tion and further delays in the action needed to protect our health and environment." Of the three mercury standards set by different federal agencies, ATSDR's revised standard would be by far the least restrictive. EPA's reference dose is 0.01 ug/kg of body weight per day; the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) standard is about 5 times higher than EPA's. All three standards are used to varying degrees by states in developing fish consumption advisories. The FDA standard is also used to regulate interstate fish sales, and the ATSDR standard is used in exposure assessments at Superfund sites Southern states tend to use the FDA standard in setting fish advisories, whereas northeastern states favor the EPA's. Other states take into consideration all three standards. The 13 states of the Southern States Mercury Conference base their advisories on the FDA recommendation, said Alan Price of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Price said the states in the region
are not likely to revise their standard because of the ATSDR action. Many northeastern states place more weight on the EPA recommendation. ATSDR decided to change its standard in large part because of
ATSDR's proposed mercury standard would be by far the least restrictive of any U.S. federal agency. initial results from a study of mercury consumption by mother-infant pairs on the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean. EPA also evaluated the ongoing Seychelles research in a recently completed reevaluation of its own mercury standard, but the agency decided to stick with its 0.01 standard set in 1995. EPA calculated its reference dose primarily on die basis of earlier studies and applied uncertainty factors, an approach endorsed by
EPA's Science Advisory Board {ES&T, May 1197, p. 218A)) FDA ii just beginning a review of its "action level" for mercury in fish. ATSDR's draft toxicological profile for mercury, a "routine revision," according to the agency, came out just a month before EPA's presentation to Congress of its long-delayed, comprehensive report on mercury. EPA's standard will be used by the agency as a basis for determining a regulatory scheme for mercury. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is charged with determining whether there is a need to regulate air emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The agency is using the information in the mercury report to make this decision A second report about this decision is expected this month In announcing its revised standard, ATSDR noted that studies of the effects of mercury on neurological development are still under way. The public comment period ends Feb. 1. —REBECCA RENNER
Toxic chemical use reporting debated on state and national levels Legislation to repeal the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) has been introduced in the state even as national efforts to require materials accounting are being launched. The Massachusetts Chemical Technology Alliance, which represents state chemical producers, argues that the program is too costly for manufacturers. The bill, introduced for the first time last year, will be reintroduced this year in the Massachusetts legislature, according to Mike DeVito, the alliance's executive director. Although the group's first effort last year stalled in committee, DeVito says he is confident that the bill will move through the legislature this year. The repeal effort in Massachusetts is being pushed mainly as a way to discredit national efforts to require toxic chemical use reporting. "There's another side to this story, and we'll make the message heard that use reporting is not successful," said DeVito,
who added that he hoped the TURA repeal effort would resonate nationally. EPA's Toxics Release Inventory has been credited with leading manufacturers to halve their annual releases to the environment since reporting began in 1987. However, laws in Massachusetts and New Jersey have gone further than the federal program by requiring companies to report their use of toxic chemicals. In May 1997, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-Conn.) introduced identical bills, known as the Right-to-Know More and Pollution Prevention Act, to require materials accounting on a national level. EPA has been holding hearings for three years on proposals to require materials accounting, but it is unclear whether the agency has the statutory authority to mandate toxic chemical use reporting. DeVito pointed out that from 1988 to 1995, Toxics Release In-
ventory releases in New Hampshire and Connecticut, two states without toxic use reporting, decreased by a greater percentage than in Massachusetts. He also noted that Massachusetts companies have spent $55 million since 1990 on compliance and fees. "TURA does not enjoy broad support in the business community and saps resources from other programs," DeVito said. However, Gina McCarthy, director of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Program, countered that over a seven-year period, TURA saved businesses $14 million. In a 1997 survey of Massachusetts businesses, 88% of the 450 respondents said they had acted on their mandated toxic use reduction plans, McCarthy said (ES&T, December 1997, p. 564A). A large part of the reductions in releases in Connecticut and New Hampshire was due to plant closings and loss of military contracts McCarthy added JANET PELLEY
JAN. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 9 A
