A Tough New Chemical Law

  • Lena Perenius and Franco Bisegna are with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council in Brussels, Belgium. (Photo by Liam Moriarty)

There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:

Transcript

There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:

(sounds of a street)

Brussels, Belgium is sort of like the Washington, DC of Europe. It’s here – in the seat of the European Union – that the 27 nations that make up the EU hash out their common policies.

I’m sitting in the office of Bjorn Hansen. He keeps an eye on chemicals for the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment. To give me an idea of how ubiquitous chemicals are in our everyday lives, Hansen points around his office.

“Just us sitting here, you are probably exposed to chemicals, which come from the office furniture, which have been used to color the textile, which has been used to create the foam, the glue under the carpet that we’re sitting – you name it, you’re exposed.”

The big question is whether all this exposure is harming our health or the environment. The answer?

“We, by far, do not know what chemicals are out there, what the effects of those chemicals are, and what the risks associated with those chemicals.”

In the European Union, that uncertainty led to a new law known by its acronym, REACH. That’s R-E-A-C-H. REACH requires that tens of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products in the EU be studied and registered. If a substance cannot be safely used, manufacturers will have to find a substitute, or stop using it. REACH has, at its core, a radical shift: it’s no longer up to the government to prove a chemical is unsafe.

“The burden of proof is on industry to demonstrate safety. And by demonstrating the safety that they think, they also take liability and responsibility for that safety.”

Even for industries accustomed to tougher European regulations, REACH was alarming.

“There were very, quite violent opposition in the beginning.”

Lena Perenius is with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council.

“In the EU, we already had a very comprehensive set of regulations for ensuring safe use of chemicals. And the industry saw that this was putting an unreasonable burden on the companies.”

Corporations may not have liked it, but the measure had strong public support. After several contentious rounds of negotiations, Perenius says the industry feels it got key concessions that’ll make the far-reaching law workable. Now, she says, the industry has come to see the up-side of REACH.

“Now, when we have the responsibility, that gives us a little bit of freedom to demonstrate, in the way we believe is appropriate, how a substance can be used safely.”

Here in the US, there are signs of political momentum building around taking a more REACH-like approach to regulating the chemicals in everyday products. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg recently said he’d introduce a bill that would shift the burden of proof for safety onto chemical manufacturers.

“Instead of waiting for a chemical to hurt somebody, it will require companies to prove their products are safe before they end up in the store, in our homes, and in our being.”

Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson recently told a Senate committee that – out of an estimated 80,000 chemicals in use – existing law has allowed the EPA to ban only 5, and to study just 200.

“Though many of these chemicals likely pose little or no risk, the story is clear – we’ve only been able to effectively regulate a handful of chemicals, and we know very little about the rest.”

More than a dozen states from Maine to California have already moved to toughen safety standards for chemicals. Even the American Chemistry Council has agreed to support more vigorous regulations to assure consumers that the chemicals in the products they use are safe.

As always, the devil is in the details. But the coming reform is shaping up to look a lot like what Europe is already putting in place.

For The Environment Report, I’m Liam Moriarty.

Related Links

New Year Brings New Monitoring

  • The US Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas monitoring program will cost businesses about $115 million total this year. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

The government wants a better
sense of where America’s greenhouse
gas emissions are coming from,
so starting today -January 1, 2010,
more than ten-thousand businesses
will have to report them. Shawn
Allee explains:

Transcript

The government wants a better
sense of where America’s greenhouse
gas emissions are coming from,
so starting today -January 1, 2010,
more than ten-thousand businesses
will have to report them. Shawn
Allee explains:

Oil refineries that fuel our cars now have to report greenhouse gas emissions to the federal government. So do kilns that make cement for homes and businesses. Same thing for landfills that take our garbage.

Ed Repa is with the National Solid Waste Management Association – a trade group.

“The gas itself that’s being generated at the landfill is basically 50% methane, which is what natural gas is, and fifty percent CO2. Those gases are produced by organic materials for the landfill. That’s either paper or grass, or yard waste.”

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas monitoring program will cost businesses about 115 million dollars total this year.

Most businesses can handle the new costs, but some small businesses with big emissions could be hit harder.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Who’s Monitoring Pollution?

