Recently in Brownfields Cleanup Category

The United States is dipping its toe into the "green chemistry" trend, but where does the world stand?  Will the world suffer or benefit from chemical products of the future in our manufacturing of vehicles, electronics, even food and drinks?  Because rapidly rising economies such as China and India are entering the manufacturing marketplace, their chemical proficiency becomes a global issue because winds carry toxins to neighboring regions, waters carry toxins, and lands harbor toxins  -- known and yet to be discovered and evaluated -- for centuries.

Globalization Trends

Globalization is one of the most important megatrends currently affecting society. Its impact on the chemical industry is far-reaching, being both a source of opportunity but also a driver for change in the industry itself.

Globalization can create growth opportunities for many chemical companies, who are actively looking for ways to enter into the higher-growth regional markets of the world. Meanwhile, India is forecast to become a low cost manufacturing hub for passenger vehicles in the coming years, and trends such as this will have a major impact on where materials need to be supplied to in the future.

Urbanization Trends

And alongside globalization, the related trend of urbanization is also creating its own set of opportunities for chemical companies.

Consumer awareness and action will grow as chemicals accumulate in our environment, our food supply and our water supply.  Solutions are needed... BEFORE problems are created.  Regulation of chemical products is a new challenge that we must face, as difficult as it is to understand the technical language used to obfuscate understanding of what's in our products, and the waste stream affected by un-tested product ingredients.

Frost & Sullivan's Global Chemicals and Materials team have completed extensive analysis on Global Chemicals market.

Chemical safety affects us all.  But how do laws support chemical safety?

Out of more than 62,000 synthetic chemicals that are part of our everyday lives, fewer than 200 have been tested for safety.

The Chemical Industry and Safety Best Practices

Thanks to effective lobbying by the chemical industry, laws are written so that every synthetic chemical is "innocent until proven guilty." The legal burden weighs on those seeking to prove the harm a substance can cause.

Find out more in "Toxic Ignorance is Not Bliss," by author and writer Dominique Browning.

Human Guinea Pigs

Browning reveals the shocking truth when it comes to potentially toxic chemicals -- you're basically on your own.

"We should be worried about what amounts to a huge, uncontrolled human testing experiment. Without agreeing to it, without understanding it, without even knowing it, we have become the chemical industry's guinea pigs."

Of highly visible concers of late is Bisphenol A (BPA), found in baby bottles, possibly the water bottle sitting by your desk and plastic dental sealants.

BPA is increasingly suspected of causing a variety of serious ills, yet factories continue to produce six billion pounds of it each year.

In the coming months, Congress may review the process by which we regulate toxic chemicals -- or, as Browning points out, mostly don't regulate them.

"Society needs to pay much more attention to this problem," says Dr. Richard Denison, Senior Scientist at EDF. "We've been complacent about it." Denison maintains an influential blog tracking the debate over chemical safety.

In 1976 Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Unfortunately, the 62,000 chemicals on the market at that time were given a free pass: no requirement they be tested or assessed for safety.

EPA's Role in Chemical Regulation

Although the Environmental Protection Agency has garnered some information about chemicals through voluntary submissions by industry in a program that EDF helped start, limited testing has been required on a mere 200 chemicals over the past three decades.

Worse, EPA has managed to restrict only five substances--and even that overstates the agency's efficacy.

The only group of chemicals entirely banned was PCBs, because Congress required it.

Even Cal Dooley, the president of the American Chemistry Council, commented on EPA's incapacity in this matter: "EPA cannot make a determination on whether or not a chemical is safe for its intended use."

Read more at: "Toxic Ignorance is Not Bliss,"

Greening Consumer Electronics:
Moving Away from Bromine and Chlorine

Two leading environmental organizations, Clean Production Action and ChemSec, have released a new report showing companies that are leading the electronics industry by moving away from chemicals that can lead to health and environmental problems. features seven companies who have engineered environmental solutions that negate the need for most -- or in some cases all -- uses of brominated and chlorinated chemicals. This includes eliminating brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which can create dioxin, a human carcinogen, during the burning of e-waste. 

The best time to clean up "brownfields" that are dead because of toxic pollutants -- is not not use toxic chemicals or processes in the first place.  But how?  It's not easy to green manufacturing, especially high performance gadgets at low prices.  But it is possible.

ALSO NEEDED, consumer support :  Need to know how to recycle your electronics (TVs, computers, phones) safely?  Try Electronics Takeback Coalition.

A study of the magicians of the soil is an endless endeavor! Paul Stamets makes it a bit easier to learn about mushrooms with this TED talk. Mushrooms are both a citizen of the micro world of soil, but they are the manufacturers of the very soil in which they live. What a sentient approach to sustainability.

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is the national non-profit, non-partisan association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders. The purpose of ECOS is to improve the capability of state environmental agencies and their leaders to protect and improve human health and the environment of the United States of America.

