Government▼Watch
Products containing the flame retardants penta- and octabrominated diphenyl ether (pentaBDE and octaBDE) will be banned from sale in California in 2008. California Governor Gray Davis (D) signed the regulations, the first in the country, into law on August 9. PentaBDE is used in upholstered furniture, and octaBDE is used in the plastic housing for electronics. Recent studies indicate that some polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are rapidly bioaccumulating in humans, wildlife, and the environment—doubling every two to five years (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 50A– 52A). The chemicals have been shown to affect thyroid system function in laboratory mice. Human health concerns center around the possibility that low-level exposure could subtly harm the developing brain and the female reproductive system. Environmentalists and some legislators hope that other states and the federal government will follow California’s lead. “I think it will give a big push to the federal EPA to enact a ban,” said Assemblywoman Wilma Chan (D) of Oakland, who authored the legislation. U.S. EPA staff never evaluated information about PBDEs because they were on the market when an inventory of existing chemicals was developed under the Toxic Substances Control Act. At this point, EPA can’t regulate them unless it can prove that existing chemicals pose significant risks to human health or the environment. The agency is conducting research and gathering data through the Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program on PBDEs and is working with companies to devise substitute flame retardants. High levels of flame-retardant chemicals have been found in the fat of people living in California, Indiana, and Texas. Most recently, flame-retardant © 2003 American Chemical Society
chemicals were found in the breast milk fat of 47 Texas women at levels of 6.2 parts per billion (ppb) to 419 ppb, which are 10–100 times higher than levels reported outside of North America. The study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives in November (Environ. Health Perspect. 2003, 111, 1723–1729). PentaBDE is a chemical used to flame-retard the polyurethane foam in upholstered furniture, automobile seats, and office furniture. U.S. demand was roughly 7100 metric tons (t) in 2001. OctaBDE is added to plastics used in housings for electronic devices such as televisions and medical equipment. Demand in 2001 was about 1500 t, according to Great Lakes Chemical Corp., the sole U.S. producer of both flame retardants. Decabromodiphenyl ether (deca-), also used in electronic casings, is not subject to the ban because deca- does not appear to bioaccumulate. California’s action mirrors that of the European Union, which will require manufacturers to stop using the chemicals by next summer. —REBECCA RENNER
Separate and unequal soft drinks? Tests conducted for the Indian government found pesticide residues in soft drinks sold by PepsiCo and CocaCola, leading to plans to set national limits on pesticide residues in bottled soft drinks. The government’s results show lower levels of contamination than those found by the Center for Science and Environment (CSE), an environmental group based in New Delhi, which in July claimed that 12 major soft drink brands sold in India contained residues of lindane, DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos. The group found that samples of the same drinks sold in the United States did not contain these residues. Health Minister Sushma Swaraj told the Indian Parliament in August that
tests conducted by two state-run laboratories found that the residues in the drinks “were well within the [Indian] safety limits prescribed for packaged drinking water at present.” However, some samples contained pesticide levels higher than those allowed in the European Union (EU). One state lab found that out of 12 samples, 3 samples conformed to the EU RHONDA SAUNDERS
California first in U.S. to prohibit flame retardants
Positive tests led to the Indian government’s proposal to set pesticide residue limits for bottled drinks.
limits for total and individual pesticides. Six samples exceeded EU limits for organochlorine pesticide residues, seven samples for organophosphorus pesticide residues, and six samples for total pesticide residues. The soft drink companies hailed the government’s announcement that the drinks were within India’s current safety limits as vindication of the soundness of their products. Nonetheless, the government has asked a Joint Parliamentary Committee to look into the matter. This inquiry is not expected to delay the new limits for soft drinks. Currently, no separate limits exist for pesticide residues in soft drinks in India. Earlier this year, the Indian Health Ministry proposed new, tighter limits for pesticide residues for bottled water to correspond with EU limits. Now it plans to extend these to soft drinks as well. The new norms will become effective in January 2004. EU
NOVEMBER 1, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 387 A
limits for total pesticide residues in water used for “food” are 0.0005 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and for individual pesticide residues 0.0001 mg/L, or 0.1 parts per billion. In the July report that initially spurred the government’s testing, CSE blamed contaminated groundwater used by the soft drink industry. A dramatic fall in the water table has raised pesticide contamination levels in groundwater in many parts of the country, says CSE’s Souparno Banerjee. —MARIA BURKE
New watershed approach rooted in TMDL
ART EXPLOSION
Language in the newly issued guidance from the U.S. EPA to the states on water quality permits suggests that regulators should focus on an entire watershed. The guidance also stresses that the states take steps to mimic and support the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program.
