Government▼Watch Canada moves to eliminate PFOS stain repellents levels in the environment are well below the threshold of effect for humans, according to both EC and HC. Nonetheless, agency officials concluded that the compounds are entering the environment in amounts that may RHONDA SAUNDERS
Canada is proposing to eliminate perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a stain repellent that causes cancer and birth defects in lab animals. If upheld, the proposal would give the Canadian government more power to stop releases of PFOS than a similar but weaker restriction issued in the United States in 2002, experts say. Released in October by Environment Canada (EC) and Health Canada (HC), the proposal would list PFOS, its salts, and about 50 precursors as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). The designation would give the federal government wide-ranging powers to prevent releases, for example, by prohibiting the manufacture and importation of listed chemicals, says Robert Chénier, chief of the assessment division at EC. A screening assessment by EC and HC revealed that PFOS and its salts meet all of the criteria for virtual elimination under CEPA, Chénier says: They are persistent in the environment, bioaccumulate, and are transported over long distances. PFOS
Canada’s PFOS proposal could stop releases from landfill wastes, unlike the U.S. rule.
have long-term harmful effects on the environment and should therefore be listed as toxic, Chénier says. The 3M Corp., the lone North American manufacturer of PFOS and its precursors, voluntarily ceased production in 2002, but the compounds could continue to contaminate the environment by degrading and migrating from discarded products into water in landfills, says Derek Muir of the National Water
Research Institute in Canada. European scientists have demonstrated that landfills release PFOS, but they don’t yet know how important landfills are as a source, he says. In 2002, the U.S. EPA finalized the significant new use rule (SNUR), which forbids the manufacture and importation of PFOS and related compounds for all but a handful of industrial uses. However, the SNUR does not automatically give EPA authority to tackle releases from waste, says Jon Martin, an environmental chemist at the University of Alberta. CEPA allows the Canadian government to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the release of toxic compounds from waste, he says. Meanwhile, the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate (KemI) has recommended a global ban on PFOS and urges that it be included in international treaties on persistent organic pollutants. The EU currently has no legislation, but the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has completed a hazard assessment and is conducting a survey on production and use of PFOS by its member countries. —JANET PELLEY
Controlling mercury to dodge TMDL calculations State officials should have the freedom to reduce mercury emissions to help clean mercury-polluted lakes, rather than rely on the complex and costly federal Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulation, suggests a new proposal from Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode Island. Massachusetts officials have already submitted to the U.S. EPA’s Region 1 office their comprehensive plan on reducing power plant emissions. If approved, the approach could be used to leverage stronger federal action on mercury. According to the officials, the mercury-emissions reduction plans should substitute for the Clean Water Act (CWA) requirement that states calculate TMDL—the amount of pollution a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards— for contaminated lakes and streams. Most states have had difficulty calculating TMDLs, with only a few succeeding. The draft plan builds on Massachusetts’ record of cutting mercury emissions in the state by 70% since the mid-1990s, says Arleen O’Donnell, deputy commissioner for policy and planning at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
452A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / DECEMBER 1, 2004
Massachusetts joined five other New England states and Canada’s four eastern provinces in 1998 to endorse a binational plan to cut mercury emissions by 50% by 2003 and 75% by 2010, with a goal of virtual elimination. The region has exceeded the first target. A new law in Massachusetts will slash coal-fired power plants’ emissions of mercury by 85% by 2008 and 95% by 2012. The federal government hasn’t yet regulated mercury emissions from power plants. “They make a good case that exchanging a solid implementation plan, which is not required by law, for a rough TMDL calculation is not a bad trade for the environment,” says Steve Silva of EPA’s Region 1. The state must convince the agency that it will meet water quality standards, he adds. But the plan by itself won’t meet federal water quality standards unless EPA requires other states to control their powerplant emissions. As much as 53% of the mercury deposited in New England and eastern Canada comes from outside the region, these officials say. —JANET PELLEY
© 2004 American Chemical Society
