NEWS OF THE WEEK
EPA reverses ban on sales of fungicide In an unusual step, the Environmental Protection Agency has reversed a ban it had proposed for many uses of a family of agricultural pesticides—ethylenebis(dithiocarbamates), or EBDCs. The decision allows continued marketing of these fungicides, which include maneb, mancozeb, and metiram. This decision, according to EPA Administrator William K. Reilly, is based on the most extensive review, analysis, and assessment of data ever undertaken on any pesticide. The agency is now convinced that the cumulative risk of cancer from dietary exposure to EBDCtreated food crops is in the range of one additional cancer for every 1 million people exposed for a lifetime. That's not what EPA thought in 1989 when it proposed to ban 45 of the uses of EBDCs then allowed. At that time, EPA estimated the cancer risk posed by ethylene thiourea (ETU), an EBDC decomposition product, to be four additional cancer cases per 10,000 people exposed. This was based on residues on fruits and vegetables in the field that had been treated with the maximum allowable levels of EBDC fungicides and harvested at the shortest allowable interval after treatment. At the time EBDCs, first registered for use in the 1930s, were the most widely used fungicides in the U.S. The four U.S. producers of EBDCs— Elf Atochem North America, BASF Corp., Du Pont, and Rohm & Haas—cooperated fully with EPA, voluntarily halting sales of the chemicals for 42 uses even before EPA proposed cancellation. They then undertook a "market basket" study to determine amounts of EBDC and ETU residues actually found on foods sold to consumers. Over 5700 food samples were tested during the $10 million, one-year study. EPA says 80% of the samples had no detectable residues. These data convinced EPA to allow continued use of EBDCs on 43 crops, including apples, cucumbers, onions, potatoes, sweet corn, and tomatoes. However, the agency will continue to prohibit their use on 11 crops, including apricots, carrots, peaches, and spinach. It also will require decreases in both application rates and the number of applications per crop, will increase the allowed interval between applica6
FEBRUARY 24,1992 C&EN
—SCNHCHgCHgNHCS— L
Jr
Ethytonebto(dlttilocartMunato) (EBDC)
tion and harvest, and will mandate use of protective clothing by people who handle the chemicals. The EBDC-ETU Task Force, composed of the four U.S. producers, complimented EPA for basing this regulatory decision on sound, scientific information. Others aren't so sure. Susan Cooper, staff toxicologist for the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, says, "There is no question that ETU is a potent carcinogen." She questions the wisdom of allowing continued use of EBDCs when, in fact, the crops can be grown quite successfully and profitably without them. It is up to the agency, she contends, "to force technology in the direction it needs to go rather than allowing continued use of these hazardous materials when alternatives exist, simply because it would be difficult or inconvenient to force a conversion." She points out factories aren't allowed to emit polluted air just because scrubber technology is expensive. Janice Long
Senate passes energy billby94to4vote After a year of exhaustive hearings and debate, plus some politically expedient backpedaling, the Senate finally passed an energy bill last week. By a vote of 94 to 4, the Senate approved S. 2166—the National Energy Security Act of 1992—the most comprehensive energy bill in history. Action now moves to the House, where several separate bills—amounting to much the same package—will be considered. Gone from the original bill, sponsored by Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D.-La.), are the two most contentious provisions. One opened the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling; the other mandated fuel economy standards for autos and trucks. Both will likely come up as separate bills next year. Key provisions that did pass include
overhaul of the 1935 Public Utilities Holding Company Act to cut regulatory barriers against power generation by nonutilities; increased funding and regulatory support for development of alternative fuels; streamlined licensing for nuclear power plants and natural gas pipelines; and provisions for various forms of support for energy efficiency in houses, office buildings, and equipment. Energy policy has had peaks and valleys since the debate began a year ago with the Persian Gulf War raging. Oil prices rose then to above $30 a barrel, triggering calls for strong legislative incentives for energy conservation. Today, with the economy in recession, oil is flooding the international market at about $18 a barrel, Iraq and Kuwait are about to market it again in volume, and the world is relaxing about energy. "We are relaxing," says one energy analyst on Capitol Hill, "because of the state of the economy. If we were in better shape, the price of oil would probably again be high and there would be a much stronger push for fuel efficiency standards. Also, when the economy is bad, as it is now, the so-called Green [environmental] Lobby loses its power." Last February the Bush Administration released its National Energy Strategy, which critics saw mainly as a policy opposing energy conservation and promoting oil production and nuclear energy. Johnston's original bill was seen as virtually a carbon copy of this strategy. However, filibuster threats prevented passage of Arctic oil drilling, and a general stalemate forced elimination of the auto fuel efficiency provisions. Johnston in the end decided to leave both provisions out of S. 2166 so as to have any hope of passage. The chemical industry's interests have always been to keep the price of crude oil low, and thus maintain low feedstock costs along with low natural gas prices. With peace in the Middle East and the economic downturn having achieved these low costs, the industry's trade group, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), has not been very vocal. CMA all along has supported the Arctic drilling provision. It has also supported all the provisions that would spur more research and development in energy—including control of carbon dioxide emissions without imposition of emission taxes to reduce output of carbon dioxide. Wil Lepkowski