Environmentalists find fault with EPA’s solution aimed at clearing up state water pollution troubles.
Considering the water quality stressors of an entire drainage basin, instead of individual sources one by one, can lead to greater pollution cuts at less cost, add EPA and state officials. But noting that the entire TMDL program is under fire by the Bush Administration, some environmentalists are concerned that the process substitutes one general discharge permit for individually designed facility permits, a move that could result in a loss of accountability. The draft guidance, released on August 25 (Fed. Regist. 2003, 68, 51,011–51,012), sets out six steps to follow in developing a watershed-based permit. The draft recommends that regulators first define watershed boundaries and consult with polluters and state, local, and federal officials
before they collect data that are similar or identical to data used in developing TMDLs for impaired water bodies. The Clinton Administration overhauled the TMDL program, which calculates the maximum amount of pollution a river or lake can absorb without damage. But those revised rules were never implemented, and on March 19, 2003, EPA officials withdrew them. “EPA is working on new rules but may or may not issue them,” says Patrick Bradley, a biologist with EPA’s water permits division. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP) started a program in keeping with EPA’s new guidance when it developed a watershed-based permit for nitrogen discharges into the Long Island Sound, says Gary Johnson, a CDEP senior environmental engineer. A TMDL formed the backbone of one general permit that replaced individual permits for 79 sewage treatment plants. This general permit will cut nitrogen loads by 58% and should lead to the achievement of the TMDL in the sound by 2014, according to Johnson. There’s less accountability when you have many sources under one general permit, says Melanie Shepherdson, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. It’s unclear what will happen if one or more of the participants does not comply, she adds. Under Connecticut’s watershed-based permit, nitrogen output from each sewage plant is tracked. If a plant exceeds its limit, it’ll be in violation of the permit and receive a fine, Johnson says. JANET PELLEY
Canada launches solvent trading scheme Canada will introduce the first nationwide cap and trade program for industrial users of solvents in North America on January 1, 2004. The regulations aim to cut the use of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene [PERC]) for cleaning parts by nearly 65% and will affect both large and small businesses, including automakers and metal finishers. These performance-based regulations are superior to the U.S. approach, which requires use of maximum available control technology, according to independent experts. The new regulations, published
388 A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NOVEMBER 1, 2003
on August 13 (Canada Gazette Part II, 137(17), 2185–2215), apply only to businesses that use 1000 kilograms (kg) or more of TCE and PERC each year for vapor and cold degreasing to clean parts. These users account for more than 90% of Canadian consumption of TCE, a probable human carcinogen, and 20% of consumption of PERC, a listed toxic chemical, according to Environment Canada. Beginning in 2004, companies cannot use more than 1000 kg of TCE and PERC annually unless they apply to Environment Canada for additional consumption units. The cap tightens in 2007: From 2004 through 2006, the 1000-kg threshold, plus consumption units, may add up to 100% of presentday annual average consumption. In 2007 and for every year after that, the threshold plus consumption units may only add up to 35% of presentday consumption. “The regulations allow industry to set up a clearinghouse to trade consumption allowances, but I am not anticipating a lot of trading because a lot of businesses are already reducing their use,” says Rick Loughlin, a senior program officer at Environment Canada. Since 1997, the U.S. EPA has required companies that use degreasers to implement maximum available control technology, which has resulted in a 65% drop in solvent use, says Bruce Walker, research director of STOP, an environmental group in Montreal, Quebec. Although the Canadian regulations call for the same reduction, the focus on performance fosters more pollution prevention and may encourage some facilities to eliminate their use of solvents, according to Jeffrey Burke, executive director of the U.S.based National Pollution Prevention Round Table, a nonprofit educational organization. Canadian companies would have preferred the U.S. approach because the Canadian consumption units are very complicated, says Steve Risotto, executive director of the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc., in Arlington, Va. Companies had until October 1 to apply for their consumption units, and many were expected to miss the deadline, he adds. “Canadian companies were stakeholders in developing the regulations and have not complained about the approach or the timing,” Loughlin says. —JANET PELLEY
