California Green Chemistry Regulations

Cal/EPA-Department of Toxic Substances Control has released their draft Green Chemistry

Unfortunately, the " burden of proof paradigm" is identical to TSCA, which has crippled the federal program since passage in 1976.

I got this list of comments from the Env Working Grp's review of the Green Chem initiative:

From EWG:

"* The initial list of “chemicals of concern” to be regulated covers reproductive toxicity and carcinogens named in California’s Proposition 65 list, which is known to be incomplete; chemicals considered to be mutagenic by the European Union; and those considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. But state officials haven’t said when they might expand the list to include such worrisome substances as endocrine disruptors OR neurotoxic chemicals."


Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish, at least annually,a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.




Here is what Prop 65 is concerned with:


from section 25249.8. List Of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity

"A chemical is known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity within the meaning of this chapter if in the opinion of the state's qualified experts it has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, or if a body considered to be authoritative by such experts has formally identified it as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity, or if an agency of the state or federal government has formally required it to be labeled or identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity."

Again, from EWG:


    * State regulators propose to give a thumbs up to a “chemical of concern” as long as there are fewer than 1,000 parts per million of it in almost any product. Yet scientists around the world are finding that human health can be harmed by exposure to some chemicals in the parts-per-billion range – a million times lower than the state’s proposed safety threshold.


This is a serious issue. As they mention, endocrine disruptor, neurotoxins, and other classes of toxicants can have serious impacts on human health and ecological receptors at very low concentrations- parts per billion and parts per trillion (we're talking something on the order of teaspoon of chemical in a pond or lake) in some cases. In the environmental cleanup industry, there are cleanup goals for contaminated sites set at these lower levels. These cleanup goals are based on risk assessments that determine what the concentration of the contaminant needs to be for the risks to be "acceptable" (pollution resulting in 1 in a million excess cases of cancer is acceptable under current regulations). Therefore, how much impact will a Green Chemistry regulation have if it does not decrease the environmental burden of these most toxic chemicals.


    * The entire regulatory process will take far too long – many years, very likely. A major goal of the initiative was to enable the state to take quick action on potential problems.

This is a problem throughout the regulatory sector. Streamlining regulatory processes does not seem to be a priority for the individuals in regulatory positions. There is good reason for this, as civil servants are charged to act on behalf of the general public, which is traditionally a convoluted and carefully considered process. However, with respect to the mounting environmental issues (global climate change, ocean pollution, freshwater resource depletion, forest destruction, top soil erosion, etc), the regulatory response times are not producing the needed results within time frames required to curb the impacts. I fear this is true of burgeoning global climate change legislation and is probably true of this regulation as well.

What appears to be absent from discussions, is the recognition that the interests of individual parties have diminished importance when considering the greater implications of environmental destruction as a whole. This realization can only be achieved if the fundamentals are resolved within the regulatory system. I believe we (most of us) have moved past the fundamentals (is global climate change real, for example) and are truly engaged in seeking solutions. However, a population of nay-sayers in United States, combined with disproportionate media representation, continually robs the momentum. Inertia is not on our side.

At the root of this issue is the NOTW phenomenon within our culture. The notion that our terrestrial environment is not of consequence because "He will provide", seems to be pervasive. How can a plea for environmental compassion be effective if the recipient does not believe the natural worth protecting? This point of view has been particularly problematic in recent years with the erosion of the First Amendment. In addition to this, certain political movements that hold economic growth (regardless of costs) as their ultimate goal have sought to systematically disassemble the institutions that have been the guardians of collectively owned natural resources.

