Progress on the persistent problem of PCBs

Back in 2015, Ecology released a set of recommendations to address the toxic chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Over the past several months, we reviewed those recommendations, and found that Washington is making slow progress toward getting PCBs out of the environment.

Some caveats: Getting rid of PCBs in many cases requires conducting a comprehensive survey of, for instance, every light fixture in a building, or testing caulk and paint on the outside of a building. Understandably, this makes it difficult for organizations to be completely confident they’ve truly examined every inch of a building. And it means that we lack information about a lot of buildings and equipment that have not received that level of scrutiny.

Given that PCBs were banned more than 40 years ago, you might wonder why it’s taken so long to actually get rid of them. The answer speaks both to why PCBs were so widely used and why they’re such a toxic threat. Simply put, these chemicals are just really, really persistent – they stick around forever and don’t break down.

Back in the mid-20th century, that was considered a benefit, not a problem. Adding PCBs to your paint or caulk or using them in electrical transformers promised long-lasting performance. Of course, we eventually figured out that using highly toxic chemicals in all sorts of common products was not a recipe for a healthy environment.

PCBs can cause cancer and other health effects, and they tend to build up in the food chain, increasing the impacts on apex predators like orca whales – and people. Because of this, and because of their longevity, PCBs are a concern even at extraordinarily low concentrations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s water quality standard for PCBs in Washington is 7 parts per quadrillion. A quadrillion is a 1 followed by 15 zeros. It’s a hard number to even wrap your mind around – it’s been compared to picking up one grain of sand from an entire beach.

Tackling toxics

To tackle this problem, Ecology and the Washington State Department of Health developed a chemical action plan for PCBs, with input from industry, environmental groups and other organizations. After more than a year of study, the agencies released the 2015 recommendations.

Several of the recommendations were straightforward, such as looking in schools and public buildings to check whether any of the fluorescent light fixtures in these facilities were decades-old leftovers that still used PCBs in their transformers. Some of the recommendations were much more challenging, such as addressing the minute quantities of PCBs still being created as byproducts of common manufacturing methods – such as making certain pigments and dyes.

School lights remain an ongoing concern and spotlight the difficulty of documenting PCB eradication.  While we believe Washington schools have gotten most of them out, there have been documented instances of PCB-leaking fluorescent light ballasts.

Safer chemistry begins at home

These same ballasts may linger in out-of-the-way closets or basements in our homes, in our garages or in public buildings. Now is a good time to check! The Environmental Protection Agency provides tips to help identify ballasts that may contain PCBs:

•     Ballasts manufactured before July 1, 1979 may contain PCBs
•     Ballasts manufactured between July 1, 1979, and July 1, 1998, that do not contain PCBs must be labeled "No PCBs"
•     If a ballast is not labeled "No PCBs," it is best to assume it contains PCBs unless it is known to be manufactured after 1979
•     Ballasts manufactured after 1998 are not required to be labeled

You can find more tips on the U.S. EPA’s website: Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)-Containing Fluorescent Light Ballasts (FLBs) in School Buildings

Slow progress

All of this is not to say that we haven’t been making progress: The Department of Health offered workshops for school districts on the risk these obsolete light fixtures represented, and the Washington Department of Commerce included replacing these lights as a preferred use for its energy efficiency grants. Many other school districts had already replaced their 40-plus-year-old light fixtures with newer, more energy efficient models.

Large electrical transformers – the kind you find on a electrical pole or at a substation – also used to use PCB-containing oil. Avista, the utility that serves much of eastern Washington, reports that it has tracked down and removed all of these transformers. Seattle City Light says that it has removed more than 7 million pounds of PCB-containing electrical equipment, and that it continues to hunt down any that remain. Ecology is still assessing what progress other utilities in the state are making.

Getting at the byproduct PCBs that continue to be produced in pigments and other materials is a trickier project, but progress is being made there as well. Ecology has conducted two studies testing common consumer products for PCB byproducts.The bad news is that we found very low levels of PCBs – in the parts per billion range – in a wide range of products. Not all similar products contained PCBs, however, so it may be possible to improve manufacturing processes to avoid creating these byproducts.

