in Lake Michigan, for example, Michigan has more lenient guidelines than Wisconsin even though scientists have concluded that the risks are similar. "This has been a very contentious issue with us," said Schmidt. A new Sierra Club report said that 50% of the 5 million Great Lakes fishing families are totally unaware of the consumption advisories. Most states hand out brochures along with fishing licenses but do little else to make people aware of the potential risks.
Dust up over proposed rule for cement kiln emissions Senior-level officials are considering three separate options for regulating emissions from cement kilns. The regulations would affect 120 cement kilns nationwide, including 18 that burn hazardous waste as fuel. Although agency officials are noncommittal as to what their January decision will be, the option that apparently has gained the strongest internal support is one that would list cement kiln dust as a hazardous waste. The definition would allow EPA to regulate emissions while retaining enforcement power under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, the cement kiln industry is opposed to such a listing and has been lobbying the agency for either of the remaining two options. One of the alternatives results in an understanding between EPA and the industry that would set specific standards for managing cement kiln dust. EPA used a similar approach with the pulp and paper industry recently to regulate land application of sludge. The other alternative lets states run individual regulatory programs that were generally based on federal guidelines. States also would be allowed to impose site-specific regulations rather than depending on one set of standards for all kilns in their jurisdiction. "We would definitely like to see more authority given to the states, but we also would be in favor of a memo of understanding," said Peggy Hudson, vice president of the American Portland Cement Alliance. "However, our first choice would be no regulation whatsoever." Industry has not been speaking with a unified voice on the issue. A splinter group called the Non-Haz-
Addressing Superfund lead cleanup inconsistencies An internal EPA work group is set to release recommendations this month to remedy inconsistent approaches to lead cleanups in the Superfund program. A set of position papers addresses inconsistencies that were raised when EPA released guidelines in 1994 for cleaning up lead-contaminated soil at Superfund sites. Among other things, the guidelines created confusion because they led to different intepretations of existing cleanup standards in separate regions of the country. "We want to be sure we are all on the same page with respect to implementation," said Larry Zaragoza, an environmental protection specialist in the Superfund office who is on the work group. Zaragoza said the work group, created in August 1996, is reviewing state comments on five separate position papers. The policy papers will provide guidance on lead paint removal, assess health risk, allocate resources for education programs, use blood tests to establish lead cleanup levels, and offer criteria for setting cleanup priorities within a site. The issue of using Superfund money to remove lead paint is especially sensitive because other federal, state, and local programs provide funding for the same purpose, and EPA wants to make sure there is a consistency among the various agencies. Because of these other programs, Superfund has focused on cleaning up lead-tainted soil and groundwater. Zaragoza said the work group hopes to implement follow-up recommendations early next year.
waste Burner CKD Coalition told EPA that blanket regulations were unfair because the highest levels of toxic metals were coming from those kilns that burned hazardous waste. "It makes no sense to allow [the hazardous waste burners] to drive the decisions for all," said Michael Levin, attorney for the coalition.
Timetable set for reassessment of pesticide tolerances With a special emphasis on dietary staples of infants and children, on Aug. 4, EPA revealed an extensive plan to reassess the existing tolerance limits for 10,000 pesticides now used on a variety of crops nationwide. The review process was mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Tolerances are the allowable pesticide residues in raw and processed foods. Under the new law, EPA must complete its review in three equal increments over 10 years. The first batch is scheduled for completion in August 1999, the second in 2002, and the last by 2006. The law also requires that EPA start first with the pesticides found in raw or processed foods that represent the greatest potential risk to human health. Of the 1800 tolerances now in effect for organophosphates, for example, more than 300 are used on foods that are popular with children. Organophosphates will be reevaluated in the first group, along with organochlorines,
4 5 2 A • VOL.31, NO. 10, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
triazine herbicides, carbamates, and a host of "high-hazard" inert ingredients. For all the tolerance reviews, the new law requires EPA to consider the aggregate exposure to a pesticide, including those from residential use and drinking water, and the cumulative effects from other pesticides that share a mechanism of toxicity. EPA also must consider whether there is an increased susceptibility from exposure to die pesticide to infants, children, and other sensitive populations and whether the pesticide produces an effect in humans similar to that of a naturally occurring estrogen. Once the review is completed for each pesticide, EPA can keep the tolerance limit as it is, lower it to make it more stringent, or revoke it altogether if scientists decide that no level of residue is safe. Although the public will not see the benefits of this review for years, other programs under the new law will soon attract attention. EPA's staff is preparing a brochure on pesticide health effects that will be distributed in stores and supermarkets starting in August 1998. A draft of the brochure is set for completion in January. EPA is expecting widespread public reaction when consumers start to read about the risks of pesticide exposure. "Those brochures are going to have a tremendous impact," said EPA spokesman Al Heier. "That's when people are really going to want to know what is going on."