Regardless, government is not responding to the times in an effective way. This is due to these systemic issues with the institutions and principals that make up regulatory agencies. Much of the problem comes on the backs of years of the new brand of conservative politics. Department heads have been installed throughout state and federal agencies who have long-standing interests (by way of direct profit) in the destruction of environmental regulation. Additionally, there is a culture apathy that has overcome these institutions. Some have gotten so bad that they might as well be "waiting-rooms" for retirement. For younger people entering public service, the institutions structure and hierarchy feel rigid, archaic, and cumbersome to navigate.  This is particularly true in California, where budgetary issues seem to always land on the backs of state employees, who are asked to sacrifice for the effects of poor leadership. The current state budget is perhaps worse than anyone had imagined possible and is a direct result of poor regulatory leadership during the good economic times of the not-so-distant past. State employees are being asked to make so many concessions, that those with desirable skills, motivation, and the ability to change will be leaving civil service. On a practical level (i.e. support a family) the calculation done when one enters a civil service career is something like the following: Civil service = lower income (about 2/3 of equivalent private sector position)  + better benefits + more security. However, just one glance at the current and candidates for future governor of California proposals for "fixing" the budget will show you how these benefits are rapidly eroding and the security is gone. This trend has been in-place for years. Cost of living increases, raises, promotions, salary scale changes etc have been scuttled long ago in the name of "fiscal responsibility". There are serious consequences as there is little ability for regulatory agencies to attract and retain top candidates. Furthermore, as they have been so thoroughly de-valued in our culture regulatory agencies may not have the ability to be relevant.

But I digress..

next comment from EWG:

    * Manufacturers would be responsible for assessing their own products or paying consultants to do so, an inherent conflict of interest. Theoretically, the state could review those analyses, but a cash-strapped agency will lack the resources to analyze most chemicals and products. There’s also no place for independent scientists, medical experts and other members of the public to question these industry assessments. Industry claims of “confidential business information” – trade secrets – could veil the identity of much of the information in the analyses. The public would have to trust that these so-called “black boxes” contained accurate information.

This is the burden of proof issue. The Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 relies on industry to characterize their own products and report toxic effects and analyses to the government. This issue alone has resulted in a failure to protect the population and environment from the effects of toxic chemicals. Less than 1% of chemicals in the market place have had comprehensive toxicological profiles completed. Some believe this is the driving factor behind the increased rates of cancer, autism spectrum disorders, declines of amphibian populations world-wide, as well as many other diseases of environmental origin. There is a lot vocal action currently calling for the reform of this aspect TSCA. An unbiased entity should be reviewing these chemicals.

    * The proposed rules would not allow any public participation in the state’s decisions about how, exactly, certain substances would be regulated. If officials chose to take no action on a particular toxic chemical, consumers would have no real recourse for voicing objections and concerns."

This is (if true) a major failure, as the role of government is to act on behalf of the public and "stakeholder" participation is an essential ingredient to all successful regulatory initiatives. Moreover, if this aspect is not included, the process with be riddled with accusations of acting on behalf of industry (common conception) and litigation will surely slow the process significantly.

I would add the following issue as well:
from 69301.3:
"This chapter does not apply to any consumer product manufactured in California solely for shipment and use outside of California.  In establishing whether or not a product is manufactured solely for shipment and use outside of California, the burden of proof shall be on the manufacturer."

There are probably legal jurisdiction issues with an out-right ban, by this is regulatory NIMBY, no?
Additionally, would egregious chemicals stilll be used in manufacturing processes here locally, so long as their are predominately for export?

SAFER CONSUMER PRODUCT ALTERNATIVES

2010 Gulf Oil Leak Remediation Brainstorm

The Gulf (waters and coastal areas) is now the largest Brownfield in the world, and if the leak is not stopped, the disaster will far exceed the largest Superfund site in the world. The leak is now, by far, the largest oil spill in the history of the United States. While this disaster is raising oil awareness of the need to reduce and eliminate our need for petroleum product as they come to us at a tremendous environmental and social cost, there is a pressing need for cleanup solutions.

I am challenged and humbled by the scale of this disaster. Creative solutions are needed to respond effectively to this disaster. 