Ecology and the Washington Department of Enterprise Services are developing new state purchasing guidelines to help the state buy products without PCB byproducts, as directed by a 2014 state law.

There’s still a lot of work to be done on PCBs – including doing more monitoring to look at PCB levels in the environment, and biomonitoring to study PCB levels in people. It’s likely to be a long, long time before we no longer have to worry about this toxic legacy. Knowing that we are making progress, however, should give us hope that we can get there.

Learn more:

• Addressing priority toxic chemicals - PCBs
• PCB chemical action plan

By Andrew Wineke, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction

Do the Earth a favor – clean up and prevent pollution

By Seth Preston, communications manager, Toxics Cleanup Program

Earth Day is fast approaching, so let’s talk about Washington‘s dirty little secret.

Well, maybe it’s not exactly a “secret.” And it sure isn’t “little.” But chances are most of the state’s residents don’t realize Washington is literally littered with polluted properties.

Specifically, 12,359 toxic sites. And those are just the ones we know about right now. More are reported to us each year, even as others are cleaned up. So far, just over half of them are considered to be “cleaned up.” But there is still a long way to go.

Environment, Economy, Community

The state’s basic stance is “the polluter pays.” But that’s not always possible – the current landowner may not have caused the pollution and doesn’t have the money to pay for cleanup.

The bottom line is that someone has to clean up the pollution. Allowing it to languish poses risks to people who could be exposed to it, impacts the environment and wildlife, and stalls potential redevelopment that could benefit local communities.

This old polluted site in Tacoma ...

Cleanup is all about “environment, economy, community” – cleaning up contamination provides short-term and potential long-term economic benefits while protecting the health of people and the environment. That all adds up to an improved quality of life for communities.

A healthy economy also can contribute to cleanup – developers or local governments see a potential return on a piece of property they own or buy, so cleaning it up pencils out for them in the long run.

... is now home to the famed Museum of Glass.

Cleanup, prevention go hand in hand

But cleanup isn’t cheap, and it doesn’t happen quickly. Cleanup isn’t simply a matter of digging up contaminated dirt on land or dredging contaminated muck out of the water. A lot of engineering, science and legal steps are needed to get to the actual cleanup work, and those steps can take years. Total cleanup costs could add up to tens of millions of dollars for just one site.

Cleanup is worth the investment. But so is prevention – and prevention is generally cheaper and simpler than cleanup.

Prevention means reducing the toxics used in manufacturing, finding safer substitutes for chemicals in products, and stopping toxics before they escape into the environment.

For example, Ecology is working with brake manufacturers to phase out the use of copper in the brake pads used on cars and trucks. Cutting copper won’t affect the brakes’ cost or performance. But it will reduce the amount of copper pollution reaching our rivers, lakes and Puget Sound, where it is toxic to salmon and other species.

Cleanup and prevention go hand in hand – cleanup without prevention means sites will face recontamination issues, and maybe repeated, expensive cleanups. And prevention without cleanup means that decades-old pollution remains in place, threatening the health of Washington’s people and environment.

How you can help

Here are a few ideas for how you can get involved in cleanup and prevention issues:

• Check these helpful tips for limiting toxics in your home.
• Follow these healthy actions to keep your family safe from contaminated soil.
• Sign up for email lists so you can find out about toxic sites in your community.
• Search for contaminated sites in your community.

And watch this blog for news about a new tool that will help you track contaminated sites in your neighborhood.

For more information

Want more details? Check Ecology’s websites for our Toxics Cleanup and Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction programs.

Cleaning Up: How dredging is cleaning up Ridgefield’s Lake River

By Joyce Mercuri, Diana Smith, and Craig Rankine, Toxics Cleanup Program

How do you remove toxics from a sensitive environment, including a national wildlife refuge? This year, Ecology and the Port of Ridgefield have been using advanced cleanup techniques to remove pollution at the Pacific WoodTreating (PWT) cleanup site.

