Recently in EPA Category

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,"

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently awarded the Central Coast Vineyard Team with the agency's Sustained Excellence in Integrated Pest Management Award for its continued efforts in pest management.

Since joining the EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program in 2002, the vineyard team has certified many vineyards with its Sustainability in Practice (SIP) program. SIP requires vineyards to provide documentation and whole farm system management integration. Some SIP certified vineyards along California's Central Coast include Baileyana-Tangent, D'Anbino Vineyards and Cellars, Halter Ranch, Jackson Family Wine Estates. Pomar Junction Vineyard, Robert Hall Winery, Saucelito Canyon Vineyards & Winery, Paraiso Vineyards, Hahn Estates, and Ampelos Cellars.

CCVT has been dedicated to reducing its pesticide and herbicide use through techniques such as:

• new independently audited certification programs that require whole farm management and prohibit the use of high risk materials;
• a whole-farm approach to vineyard management;
• adoption of biologically-integrated farming systems;
• striving toward eliminating organophosphate use in projects exploring low risk herbicides, mechanical cultivation, and managed vegetative cover as alternative to simazine; and
• continued research to learn more about alternative, reduced-risk practices and the grower-to-grower approach to share the information

Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program

The EPA's voluntary Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program partners with pesticide users to reduce the health and environmental risks associated with pesticide use and implement pollution prevention strategies. PESP was established with 10 charter partners in 1994. Currently, there are more than 130 members nationwide. For more information on the EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, see: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/index.htm

The Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program is a voluntary program that forms partnerships with pesticide users to reduce the potential health and environmental risks associated with pesticide use and implement pollution prevention strategies. 

The program fosters an EPA partnership for reducing risks posed by pesticide use to human health and the environment in both agricultural and urban settings.  Established in 1994 with six charter members, PESP has grown to include almost 200 members.

More information about PESP: http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/pesp/pesp-excellence.html

EPA maintains an extensive database of Design for the Environment approved products.  These listings can be checked by consumers or business procurement buyers for products recognized under the DfE Formulator Program. DfE commends these companies for their leadership in designing products that are good for their business and for the environment.

Partners and Recognized Products

• Cleaning Products
  • Consumer Cleaning Products
    • Cleaners
    • Floor Care
    
    
    • Laundry Detergents
  • Industrial/Institutional Cleaning Products
    • Cleaners
    • Floor Care
    • Laundry Detergents
    • Automatic Dishwasher Detergents
    • Graffiti Removers
    • Marine Cleaning Products
    • Car Care
    • Aircraft Cleaning Products
    • Industrial Vehicle Cleaning Products
• Biological-based Products
  • Bioremediator
  • Drain Maintainer
  • Grease Trap / Lift Station Maintainer
  • Holding Tank Treatment/Deodorizer
  • Septic System Treatment
  • Vehicle/Parts Wash Additive
  • Wastewater Innoculant
  • Bilge Maintainer
• Deicers
• Field Paint
• Industrial Coatings
  • Conversion Coatings
  • Pavement Treatment
• Inks
  • Inkjet Printing
• Odor Removal
• Field Paint
• Tire Additives
• Soluble Films

See the EPA Web page for updated links.

Through manufacture and use, virtually everyone comes in contact with the chemicals in these products, which are ultimately released to the environment--as effluents to water, off-gases to air, and solid wastes to land. By forming partnerships with the DfE Program, formulators can take part in an important national effort to improve the human health and environmental profile of chemical-based products, which will benefit the quality of aquatic life and the environment, the biodegradability of waste streams, and human health and safety. The basis for a DfE partnership rests on the selection of the safest possible ingredients that permit the formulation of high-performing, cost-effective products. DfE can provide formulators with information on chemical characteristics and toxicities of raw materials and additives, safer substitutes for chemicals of concern, and innovative new chemistries. The DfE document "Criteria for Safer Cleaning Products (CSCP) in the form of a Standard" (PDF) (28 pp, 157K) describes the program's unique approach to product review and formulation improvement. To view this criteria in matrix form, please click here [considerations for partnership (PDF) (12 pp, 161K)]. DfE Formulator partners enjoy Agency recognition, including the use of the DfE label on products with improved formulations.

Look for the DfE Label! Safer Products DfE-recognized products are safer for people and the planet and have eliminated more than 270 million pounds of chemicals of concern.   中文版

The redesign of chemical products offers important opportunities to:

• Remove polluting chemicals from formulations before they can enter the workplace, home, or environment.
• Advance energy and water efficiency, resource conservation, and innovative technologies.
• Qualify for environmentally preferred product status, increasingly sought by government, retailer and consumer purchasers.

For more information, contact DfE.

Each year, formulators blend billions of pounds of chemical ingredients to create a wide variety of products used by businesses, institutions, households, and others. Through manufacture and use, virtually everyone comes in contact with the chemicals in these products, which are ultimately released to the environment--as effluents to water, off-gases to air, and solid wastes to land.