Bioremediation is a process that harnesses the innate ability of certain bacteria and fungi to destroy pollutants in place. There have been applications developed for marine oil spills as well as spills on land. The interest in these technologies increased greatly after the Exxon Valdez spill (see 1991 report and 1996 review article).  A number of different technologies may fall into the category of biological methods; these include the use of straw or plant material as an absorbent for oil, biosurfactants to clean oiled surfaces, biological polymers to coat surfaces to prevent oil adhesion, the addition of materials to encourage microbiological biodegradation of oil, and the addition of non-indigenous natural or engineered microbes to a contaminated environment.

These technologies are often limited by environmental factors to do the work necessary to restore the contaminated environment. These factors are, including others:
 

• temperature - microbial cells are active within specific temperature ranges, depending on the species.

• availability of nutrients - the oil is a food source for the microbes, however, it does not contain all of the nutrients that microbes require to grow - and we need them to grow quickly if there is any hope of success for this strategy. For example, iron is very limited in the marine environment, but is essential for growth.

• metabolic cofactors - certain chemicals that are resistant to microbial metabolism - known as recalcitrance- can be digested by microbes in the presence of other natural compounds. This phenomenon is called co-metabolic biodegradation and is very common around the roots of plants, who employ microbial groups to supply them with nutrients otherwise locked up in organic matter or rocks.

• bioavailability - this is one of the most limiting factors in treating  contaminated environments with living organism, but can also be a blessing. If a chemical has very low bioavailability it cannot be easily attacked by hungry microbes, but fortunately is not going to be absorbed by sensitive organisms. However, at the scale that this disaster the impacts are beyond the toxicological and entering into the physical. Cancer is not a concern when you are being suffocated. 

• diversity - no microbe is an island. There are very few examples (despite the hopes and dreams of reductionist scientists) of a single microbe that is capable of completely mineralizing (complete breakdown of the molecule - not to some daughter product) a recalcitrant pollutant alone. There have been oodles and oodles of attempts to make "superbugs" through genetic engineering. These super bugs have genes pulled out of other species that infer the ability to break down the pollutant in less time than the native, wild-type bug. Papers are published in high impact-factor rate journals and the authors get their next big NSF grant.  However (with a big H) invariably, these superbugs never perform when release into the wild to do their magic. Leaving aside the moral questions surrouding the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, the failure of the superbugs to treat the problem they were supposedly created to address, leaves much to be desired about the scientific processes that lead to this sort of scenario, but also leaves us with few tools that are ready for prime-time in the event of a disaster. Umm hello, all you PIs with your flasks of superbugs, what have you done for me lately? Some of us advocate for a different approach: if we can understand how nature does it, we can promote the natural, indigenous processes in times of need. There are consortia of microbes that have evolved to work together to use crude oil as a food source. Studying these in their natural environment will provide us with the tools needed to promote their activity in times of need (today for example).

Next time: Floating ecological restorers  

Gulf Coast Estuary Phytoremediation Part 1

The destruction of the Gulf Coast estuary habitat by the on-going oil leak will have devastating effects on the functioning of ecosystem as a whole.  Estuaries are semi enclosed bodies of water formed when fresh water from rivers and coastal streams flows into and mixes with salt water of the ocean (1). As many have pointed out these brackish wetlands provide critical habitat for spawning and larval development of many organisms in the Gulf in addition to providing habitat for birds and wildlife. Their role in the health of the Gulf is central, providing nutrients, habitat, and filtration of waters released from land. 

In an estuary, nutrient-rich river waters combine with warmer,  light infused shallow coastal waters and the upwelling of nutrient-rich deep ocean waters to generate primary productivity. The mixing of lighter fresh water and heavier salt water trap and circulate nutrients such that they are often retained and recycled by benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms to create a self-enriching system.  In some estuaries, where productivity exceeds what can be used within the estuary, the action of regular tidal flushing moves nutrients and organic materials to adjacent coastal waters thereby increasing their productivity (1).