Recently, work shifted from Carty Lake to Lake River. The Carty Lake cleanup was finished in late October (learn more here and below). Meanwhile, the port’s contractor started cleaning up Lake River sediments in late October.

PWT’s operations polluted Lake River sediments near the port property with dioxins, pentachlorophenol (PCP), cresols, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Dioxin is the main contaminant of concern.

Removing these contaminated sediments from the river is the most effective way to reduce risk to human health and improve the environment for fish and animals that eat fish. However, ensuring that dredging doesn’t harm water quality or spread contamination is tricky. The port and Ecology are working hard to ensure dredging protects the surrounding environment.

 

Lake River dredge area

Designing “precision” dredging

The port, under Ecology’s oversight, chose precise dredging technologies. Precise methods help minimize sediment disturbance and keep contamination from spreading or affecting water quality.

Careful planning was used to select the dredge area up front, which saves time and money during construction. The dredge area was identified by extensively sampling the river bottom to find out how widespread and deep contamination is.

Engineers then used computer mapping and statistical methods to plan the exact outline and depth of the area to be dredged. The dredge area is shown in green and dark blue on the map. The light blue area outside of the dredge area is less contaminated and will be covered with one foot of clean sand.

Then, project engineers used very high resolution underwater sonar surveying to make a detailed map of the river bottom in the dredge area. From this, they created a grid map showing where each dredge bucket would be placed and how deep it needs to go to get the contamination out. After dredging, sonar surveying is done again to make sure dredging goes to the planned depth.



Grid map showing dredge bucket areas (tiny squares)

Preparing to dredge

Removing pilings with a vibratory extractor

Once workers got to the site they removed old pilings and other debris that could get in the way of dredging equipment. Debris can keep the dredge bucket from closing, which can let contaminated sediments leak out. Debris can also make the dredge bucket disturb and spread contaminated sediments.

In October, the port’s contractor pulled out 121 wood pilings, some logs, and about 180 tons of concrete, asphalt, and debris.

Dredging the right sediments

This dredging equipment is designed to avoid releasing or spreading contaminated sediments. During dredging:

1. A large excavator with a specialized clamshell bucket is placed onto a barge that is anchored over the dredge area. Rather than using a bucket dangling at the end of a cable, the clamshell bucket is attached to a fixed arm so the operator can precisely place the bucket. 
2. An equipment operator carefully places the open bucket on the area to be dredged.
3. Then, the two halves of the bucket slowly close and seal. This prevents sediments from leaking out while the bucket containing water and sediment is brought to the surface.
4. The first pass over the area collects most of the contaminated sediments.
5. The equipment goes over the area a second time to remove any loose sediment that the first pass could have disturbed. The operator also makes sure they reached the design depth for that 
   area.

Empty bucket being lowered into Lake River and closed bucket coming out with contaminated sediments

Computer software for dredging and high resolution global positioning system (GPS) devices attached to dredging equipment help ensure precision dredging. With these tools, the dredge operator can essentially see underwater to ensure each scoop of the bucket removes sediments from the right area and at the right depth. Engineers oversee this in real time.

Operator in excavator over Lake River using software to make sure he's placed the bucket correctly

Disposing of contaminated sediments

The bucket collects water along with sediments. The operator carefully releases this water into a bin on the dredging barge. Since it might be contaminated, this water is pumped to a treatment system on the port property. The operator also places the sediments into a barge that has been sealed to prevent sediments or water leaking back to the river. Watch a video

Releasing water to container, then releasing sediments to another container on the barge

Once the barge is full, it is towed to the end of Division Street near the sediment handling and water treatment area. Excavators load the sediments from the barge into dump trucks and they are taken into a covered handling area. In order to be dry enough to be accepted at the landfill, some cement needs to be added to the sediments. Once they are dry enough, the contractor loads them into trucks and takes them to the nearby landfills.

