reducing toxic threats ken zarker washington state department of ecology may 11, 2006 - keeping...

Reducing Toxic ThreatsKen Zarker

Washington State Department of EcologyMay 11, 2006

- Keeping toxics out of our bodies, homes, and offices– Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins

(PBTs)– Chemical Action Plans– Health trends/environmental

trends– Mercury– Toxic flame retardants (PBDEs)

- Helping business reduce hazardous substances– Hazardous waste management

and toxic releases– Pollution prevention and technical

assistance– Education and Incentives– Green building– Electronic waste

What we will be covering today:

• PBT Rule

• What we know about toxics, and current and planned actions for reducing toxic threats covering:

• Environmental trends and/or status

• Analysis/Results – What and how we are doing

• Current and Planned Actions – What we are planning to do

• Opportunities, gaps and barriers

Department of Ecology

Getting Toxics Out of our Bodies, Homes and OfficesPersistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs)

Reduce and phase-out PBT uses, releases

and exposures in Washington

We reduce tons of toxic pollutants

each year to Washington’s air, land and water

People, wildlife and fish are

healthier and there are

significant health care and

economic cost savings to the

state

So that

So that

Current Status:• 2004 Executive order and legislative funding

directed Ecology to draft a PBT Rule and develop a PBDE Chemical Action Plan (CAP)

• After a 2-year rulemaking process, involving a multi -stakeholder advisory committee, Ecology adopted the nation’s first PBT rule in early 2006

• PBDE CAP, developed with input from multi - stakeholder advisory committee completed by Ecology and Dept. of Health in early 2006

• Ecology is now implementing the rule to prioritize which PBTs will be addressed next

Funding:

Ecology has a $1.4 million carry-forward appropriation to address PBTs

There are 27 PBTs and Metals of Concern identified and listed in the PBT Rule

Planned Actions• Currently developing the “Multiyear

Schedule”• Moving forward with PBDE CAP

implementation, including “End-of-Life” review process to address disposal and recycling of PBDE-containing products

• Target is to, jointly with the Department of Health, develop one CAP every 12-18 months over the next 3-4 years

• Ecology programs and Health will implement each completed CAP to further reduce and phase-out PBT chemical

Chemical Action Plan Development Schedule

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Upper Range Low er Range # Action Plans Developed

We do this


Getting Toxics Out of our Bodies, Homes and OfficesMercury

People, wildlife and fish are healthier and there are significant health

care and economic cost savings to the state

So That

So that

Pounds of Mercury Collected from 2003 to 2005

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000Collected lbs Remaining lbs

Source: TRI 2004

We do this

Number of samples with mercury in streams or tissue■ >40 ■ ■ 10-30 ■■ 1-10 White-None

TransAlta Pounds of Mercury Releases

Achieve 90% mercury elimination in a variety of mercury-containing

consumer products and large scale point source releases by

2015

We significantly reduce the 4000 lbs of mercury that are

released each year in Washington

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Our Target Emissions

Toxics Release Inventory Reported Emissions

Mercury emissions limit set by EPA

Current Status:• 3,000 pounds of bulk mercury and mercury

containing products collected from 2003-2005 from schools, homes and businesses.

• Trans Alta stack test indicates 314 pounds of air mercury releases in 2005.

• Six fish/shellfish advisories issued due to mercury contamination, including statewide advisory for bass.

Future:• Targeting switches, lamps, and batteries.• Starting hospital mercury reduction program. • State air rule should achieve reduction earlier

than required by federal rule.Challenge: Mercury pollution is part of a larger

global problem.

Mercury in Stream or Tissue Samples


Getting Toxics Out of our Bodies, Homes and OfficesToxic Flame Retardants (PBDEs)Reduce and prohibit the

uses and releases of toxic flame retardants

called PBDEs which are continuing to build up in

fish and humans

Safer, effective, and affordable alternative

flame retardant products can be

developed and used

People, wildlife and fish are healthier and there are significant health

care and economic cost savings to the state

So That

• Penta and Octa-based flame retardants were eliminated from production in 2000 due to their high toxicity to humans

• Since then, there has been a two-fold increase in the use of Deca-based flame retardants.