What effect will the oil spill have on estuaries? There is, unfortunately, many cases where oil spills have impacted estuaries.Open seas have a much greater capacity to assimilate spilled oil and reduce its harmful effects. As many learned when the supertanker Exxon Valdez went aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound, however, nearshore spills can be disastrous, especially when they occur within partly enclosed bodies of water, such as a sound, bay, or estuary. Riverine and estuarine currents make spills and slicks particularly difficult to contain. They quickly carry the oil to shorelines, marshes, and flats where they do their worst damage. An oil slick is a threat to most creatures in its path, especially sea birds, waterfowl, and fur-bearing mammals. It can blanket and smother whole communities of shoreline and intertidal organisms, kill the eggs and larvae of fish and shellfish, and taint entire colonies of adult shellfish. In the confines of an estuary, even relatively small oil spills can wipe out whole populations of certain organisms, thus upsetting the food chain

there for years to come (2).

The movement of the oil through and into the estuary can occur at a surprising rate. Take the example of the oil spill near the Humber Estuary, Denmark. The movement of the oil was observed in the following manner:

"Neap tides and easterly winds on over the following four days kept the oil inside the estuary but the pollution had been driven up-stream beyond the Humber Bridge as far as the River Trent.

• 
  
  
  
  On the 28th September, there was oiling of the south bank between Skitter Ness to Grimsby. There was no oiled noted on the north bank, however oil was seen floating west of the Humber Bridge (15 miles from the spill’s origin).
• 
  
  
  
  On the 29th September, the oil had travelled west reaching Trent Falls by the afternoon.
• 
  
  
  
  By the 30th September large deposits of oil were found at Trent Falls and the Humber Wildfowl Refuge as well as from the Bridge to Grimsby.
• 
  
  
  
  By the 1st October, the wind had changed to south-southwest carrying the oil onto the north bank, affecting the Humber wildfowl refuge in particular. Oil was seen in the River Ouse and Trent and also reported at Saltend and Paull.
• 
  
  
  
  On the 2nd October, oil was reported on the north bank of the outer estuary around Sunk Island

The oil spread on the tides throughout approximately 50 miles of the estuary. In general the oiling of the middle and outer estuary had been most severe on the south bank, while in the upper estuary, the north bank had probably received the most oil. (3)"

It is clear, therefore, that the oil will be spread throughout the estuaries adjacent to the Gulf in short order. What can be done once this happens? Will we stand by with tied hands and let "natural attenuation" happen (this term is used in the environmental cleanup sector in cases where the responsible parties- polluters- are proposing to watch and see how nature deals with their mess. In some cases this is actually the best option available. There are environments and situations where the continued meddling of people only increases the environmental damage. Typically, these situations are in low-productivity environments and where the local microflora contains organisms capable of metabolizing the pollutant at an acceptable rate. Groundwater pollution plumes are often "managed" by monitored natural attenuation. However, Monitored Natural Attenuation- MNA is frequently proposed by polluters as to decrease the cost of their cleanup operations without regard for the effectiveness of the approach.) ?

It is very unlikely that, given the magnitude of the release of oil in the Gulf, active cleanup approaches will be feasible for every acre of impacted estuary. It is critical, therefore, that the chosen cleanup approaches are as effective as possible. Additionally, given our precarious global climate situation, we need to maintain awareness of the net impact of the remediation of the Gulf region. "Green" remediation approaches have emerged in recent years on the heals of the "sustainability" movement of recent years. While it is still evolving, the fundamental consideration of Green Remediation is to ensure that polluted site cleanup has a net positive impact on the quality and health of the site.  Some of the considerations that green remediation adds to the discussion of remedial options are, among others:

• Total Energy Use and Renewable Energy Use
• Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Water Use and Impacts to Water Resources
• Materials Management and Waste Reduction
• Land Management and Ecosystems Protection (4)

Whereas, traditional environmental cleanup processes only consider the cost ($) of the available technologies and their relative effectiveness. The lowest cost that achieves the end goal is chosen regardless of the potential myriad of secondary costs (fuel consumption, habitat loss, noise, land use restrictions, carbon releases) associated with the low cost($) option. 

More on Green Remediation next time....