Unloading sediments from the barge, then transferring dried sediments out of the handling area

Restoring the area and finishing Lake River cleanup

The port is almost finished with dredging contaminated sediments from Lake River. The port has started placing clean sand over dredged areas and areas that contain lower levels of contamination (see light blue areas on the map above). They’ve also started placing “fish mix” sized rocks to stabilize and restore the shoreline.

Crane operator grabbing sand for the riverbed and equipment placing fish mix rocks on shoreline

To finish this part of the cleanup, the port will finish the dredging, as well as stabilizing and restoring the shoreline. They will also plant native plants and trees along the embankment. This work will continue through early spring 2015.

The port is doing the current cleanup under a 2013 legal agreement with Ecology. Ecology and the port are funding the cleanup.

Finishing the Carty Lake cleanup

Carty Lake plant restoration

The port used a different technique to clean up contaminated sediments in Carty Lake. You can read about that here. Now, native grasses planted along the Carty Lake shoreline have started to sprout. Landscape crews also planted wetland plants. They will finish planting the banks in the spring.

Questions?

• Cleanup website
• Fact sheet about 2014 – 15 cleanup
• Sediments specialist Joyce Mercuri – (360) 407-6260 or Joyce.Mercuri@ecy.wa.gov
• Cleanup project manager Craig Rankine – (360) 690-4795 or Craig.Rankine@ecy.wa.gov
• Public involvement coordinator Diana Smith (360) 407-6255 or Diana.Smith@ecy.wa.gov

October brings yellow leaves and green chemistry

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

Is there ever too much of a good thing? Not when it comes to pollution prevention and green chemistry. Ecology is supporting a pair of workshops later this month aimed at giving professionals interested in reducing toxic chemicals new information and insight.

Cleaning Up: Work underway at Ridgefield’s Carty Lake and Lake River

By Diana Smith, Craig Rankine, and Joyce Mercuri, Toxics Cleanup Program

In recent weeks, Ridgefield residents and visitors have noticed a lot of activity around Carty Lake. The Port of Ridgefield is cleaning up contamination at the Pacific Wood Treating site.

The port has also begun prep work for Lake River cleanup. Dredging in the river will begin in mid-October (see below). River users will soon see pilings and debris being removed and parts of the river channel being buoyed off.

Pollution Prevention Week: Product Testing

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

Sept. 15-21 is Pollution Prevention Week, and we’re taking the week to explore some of the ways Ecology is working to keep our air clean, our waters pure, and our communities safe from toxic chemicals.

Today, we’re looking at Ecology’s product testing efforts.

Knowledge is power, as the saying goes. Preventing pollution is hard enough. If we had to guess where pollution was coming from, it would be even harder. So one very important part of our pollution-prevention efforts is testing consumer products.

Pollution Prevention Week: Green Chemistry

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

Sept. 15-21 is Pollution Prevention Week, and we’re taking the week to explore some of the ways Ecology is working to keep our air clean, our waters pure, and our communities safe from toxic chemicals.

Pollution Prevention Week: Chemical Action Plans

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

Sept. 15-21 is Pollution Prevention Week, and we’re taking the week to explore some of the ways Ecology is working to keep our air clean, our waters pure, and our communities safe from toxic chemicals.

Today, we’re looking at Ecology’s chemical action plans.

Pollution Prevention Week: Technical Assistance

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

Sept. 15-21 is Pollution Prevention (P2) Week, and we’re taking the week to explore some of the ways Ecology is working to keep our air clean, our waters pure, and our communities safe from toxic chemicals.

Today, we’re looking at Ecology’s technical assistance programs.

Pollution Prevention Week: Local Source Control

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

Sept. 15-21 is Pollution Prevention Week, and we’re taking the week to explore some of the ways Ecology is working to keep our air clean, our waters pure, and our communities safe from toxic chemicals.

Today, we’re looking at the Local Source Control Partnership.