  • The famous photo of the Cuyahoga River fire that appeared in Time Magazine. The photo is not of the 1969 blaze, but rather of another fire on the river in 1952. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:

Transcript

Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:

Industry does not pollute like it did in the 1960s or 70s. Today, regulators monitor most of those big factories.

Tom Lyon is the Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.

“Big smokestack industries we have a fairly good eye on, but there are a lot of areas that we still don’t have a good handle on.”

Like small businesses which collectively can release a lot of toxins, and farms that use pesticides and fertilizers on millions acres.

Jennifer Sass is a Scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says, under the Bush Administration, pollution monitoring of big industry was cut back. Sass says that monitoring needs to be restored and expanded to smaller sources.

“If we quit our monitoring programs, then we don’t really know. It’s a lot like putting our head in the sand.”

But many state agencies say they don’t have the resources to keep track of all those sources of pollution.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Old LCD Screens Used for Medical Treatment

  • One research team recovered polyvinyl alcohol from the computer screens, which can be used in medicine (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

Some researchers want to recycle
a chemical in computer screens to
use it for a medical treatment.
Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

Some researchers want to recycle
a chemical in computer screens to
use it for a medical treatment.
Shawn Allee reports:

Most LCD computer screens contain toxic mercury. The European Union will soon mandate those screens be recycled rather than thrown away.

There are other metals and chemicals in the LCD screens that are not dangerous.

Dr. Avtar Matharu is with Britain’s University of York.

His research team recovered polyvinyl alcohol from the computer screens.

It’s used in spongy pads that deliver medicine.

“We can take out Polyvinyl alcohol from the front and back of an LCD screen. We can take what effectively would be a waste resource and potentially use it in a medical application.”

Matharu says getting polyvinyl alcohol out of LCD screens is expensive compared to making it from crude oil, but he says it could be another reason to recycle rather than throw them into a landfill.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

New Tools to Detect Bioterrorism

A new study finds that the air you breathe could be teeming with more than
1,800 types of bacteria. Rebecca Williams reports the research might help
protect against bioterrorist attacks:

Transcript

A new study finds that the air you breathe could be teeming with
more than 1,800 types of bacteria. Rebecca Williams reports the
research might help protect against bioterrorist attacks:


This is the first time researchers have used DNA sequencing to study
bacteria in the air. They wanted to find out what’s normal and what’s
harmful.


Federal officials are hoping to improve on the way they test the air for
potential bioterrorism agents.


Gary Andersen is the lead author of the study… published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He says the
current monitoring system tests the air above most major U.S. cities
for specific pathogens. He says the new research will make that
system better.


“To see not just whether or not these specific handful of pathogens
were present but what actually was the microbial composition in the
air and that also may give some clue to as whether things are normal
or suspicious circumstances.”


Andersen says the research will make it clearer whether or not people
are actually in danger.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Epa Needs to Improve Air Toxin Monitoring

  • The Inspector General says that the EPA could improve the air toxin monitoring system. (Photo courtesy of the National Institutes of Health)

The Inspector General for the Environmental Protection Agency says the agency needs to improve its air toxin monitoring system. A new report says there are no monitors in 45 out of 50 areas where cancer risks are highest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:

Transcript

The Inspector General for the Environmental Protection Agency
says the agency needs to improve its air toxin monitoring system.
A new report says there are no monitors in 45 out of 50 areas where
cancer risks are highest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:


The greater Chicago area is at the highest risk for cancer from air toxins in the Great Lakes region, though residents of big cities in all of the Great Lakes states are at an elevated risk.


The Clean Air Act lists nearly 190 hazardous air pollutants the EPA must regulate. The EPA Inspector General’s report says many high-risk areas have monitors but not within the specific area where people are most vulnerable.


Jim Pew is an attorney with the activist group, Earth Justice. He says it’s important to construct more monitors, but it’s more important to act on the data the EPA already has.


“It’s not a lack of information that’s stopping EPA from acting to get these risks down, and it’s not an impossibility, there are known ways that these problems can be addressed, it’s a lack of will. The agency just doesn’t want to do it.”


Officials with the EPA say they generally agree with the inspector general’s findings.


For the GLRC, I’m Celeste Headlee.

