<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<H1><FONT size=3>It looks like somebody is getting ready for Kesterson 2 or
finishing the San Luis Drain to the SF Bay. For information on plans to
create Kesterson 2 and/or complete the San Luis Drain, see <A
href="http://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/sld/index.html">http://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/sld/index.html</A> (The
San Luis Drainage Feature Re-Evaluation and EIS).</FONT></H1>
<H1><FONT size=3>The article doesn't mention that with the selenate adjustment
in the proposed new rules, the acute criterion would be 1,590 ppb selenium
in water, much higher than the existing 20 ppb selenium acute aquatic
life criterion. Also, the state of California has designated 1,000
ppb as the hazardous waste level for selenium, so what EPA is proposing is
significantly higher than the state hazardous waste level. Also worth note
is that water with selenate/sulfate is generally associated with subsurface
agricultural drainage, NOT with mining runoff or refinery effluent.
Somehow this has the appearance that the San Joaquin Valley water
users who discharge selenium have had some influence with EPA in the proposed
relaxation of selenium standards.</FONT></H1>
<H1><FONT size=3>Yours truly,</FONT></H1>
<H1><FONT size=3>Tom Stokely</FONT><FONT size=3> <BR></FONT></H1>
<H1><A
href="http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/environment/story/10576582p-11495494c.html"><FONT
size=3>http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/environment/story/10576582p-11495494c.html</FONT></A></H1>
<H1>Battle over toxic metal<BR><FONT color=#666666>EPA appears set to relax
standards for selenium, which led to deformities in waterfowl in
1980s.<BR></FONT><FONT color=#cc0000>By Stuart Leavenworth -- Bee Staff
Writer<BR><I>Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, August 31, 2004<BR></I></FONT><FONT
size=4>Over the objections of several federal scientists, the Bush
administration is preparing to relax national standards for selenium - a toxic
metal that caused mass deformities of water fowl in California's Central Valley
during the 1980s.<BR><BR>The revised U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
standards are outlined in an EPA draft notice obtained by The
Bee.<BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=#cc0000><FONT size=5><U></U></FONT></FONT><FONT
size=4>Critics say the proposed standards are based on a study that even its
author says was interpreted improperly. The standards follow years of lobbying
by power companies, Valley farming interests and mining officials, all of whom
say the current federal standards are overly restrictive.<BR><BR>EPA officials
declined to comment on the dispute Monday, saying they haven't made a final
decision on the rule. "The notice you have is a draft. Until it is signed, it is
not final," said Cathy Milbourne, an EPA spokeswoman in Washington,
D.C.<BR><BR>Scientists in other federal agencies, however, say it has been clear
for weeks the EPA plans to adopt a selenium standard favored by industry and
opposed by government biologists. The rule-making process has been controversial
since 2002, when the EPA hired a contractor with long-standing ties to some
industries seeking relief.<BR><BR>Under the EPA draft notice, the agency plans
to control long-term selenium toxicity by switching from a water-based standard
to a fish-based standard. Industries would be allowed to discharge into waters
until selenium reached a concentration of 7.91 parts per million in fish. EPA
contends those levels will be safe for fish and most wildlife. Several
non-industry scientists disagree.<BR><BR>Joseph Skorupa, a researcher with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says studies show birds lose 10 percent of their
offspring after eating food containing 4 parts per million selenium.<BR><BR>"At
8 parts per million, we are talking about a situation where more than 50 percent
of the eggs would fail to hatch," said Skorupa, who has investigated selenium
poisonings for more than two decades.<BR><BR>In recent months, Skorupa and other
scientists have been alerting EPA officials to what they call "fatal flaws" in
evaluating selenium.<BR><BR>"We thought they would go back and modify their
criteria," said Dennis Lemly, a scientist with the U.S. Forest Service's
Southern Research Station in Virginia. "So far, they haven't done
that."<BR><BR>Industry scientists say their research indicates selenium is less
toxic than some biologists claim. They also say EPA's current method of
regulating selenium - limiting levels to 5 parts per billion in water - is
costly to certain businesses.<BR><BR>"The power industry believes the 7.9 (parts
per million) standard is more scientifically defensible than the current one,"
said Rob Reash, a biologist who works for Ohio-based American Electrical Power,