Tackling Toxics: Is your roof shedding chemicals into our lakes, rivers and Puget Sound?

By Alli Kingfisher, Building Materials and Sustainability Specialist, Waste 2 Resources Program

Ecology scientists Kyle Graunke and Tom Gries collect runoff samples while Ecology Director Maia Bellon looks on.

Here at Ecology, we often talk about non-point pollution that contaminates our waterways.

This is the kind of pollution that is often invisible. It comes from lots people doing lots of things on the land, and from lots of different places. It’s oil from leaking cars, fertilizer and pesticides from our yards, and dog poop from our beloved pets.

Tackling Toxics: How do we really know a chemical is safe?

By Andrew Wineke, communications, and Alex Stone, chemist, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

We all want safer products. No one ever argues in favor of putting hormone disruptors in children’s toys or substances toxic to fish in tires.

But when an inventor or manufacturer is designing a product, how do they really know what chemical ingredients are safe? Asbestos was considered a safer alternative when it was introduced. And “safe” compared to what? Pesticides are not supposed to be safe – for bugs. And how do they prove it?

Chemical hazard assessments

This is where chemical hazard assessments come in. A chemical hazard assessment is a tool to help organizations evaluate a chemical’s impact on human health and the environment. The key component of a chemical hazard assessment is that it enables the user to compare chemicals against each other on a level playing field.

The GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals method, for instance, ranks a chemical on 18 different potential impacts on human health and the environment. Running a GreenScreen assessment will tell you things like whether a given chemical can cause cancer, or if it’s flammable, or whether it’s safe for fish.

Several major manufacturers and retailers use GreenScreen or similar systems to screen the ingredients that go into their products. These companies go to their suppliers and say, “show us that your chemical is safe.”

However, a full GreenScreen report can run more than 20 pages – just for a single chemical. Sometimes that’s too much, particularly for smaller businesses or if a company is just doing a preliminary assessment.

Quick Chemical Assessment Tool

To meet this need, we developed a simpler method, the Quick Chemical Assessment Tool, or QCAT. It’s based on GreenScreen and uses the same databases of chemical hazards, but it looks at a smaller set of potential health and environmental endpoints. A QCAT report is about five pages long.

Still too much? There are a number of chemical hazard databases, such as Pharos, that are inexpensive to use and will give a quick rundown on potential problems in just a few seconds.

Want to learn more?

We are offering a free, day-long class, “An Introduction to Chemical Hazard Assessments,” Sept. 25 in Lacey. You can register here, or download this brochure for more information. Other QCAT classes will be offered in 2015.

If you aren’t ready to take a class or need help right away, we can often conduct QCATs for Washington businesses, although some limitations apply. Contact greenchemistry@ecy.wa.gov to inquire.

Visit Ecology's website for more about assessing the safety of chemical alternatives.

Stay informed about our efforts to reduce the use of toxic chemicals by following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.

---

Tackling Toxics: Searching for safer products?

The EPA can help

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

One of the simplest things we can do to protect the environment, both at home and at our workplaces, is to use safer chemicals in our cleaning supplies and other household products.

But how do you know what “safer” is? Do you look for “natural” on the label? Should it say “eco” in the name? There are more than 300 different “green” certifications. Which one should you trust?

If you really want to pick the safest products possible, a great place to start is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the Environment program.

Design for the Environment is a voluntary product labeling program that works with manufacturers to determine that the chemicals used in a product are the very safest available. Today, more than 2,500 products ranging from toilet bowl cleaners to bilge tank treatments have been evaluated through the Design for the Environment Safer Product Labeling Program.

The Design for the Environment label means that each ingredient has been screened for potential adverse human or environmental health effects and that the product contains ingredients that pose the least concern among chemicals in their class. You can find a list of all 2,500 products, organized by category, or you can look for the Design for the Environment logo on the products you already buy.

Want to know more?

At 10:30 a.m. Thursday, Aug. 28, our Safer Chemistry Challenge is hosting a free, one-hour webinar with the EPA’s Bridget Williams for a deeper look at the Design for the Environment program.