• Research shows Deca breaks down into Penta and Octa forms.

Current Status:• Ecology and Department of Health

completed a Chemical Action Plan for Deca-BDE flame retardant.

• In 2006, the “End-of-Life” recommendations will be finalized.

• 2006 Advocate-sponsored PBDE legislation failed.

Planned Actions• 2006 – Ecology looking at current

product disposal and recycling policies

• General Administration – state purchasing policy review

• Health - Education program on minimizing PBDE exposure

• 2007 – Ecology and Health to consider supporting PBDE legislation

• Ecology is working with other states and EPA on updating US chemical policy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1972 1980 1990 1996 1998 2000 2002

Year

Tot

al P

BD

E (

ng/g

fat

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

TX (median, milk)

CA (median, fat)

Japan (median, milk)

US (milk)

WA (milk)

Sweden (milk)

Levels of PBDEs currently found in human breast

milk, fish and food products will decrease rather than

increase

So That

So That

PBDE levels in breast milk – various studies

Estimated Pounds of Deca-BDE Used in Products in Washington

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1994 2003

Trend is continuing

up


Helping Business Reduce Hazardous Substances

Hazardous Waste And Toxics

We regulate hazardous

wasteSo that

We regulate hazardous

wasteSo that

Hazardous Waste is

reduced and managed properlySo that

Hazardous Waste is

reduced and managed properlySo that

Hazardous waste and

toxics are not a legacy

problem for future

generations

Hazardous waste and

toxics are not a legacy

problem for future

generations

Who we regulate & track

Who we don’t.

Hazardous Waste Generation Projection 2020

Toxic Release Projection 2020

Note; Not based on volume generated.

We do this

The Universe of Hazardous Waste

Toxic Release

Reporters, 334

Small Business 164,000

Regulated Hazardous

Waste Generators,

3,495

Households 2.5 Million



Tools To Reduce Waste, Conserve Resources And Save Money

Increased technical

assistance capacity will help

reduce toxic threats

Eliminate 420 tons of waste and

toxic pollutants each year

People are healthier and business save $3.6 million in

savings annually.

So that

So that

Program Water Saved

Waste Reduced

Participants Dollar Savings

FTEs

TREE(Technical Resources for Engineering Efficiency)

1.7 million gallons annually

115 Tons 21 $1.2 million

1.5

Cleaner Production Challenge

2.42 million gallons

527 Tons 46 $1.8 million

2.0

For each $1.00 invested in technical assistance,

$10.00 worth of pollution prevention savings is gained by industry.

We do this

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2007 2008 2009 2010

Cumulative Tons of W aste Reduced(pro jected)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2007 2008 2009 2010

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

Cumulative Dollars Saved (P ro jected)

Note: Based on 5.5 FTEs



Current & Future Investments

New and better solutions to

reduce risk from emerging toxics

We eliminate 90% of toxics use

through pollution prevention

We have livable communities and

functioning ecosystems.

So that

So that

Analysis:• Currently, 66% of

resources are going to hazardous waste management.

• 33% is going to pollution prevention.

• Requesting added 5% for toxics reduction

• Continuing to increase efficiencies on traditional work.

• Continuing to reduce risks to the environment and people with a sustained compliance and enforcement presence

Next Steps:• Increase Environmentally

Preferable Purchases• Toxics Reduction

Incentives Project • Community Right-to-Know

on Toxics uses & consumer products

• Lean Manufacturing

We do this

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

19951996

19971998

19992000

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

Insp

ect

ion

s

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Pro

ba

bili

ty

Inspections per Year Probability of Threat per Inspection

Projected

Residential Green Building Growth

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Per

cen

tag

e o

f H

om

es

Normal New Units 47,612 49,446

Built Green Units 1,908 1,094

Actual (%) 3.9 2.2

Beyond Waste Goal (%) 0 2 4 6 8 10

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009



Building GreenPromote

residential and commercial green

building

People have less exposure to toxins in the home and

work environment

People are healthier and

more productive, buildings are more efficient, and there

are significant health care and economic cost

savings

So that

So that

Common Toxins in Building Materials

Results: Health Savings, Productivity Gains• Health Savings of $200/1000 sq ft: benefit of roughly $5,000,000 each year• Worker productivity benefit of perhaps $75,000,000 each year