the largest electrical generator in the country.<BR><BR>He said power companies
could save millions of dollars if the proposed standard is adopted.<BR><BR>A
natural element, selenium is considered to be beneficial in small quantities,
but can be poisonous as it builds up in the food chain. That threat was
illustrated vividly in the 1980s, when scientists started documenting hundreds
of deformed and dying birds at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge near Los
Banos.<BR><BR>Federal biologists, including Skorupa, tracked the poisonings to
selenium runoff to upstream farms, and have continued to document less-dramatic
poisonings from the Central Valley to the Delta.<BR><BR>Following the Kesterson
episode, EPA set a water-based standard for selenium - 5 parts per billion - and
started to regulate industries that discharge the metal in their
wastewater.<BR><BR>It's a big job. Across the country, selenium is released by
phosphate mines in Idaho and copper mines in Utah. It drains from the piles of
leftover ash at coal-burning power plants. It has been found downstream of
mountaintop mining operations in West Virginia, and is in irrigation water
across much of the West.<BR><BR>Documents obtained by the Public Education
Center, a nonprofit research group, show industries have lobbied for relaxed
selenium standards over several years, even as the Fish and Wildlife Service has
pushed for tougher limits.<BR><BR>Since 1980, the power industry has spent about
$10 million on selenium research, helping to fund several studies that discount
the threats to wildlife, according to the Public Education Center.<BR><BR>Hoping
to sidestep disputes about its water standard, the EPA announced in 2001 it
would start using fish concentrations, instead of water, to regulate selenium.
Although scientists on both sides supported this approach, they quickly differed
on EPA's choice of a consultant to lead the project - the Great Lakes
Environmental Center.<BR><BR>Since 2001, the Michigan-based consulting firm has
worked for several power companies and trade associations, including American
Electrical Power and the Electric Power Research Institute.<BR><BR>Even more
worrisome, say scientists for Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey,
is that the Great Lakes Environmental Center made significant mistakes in
proposing a selenium standard for fish.<BR><BR>In calculating a proposed
standard, the Great Lakes center relied on a study by Lemly that examined
selenium uptake and survival in blue gill, a common fish. But according to Lemly
and Skorupa, the consultant misread the Lemly study and assumed he had studied
210 fish throughout the experiment. Lemly had removed 60 fish during two phases
of the tests, meaning the survival rate was much lower than the consultant had
assumed.<BR><BR>"The Great Lakes Environmental Center made some fairly egregious
errors," said Lemly in a telephone interview.<BR><BR>Had the consultant
correctly interpreted his study, he said, the appropriate standard should be
closer to 4 parts per million instead of 7.91.<BR><BR>Officials for the Great
Lake center couldn't be reached Monday. Nor could Charles Delos, who is heading
the selenium criteria changes for the EPA.<BR><BR>Several months ago, Delos
received a paper from five scientists criticizing the EPA's methodology, said
Skorupa, who authored the paper along with Lemly, Theresa Presser of the U.S.
Geological Survey and two others.<BR><BR>According to the EPA draft notice, the
agency acknowledges its proposed standard is "not necessarily designed to
protect all terrestrial wildlife." On a separate track, the EPA is developing
selenium criteria for California, although it is not known when those standards
will be ready.<BR><BR>Some California farm interests are lobbying for changes.
The fish-based standard of 7.9 parts per million "is an important step towards a
more reasonable selenium standard," the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Authority
wrote EPA in 2002.<BR><BR>In West Virginia, industries conducting mountaintop
mining also are urging regulators to adopt the 7.9 ppm standard. Some industries
are having trouble complying with the current standard, said Jason Bostic,
regulatory affairs specialists for the West Virginia Coal
Association.<BR><BR>Bostic said he was unsure if selenium was building up in
wildlife downstream of those mines. "We don't know," he said. "Selenium is very
new for
us."<BR><BR>------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR></H1></FONT>
<H4>About the Writer<BR></H4>
<DIV>---------------------------<BR>The Bee's Stuart Leavenworth can be reached
at (916) 321-1185 or <FONT color=#cc0000><U><A
href="mailto:sleavenworth@sacbee.com">sleavenworth@sacbee.com</A></U></FONT>.
<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><IMG height=564 alt=" "
src="http://www.sacbee.com/ips_rich_content/155-selenium.jpg" width=432
border=1></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>