to happen quicker.

The Model Toxics Control Act specifies that those responsible for polluting a site must pay for its cleanup. The state pays for cleanup only when a liable person cannot be found or when identified liable parties lack the financial resources to pay for the work.

Nearly every county in Washington has one or more properties on the hazardous sites list. Most are in Western Washington, where historically there have been more industrial and manufacturing practices.

Ecology's Toxics Cleanup Program is online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/cleanup.html

The state's Hazardous Sites List is located at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/mtca_gen/hazsites.html