Williams will discuss how the EPA evaluates products, how businesses can get their products certified, how the program works with industry to identify safer chemicals, and answer your questions. Register here.

Stay informed about our efforts to reduce the use of toxic chemicals by following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.

---

Tackling Toxics: PCB problem requires creative solutions

PCBs are in many paints!

By Erika Bronson, communications, Reducing Toxic Threats

You would think that a toxic substance we stopped using 35 years ago would no longer be a problem, right? Wrong.

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination is widespread throughout Washington and found in almost every water body in the state.

History of PCBs

PCBs were produced for commercial uses from about 1929 to 1977. During this time, PCBs were widely used for heat transfer fluids in electrical transformers and capacitors. They were also used as plasticizers, wax and pesticide extenders, and lubricants. Many common products used to contain PCBs at high levels, such as carbonless copy paper and caulk used to seal cracks in homes and buildings.

As early as 1936, serious skin irritations and other health effects were noted in industrial workers exposed to PCBs, which led to increased protection for workers but didn’t slow their manufacture. By 1976, it was clear PCBs were also an environmental problem. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed to ban the majority of PCB uses and restrict remaining concentrations to low levels. This law was in effect by 1979.

Health & environmental effects

Unfortunately, PCBs last for a very long time in the environment. This is a concern not only for plants and animals, but also for humans. PCBs have toxic effects to the immune, reproductive, nervous, and hormone-regulation systems in humans and other living things. PCBs cause cancer in animals and are considered likely to cause cancer in humans.

PCBs also build up in living things, which is amplified when predators eat prey (known as biomagnification, see illustration, courtesy of the Seattle Post Intelligencer). For example, the Washington Department of Health has set fish advisories for many bodies of water due to PCB and other contamination. When a person eats fish that’s been living in waters contaminated by PCBs, that contamination then enters her body and adds to the store she already may have from other exposures – like consumer products.

Breaking the law?

PCBs continue to show up in products today because manufacturing them at low levels was not outlawed by TSCA. They are often inadvertently produced during manufacturing processes, especially those including pigments or dyes. Concentrations in each product are low. However, the large numbers of products that contain PCBs add up to significant, problematic releases to the environment.

The results are in: PCBs in consumer products

We recently tested 68 consumer products and confirmed that PCBs are present in commonly used items. Forty-nine, or 72 percent, of the products contained at least one of four PCB types. We ran the tests to gauge PCB levels in consumer products and potential releases to Washington’s environment.

Chemist Alex Stone prepping samples for the lab.

Items tested in our study include paper products, paints and colorants, caulking, printer ink, and some product packaging. Full details – including a complete product listing – are available in a report on Ecology’s website. The study focused only on four PCB types that previous studies have linked to pigments and dyes. A future report will include results for all 209 PCB types.

We have already begun a second round of testing for PCBs in consumer products with a focus on yellow, green and blue paints and colorants, colored clothing, cosmetics, soaps, office products and products used by children, such as fingerpaints and comic books. Some of this testing will help state agencies comply with a new law requiring agencies to only buy PCB-free products.

If you have any questions about the PCB report, please contact Alex Stone at 360-407-6758.

PCBs affect water quality

Gov. Inslee’s Clean Water Initiative to update water quality standards and reduce toxic threats includes PCBs as a key chemical of concern. Contamination levels are high enough to require cleanup plans in several areas, including the Lower Duwamish Waterway, Spokane River, Wenatchee River, and Lake Washington. Ecology also found elevated PCB levels in the Puget Sound basin and estimated releases as part of the Puget Sound Toxics Assessment.

PCBs in consumer products are also making it difficult for some companies to meet their water quality discharge limits. For example, a large paper recycler in the Spokane area is having trouble meeting its water discharge limits because of PCB contamination in a lot of the products it recycles, including newspaper and consumer product packaging. If we can help get rid of PCBs in these products, it benefits not only the environment but industry as well.