Related Links

Risks of Prenatal Exposure to Air Pollution

  • A new study suggests that air pollution has a significant effect on developing babies. (Photo by Lester Graham)

A recent study indicates expectant mothers who are exposed to air pollution see damage to the genetic make up of their newborns. That might increase the babies’ risk of contracting cancer later in life. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A recent study indicates expectant mothers who are exposed to
air pollution see damage to the genetic make up of their newborns.
That might increase the babies’ risk of contracting cancer later in
life. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The expectant mothers were asked to carry air monitors in backpacks to see how much they were exposed to air pollutants. The Columbia University researchers chose 60 mothers in low-income neighborhoods. Dr. Frederica Perera is chief author of the study.


“All of our mothers in the study were non-smokers. So, the primary source of these pollutants in air would be things like motor vehicles, emissions from residential heating units, burning fossil fuel and also from power plants located even fairly far away.”


It’s the fist study to make a connection between air pollutants causing genetic changes in the womb that could increase cancer risk. Earlier studies by the researchers already revealed greater prenatal exposure to air pollution caused lower birth weights and smaller heads in newborns.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Tough Wetlands Law Falling Short

  • While there are now state and federal laws in place to preserve wetlands, these habitats are still on the decline. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Data suggest that this region continues to lose wetlands despite pledges from politicians to the contrary. The latest evidence comes from one state in the region that has some of the toughest laws on the books. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Data suggest that this region continues to lose wetlands despite pledges
from politicians to the contrary. The latest evidence comes from one state
in the region that has some of the toughest laws on the books. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:


After looking at wetlands data from 1994 to 2003, the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources found that overall the state has lost close to 5,000 acres
of wetlands. This despite the fact that the state has a policy of “no net
loss of wetlands.”


Julie Sibbing is with the environmental group the National Wildlife
Federation. She says states like Minnesota need more than strong laws to
stop wetland destruction:


“You can pass really good state laws to protect wetlands, but if you don’t
adequately fund those programs and if you don’t have the political will to
get the people on the ground and give them the mandate to enforce the law,
you’re really not going to get anywhere.”


Sibbing says to effectively enforce their laws, states need to invest more
in monitoring programs that closely track what’s actually happening on the
ground.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

“Smart Meters” Installed to Save Energy

A growing number of electricity customers in Ontario are
using so-called smart meters, which will charge more for electricity
used during peak hours of the day. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

A growing number of electricity customers in Ontario are using so-called smart
meters, which
will charge more for electricity used during peak hours of the day. The Great Lakes
Radio
Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


Right now, electricity customers in Ontario pay the same amount to run their
dishwasher at 6 p.m.
– during peak hours – as they do at ten in the morning. But it costs the province
more to produce
that power during peak times.


The heavy demand is a strain on Ontario’s aging electricity plants. So, the
province plans to
install smart electricity meters in every home and business over the next five years.


Ted Gruetzner is with the Ontario Ministry of Energy.


“It allows people to track their energy use depending on the time of day and monitor
when they’re
using power so they can turn their lights off at certain times or use their ovens or
dryers at
different times of day.”


That’s because electricity used during peak hours will cost consumers more. Ontario
is the first
jurisdiction in North America to use this system.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Gao: Great Lakes Need Better Monitoring

  • The Government Accountability Office says Lake Ontario and all the other Great Lakes should have more coordinated monitoring between the states as well as between the U.S. and Canada. (Photo by Kevin Smith)

A new report says the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lacks the information it needs to assess the overall health of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

A new report says the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lacks the information it needs to assess the overall health of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


A water quality agreement between the U.S. and Canada requires the two countries to reduce pollutants in the lakes and monitor progress in restoration.


But the Government Accountability Office report says coordinated monitoring between the two countries has not been fully developed. The GAO is the investigative arm of Congress. The reports says disparate agencies – at the federal, state, provincial and local levels – are monitoring the lakes, but it says information from those groups does not provide an overall assessment of the lakes. The GAO is recommending that EPA develop a system to ensure complete, accurate and consistent information.


In its response to the report, EPA said it agreed with that recommendation and is taking steps to coordinate, monitor, and develop standards for measuring the health of the Great Lakes.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links