Other Benefits• Holistic Prevention• Energy savings• Materials reuse• Kids learn better• Less and cleaner storm

water

Actions• Coordinate statewide actions• Train builders• Market green building• Fund demonstration projects

Beyond Waste Goal: 10% of residential and commercial construction is green by 2009

Toxin: Found In: Problem:

Mercury paint, lamps, thermostats neurotoxinArsenic treated wood cancerVOCs paints, carpet, vinyl, plywood asthma, neural damagePBDEs furniture, electronics neurotoxin

Challenges• Empowering a coalition of

designers and builders to influence their peers (Ecology has limited credibility with some developers)

• Increasing market demand

Not all 2005 Built Green homes have been certified and counted

We do this



E-Waste

Implement the electronics

recycling program

People have less exposure to toxins from electronics

and valuable metals are reused

People are healthier and electronics

products are safer

So that

So that Program fully operational 2009

Actions:• Adopt fees rule by Jan 2007;

begin registration process and collecting fees for agency oversight

• Adopt second rule (recovery plans, performance standards) by Nov 2007

• Recovery Plans sent to Ecology by Feb 2008

• Track Recovery rates, enforce against non-compliance beginning 2009

Strategy and Ambiguity:• The free market economy: we

hope for better designed and safer products once waste handling costs become internalized, rather than simple export of toxic metals.

• What happens when the supply of recovered lead exceeds industrial demand?

• What is Ecology’s role in how sustainably these materials are managed?

Electronics Entering the Waste Stream

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Un

its

Computers

TVs

Pounds of Toxic Metals Recaptured

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

Mer

cury

, Cad

miu

m

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Lea

dHg 31 31 31 964 1,033

Cd 134 134 134 4,120 4,415

Pb 90,000 90,000 90,000 2,760,52 2,958,63

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

We do this


Getting Toxics Out of Our Bodies, Homes and Offices

CHALLENGES/GAPS OPPORTUNITIES

PBTs• Limited data to link to human health impacts• Limited knowledge of PBTs in consumer products• Several PBTs on PBT List do not have analytical methods

developed yet• “Proprietary information” clause limits ability to accurately

measure and track uses and amounts of specific PBTs (i.e. PBDEs)

• Current funding only allows for one CAP per year

• Sample specific products to better understand PBT pathways from product or environment or to humans

• Opportunity to work with other states and EPA on broader needs regarding current US chemical policy

• Opportunity to be a national leader on a “cutting edge” environmental and human health issue

• Opportunity to address “the worst of the worst” chemicals in a cross-program/cross-agency/multi-media approach

• Having PBTs on a list in a rule provides an incentive to business and government sector NOT to use these chemicals

Toxics Toxic levels increasing in people and natural

environment. Traditional regulatory structure is reaching its limits to drive

better environmental performance. We regulate only a limited number of entities producing

hazardous waste.

Need to motivate industry to invest in the design, production, labeling and marketing of green products…Help businesses reduce the use/creation of toxic substances

Need to focus on toxics use reduction, green products and to help educate consumers.

Chemicals Policy Approximately 2,000 new chemicals enter the market each

year. Global chemical production doubles every 25 years. Chemical producers are not required to disclose information

on the health and environmental safety resulting in a lack of information on toxicity.

Consumers and workers do not have useful information to identify safer alternatives or cleaner products.

Integrate lean manufacturing and toxics use reduction programs with financial and/or regulatory incentives.

Use state and local government to leverage $4 billion/year in “Buy Green” purchasing power to drive development of green chemistry and create markets for clean products and promote “Green Business” as an economic development opportunity for Washington State.

Fund research and development of safer alternatives to hazardous materials in Washington to spur business development, create jobs, improve human health and the environment, and lower health care costs.

reducing toxic threats ken zarker washington state department of ecology may 11, 2006 - keeping...

Documents