By forming partnerships with the DfE Program, formulators can take part in an important national effort to improve the human health and environmental profile of chemical-based products, which will benefit the quality of aquatic life and the environment, the biodegradability of waste streams, and human health and safety.

NSF INTERNATIONAL, Third Party Reviews for DfE Formulator Program

NSF International  has partnered with the U.S. EPA's Design for the Environment program ("DfE") to perform third-party reviews for the DfE Formulator Program.

NSF International has been selected to prepare product ingredient profiles for partnership candidates. NSF reviews cleaning product formulations for its environmental and human health profiles using criteria developed by DfE. Once successfully reviewed, formulators may be recognized by DfE and use the DfE logo on their products.

DfE offers recognition to formulators who design products for the environment and human health by using safer chemicals.

SOURCE: NSF

The EPA SNAP program has developed a series of pages for each SNAP industrial sector. These links lead to  lists by end use and for the entire sector, as well as related documents (e.g., fact sheets on specific end-uses).

Refrigeration & Air Conditioning

End Uses

• Chillers typically cool water, which is then circulated to provide comfort cooling throughout a building or other location. Chillers can be classified by compressor type, including centrifugal, reciprocating, scroll, screw, and rotary. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, R-13B1, HCFC-22, R-500 and other ODSs. Chillers used to cool industrial processes are discussed under Industrial process refrigeration systems.
• Industrial process refrigeration systems cool process streams in industrial applications. The choice of substitute for specific applications depends on ambient and required operating temperatures and pressures. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22 and other ODSs.
• Ice skating rinks frequently use secondary refrigeration loops. They are used by the general public for recreational purposes. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22, R-502 and other ODSs.
• Industrial process air conditioning is distinct from commercial and residential air conditioning. It is often used when ambient temperatures near 200 degrees Fahrenheit (93 degrees Celsius) and corrosive conditions exist. Units in this end-use provide comfort cooling for operators and protect process equipment. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, CFC-114 and other ODSs.
• Cold storage warehouses are used to store meat, produce, dairy products and other perishable goods. The majority of cold storage warehouses in the United States use ammonia as the refrigerant in a vapor compression cycle, although some rely on other refrigerants. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22, R-502, and other ODSs.
• Refrigerated transport moves products from one place to another while maintaining necessary temperatures, and include refrigerated ship holds, truck trailers, railway freight cars, and other shipping containers. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, R-502 and other ODSs.
• Retail Food Refrigeration includes all cold storage cases designed to chill food for commercial sale. In addition to grocery cases, the end-use includes convenience store reach-in cases and restaurant walk-in refrigerators. Icemakers in these locations are discussed under commercial ice machines. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22, R-502 and other ODSs.
• Vending machines are self-contained units which dispense goods that must be kept cold or frozen. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, R-502 and other ODSs.
• Water coolers are self-contained units providing chilled water for drinking. They may or may not feature detachable containers of water. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, R-502 and other ODSs.
• Commercial ice machines are used in commercial establishments to produce ice for consumer use, e.g., in hotels, restaurants, and convenience stores. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, R-502 and other ODSs.
• Household refrigerators and freezers are intended primarily for residential use, although they may be used outside the home. Household freezers only offer storage space at freezing temperatures, unlike household refrigerators. Products with both a refrigerator and freezer in a single unit are most common. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, R-502 and other ODSs.
• Residential dehumidifiers are primarily used to remove water vapor from ambient air for comfort or material preservation purposes. While air conditioning systems often combine cooling and dehumidification, this application serves only the latter purpose. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12, HCFC-22 and other ODSs.
• Motor vehicle air conditioning systems, or MVACS, provide comfort cooling for passengers in cars, buses, planes, trains, and other forms of transportation. MVACS pose risks related to widely varying ambient conditions, accidents, and the location of the evaporator inside the passenger compartment. Given the large number of cars in the nation's fleet, and the variety of designs, new substitutes must be used in accordance with established retrofit procedures. Flammability is a concern in all applications, but the conditions of use and the potential for accidents in this end-use increase the likelihood of a fire. In addition, the number of car owners who perform their own routine maintenance means that more people will be exposed to potential hazards. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-12 and HCFC-22.
• Residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps includes central air conditioners (unitary equipment), window air conditioners, and other products. HCFC-22, a class II substance, is the most common refrigerant for this application. SNAP has identified substitutes for HCFC-22 and other ODSs.
• Heat transfer includes all cooling systems that rely on convection to remove heat from an area, rather than relying on mechanical refrigeration. There are, generally speaking, two types of systems: Systems with fluid pumps, referred to as recirculating coolers, and those that rely on natural convection currents, referred to as thermosiphons. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, CFC-115 and other ODSs.
• Very Low Temperature Refrigeration systems require maintaining temperatures in the vicinity of -80 degrees F (-62 degrees C) or lower. Examples include medical freezers and freeze-dryers, which generally require extremely reliable refrigeration cycles to maintain low temperatures and must meet stringent technical standards that do not normally apply to refrigeration systems. SNAP has identified substitutes for CFC-13, R-13B1 (Halon 1301), R-503 and other ODSs.