 

Their belief is that state government agencies are the keys to delivering environmental protection afforded by both federal and state law.

The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) is an affiliated work group of states  seeking to speed the acceptance of new technology, primarily by reviewing and certifying  cleanup technology for use in new jurisdictions. ITRC is a state-led coalition working together with industry and stakeholders to achieve regulatory acceptance of environmental technologies. ITRC consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia, multiple federal partners, industry participants, and other stakeholders, cooperating to break down barriers and reduce compliance costs, making it easier to use new technologies, and helping states maximize resources. ITRC brings together a diverse mix of environmental experts and stakeholders from both the public and private sectors to broaden and deepen technical knowledge and streamline the regulation of new environmental technologies.

ERIS is the host for ITRC, which conducts training and reviews technology applications, providing state officials in new jurisdictions with a level of comfort as to the efficacy of new technology. ERIS and ITRC do not have separate staff, but use ECOS staff on a reimbursable basis.

ECOS has steadily increased the base level of practical research regarding state environmental agencies. This year was no exception. Here are some examples:
 
Restoring Budgets for "Core Programs" ECOS is working to convince Congress (and US EPA) to restore the cuts to the State and Tribal Assistance Grants that have occurred since 2005. Nearly all the cuts to EPA's budget have been passed on to the States, which implement 96% of the delegated programs such as clean air, clean water, waste and drinking water protection. ECOS members believe these cuts threaten our ability to protect the environment. ECOS again this year (2008) presented an alternative budget to Congress. In 2009, we worked with US EPA to present state budget needs for the 2011 budget period.
 
Mercury

ECOS is particularly interested in reducing the presence of mercury in the environment because continued mercury pollution poses a growing threat to human health and the environment. In 2001, ECOS and other partners founded the Quicksilver Caucus (QSC) to pool resources, and to explore and pursue methods for reducing mercury in the environment. The removal of mercury from the environment remains a priority for state environmental agencies. In 2009, the QSC continues to help provide a forum for dialogue between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state environmental agencies to facilitate facility compliance with the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) Rule.

Currently, the QSC is exploring ways to preclude use of mercury in thermostats and thermometers, and is exploring ways to recover and better manage mercury already contained in such products.

Dental Mercury Amalgam Waste Management White Paper

In April 2008, the QSC released the Dental Mercury Amalgam Waste Management White Paper, which explores successes and lessons learned from early dental amalgam mercury management programs. The QSC also held a webinar on the topic of dental amalgam mercury programming and state and local efforts to reduce loading of amalgam mercury to water systems via use of separator machinery. The webinar highlighted the White Paper the Quicksilver Caucus published earlier in the year, along with various states' experiences with the subject, as outlined in case studies also recently published by the Caucus. The QSC is working to develop mercury total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies, taking into account the contributions of air and waste programs. Currently, the QSC is also considering pursuing more work in the field of management of mercury from compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).

Environmental Information Management

States need to tell the public and USEPA about the quality of the environment in each State. In the past five years, over 40 States and USEPA have initiated projects to modernize their information systems to support their complementary roles in environmental protection. Because of outdated and inefficient information systems, the States and USEPA began to modernize -- with many leaning towards integrated systems.

The One Stop Reporting Program provided a solid foundation for the development of an integrated environmental information network to improve environmental decision-making and enhance access to environmental information among States and USEPA.

Since 2002, State and federal partners have expended tremendous effort to create the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) -- a revolutionary way to exchange environmental information between partner organizations.

The FY10 Proposal Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Grants have been posted to the brownfields website at: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/applicat.htm

The proposal deadline is October 16, 2009.

These grants may be used to address sites contaminated by petroleum and hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants (including hazardous substances co-mingled with petroleum).

Opportunities for funding are as follows (See Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 66.818):

Brownfields Assessment Grants:

(each funded up to $200,000 over three years; $1,000,000 for Assessment Coalitions) provide funding to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning (including cleanup planning) and community involvement related to brownfield sites;

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants:

(each funded up to $1,000,000 over five years) provide funding to capitalize a revolving fund and to make loans and provide subgrants to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites;

Brownfields Cleanup Grants:

(each funded up to $200,000 over three years) provide funding for a grant recipient to carry out cleanup activities at brownfield sites that are owned by the grant recipient.

Please note there are two significant changes to the Proposal Guidelines for Brownfields Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Grants in FY2010:

(1) Applicants applying for a cleanup grant must own the site that is subject of their proposal at time of proposal submission;

(2) For RLF proposals only - Applicants who are currently recipients of a Brownfields RLF cooperative agreement, whether awarded under CERCLA 104(k) or CERCLA 104(d) are ineligible to apply in the FY2010 RLF competition. If you are an existing RLF cooperative agreement recipient you may be eligible to apply for RLF supplemental funding in early 2010.

EPA encourages applicants to read the guidelines carefully before applying.