Publications

Ten Questions to Ask Before You Purchase An Alternative Refrigerant

Programs that Provide Training on HFC-134a Retrofit

ASHRAE Journal Article about Refrigerant Safety

ARTI Refrigerant Information Database

The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program is EPA's program to evaluate and regulate substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals that are being phased out under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

A large number of alternatives exist that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.

The purpose of the SNAP program is to allow a safe, smooth transition away from ozone-depleting compounds by identifying substitutes that offer lower overall risks to human health and the environment.

The SNAP program has reviewed substitutes for the following industrial sectors:

• Refrigeration & Air Conditioning
• Foam Blowing Agents
• Cleaning Solvents
• Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
• Aerosols
• Sterilants
• Tobacco Expansion
• Adhesives, Coatings & Inks

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.

Surface water pollution from urban pesticide use is a known, widespread problem in the U.S.  This has been documented not only by USGS, but also by numerous scientific studies by academic researchers, data from municipal urban runoff programs, and surface water impairment designations under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (often these listings are for "toxicity" rather than a specific pesticide).  U.S. EPA's pesticides office is keenly aware of this problem.

Pesticide-related Toxicity in Surface Waters

In California, pesticide-related toxicity in surface waters receiving urban runoff is has been severe and widespread since the mid-1990s. Addressing this toxicity is a priority for Calfornia's water and pesticide regulators. With the phase-out of most urban uses of diazinon and chlorpyrifos, the toxicity has shifted--it is now occurring in both the water column (during storm events) and sediments (all the time) in urban creeks across California. 

The current toxicity is associated with the use of the currently most common class of urban insecticides--the pyrethroids (i.e. bifenthrin, cypermethrin, cyfluthrin, etc.).  Similar toxicity has also been documented in Texas urban areas.

Substituting Pesticides Also Causes Biodiversity Problems

Since some in this thread mentioned pesticide phase outs, it is important to recognize that the likely substitute for pyrethroids is fipronil, which is already seeing growing use in California--and is beginning to appear in surface water at levels close to those known to be toxic to sensitive aquatic organisms.  It is becoming clear that simply changing pesticides isn't going to solve these water quality problems.

Professional Insecticide Applicators Are the Link

Substantial effort is underway in California to identify the sources of pesticide-related urban surface water toxicity.  Available data show a direct link to outdoor, above-ground insecticide applications by professional applicators. 

Ants Are the Most Common Insect Problem in California

In California, ants are the most common insect problem and it is a common practice (particularly among commercial property owners and multi-family residential property managers) to retain a professional applicator to spray a band of insecticides around structures every 1-2 months.  Much of the treated area around structures is impervious surface, some of which is directly connected to storm drains (DCIA). 

Pre-construction termiticide and Post-construction Pyrethroids

Other possible sources include pre-construction termiticide ground surface treatments (if a rain event occurs before building foundations are poured), and both professional and non-professional applications in other outdoor locations (applications to lawns/landscaping have not been ruled out as potentially meaningful contributors to toxicity).

Underground injection of pyrethroids (i.e., for post-construction termite control) is unlikely to contribute to surface water toxicity.  Most California municipalities are served by separate storm drain systems comprised completely of hard surfaces (i.e., no vegetated channels)--thus pesticides in runoff are efficiently delivered to urban creeks.

Greatest Water Pollution Problem: Insecticides vs Herbicides

There is a long-time myth that homeowner lawn/garden applications of pesticides (particularly herbicides) are a big problem.  Maybe they are in some locations, but available scientific data strongly suggest that insecticides--not herbicides--are of greatest concern in urban areas and that (at least in California) professional pesticide applications--and intentional applications of pesticides to impervious surfaces--should be the priorities for stormwater quality management.

Urban Pesticides Pollution Prevention Project (UP3 Project)

With grant funding from the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Urban Pesticides Pollution Prevention Project (UP3 Project) is working with U.S. EPA, California EPA, municipalities, and other stakeholders to understand and prevent pesticide-related surface water pollution.  Pesticide regulators and pesticide manufacturers are aware of these problems and are working to change their systems to address them.  For more information (and reports that document the statements above), please see www.up3project.org.

Kelly Moran, Ph.D.
TDC Environmental
UP3 Project

P.S. Wastewater treatment plants are not immune to pesticide-related problems.  Discharges of certain pesticides (including biocides) to municipal wastewater treatment plants have been problematic, in some instances, for compliance with NPDES permit effluent limitations and operation of biological treatment processes.