Be part of the solution

We have drafted a chemical action plan identifying PCB sources in the state and recommending ways to reduce exposures. We are inviting public comments on the plan Aug. 6 to Oct. 6, 2014. If you have questions or comments, please contact Holly Davies at 360-407-7398.

These product-testing campaigns are just one piece of a much larger toxics puzzle. You can stay informed about all our work to reduce toxic threats by:

• Following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.
• Signing up to receive email notifications about toxic chemicals in children’s products.
• Accessing manufacturer-reported CSPA data online.
• Taking action to reduce toxic threats in your everyday life.

---

Tackling Toxics: Flame Retardants

Are they worth the risks?

By Erika Bronson, communications, Reducing Toxic Threats

Flame retardants are one class of chemicals the Department of Ecology is tracking. Many of these chemicals are toxic, and some are also persistent, bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) because they gradually increase and remain in the environment and our bodies over time.

Evidence is mounting that shows flame-retarding chemicals don’t effectively slow fires and that fire fighters can have negative health effects from inhaling their fumes while battling blazes. (See The Chicago Tribune series “Playing with Fire” for more information.)

Foam furniture and stuffed toys are often
treated with flame retardants.

PDBEs are everywhere

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are one type of chemical flame retardant that manufacturers have added to a variety of consumer products for over 30 years to slow combustion. Studies show that PBDEs, which are persistent and bioaccumulative, can impact reproductive health, the immune system, and development in mammals. They are escaping from consumer products and building up in people and the environment throughout the world. PBDEs have been found in human breast milk, blood and fat; house dust and indoor air; fish; wildlife; birds; beef; dairy products and sediments.

Three PBDE mixtures were widely used for different purposes. Penta-BDE was used in low-density polyurethane foam in products such as furniture. Octa-BDE was used in electronics, such as housings for fax and answering machines, automobile trim, telephone handsets, and kitchen-appliance casings. Deca-BDE was used primarily in electronic enclosures, particularly in computers and televisions.

Prevention is the cure

In 2007, Washington banned the use of penta- and octa-BDE in products sold in the state. The use of deca-BDE was also banned in mattresses at that time, and that ban was extended to televisions, computers, and residential upholstered furniture after Ecology found safer alternatives.

We also track the use of 66 chemicals of high concern to children (CHCC), including six flame retardants. Manufacturers report their use of CHCCs if they are present in children’s products under the Children’s Safe Product Act (CSPA).

Testing products for flame retardants

Cutting up a product for component analysis.

Over the last year, Ecology tested 125 consumer and children’s products for PBDEs to ensure manufacturers and retailers are complying with the ban and reporting under CSPA. Products tested include seat cushions, mattresses, upholstered furniture for children, electronics, clothing, and baby carriers.

Finding these chemicals is like being a detective. Unfortunately, analyzing samples to isolate specific substances is not as quick and easy as it may appear on slick crime-scene-investigation TV shows. To select products for testing, Ecology staff purchased items that were likely treated with flame retardant chemicals. Products were then scanned for indicators of flame retardants using x-ray fluorescence. If the scan results were positive, the product was then broken into separate components, such as fabric, stuffing, foam, metal and plastic, and sent to a lab for analysis.

So what did we find?

An unfortunate side effect: Regrettable substitutions

The good news is we didn’t find PBDE violations in any of products we tested.

The bad news is some of the replacement flame retardants we detected are still toxic but not yet regulated. And just as concerning are the indications that substituted chemicals may be toxic, but due to the proprietary nature of the chemical formula, we can’t identify or quantify them. This is why we cannot stop at banning toxics but must also find ways to assure that manufacturers move toward safer alternatives.

The lab could not identify the brominated compounds in 54 samples that screened positive for bromine using x-ray fluorescence. This suggests more brominated compounds than what we tested for are in use, which is a problem because we may not have information about health effects.

Ecology also found that eight samples from children’s products contained flame retardants above the CSPA reporting limit. We have notified manufacturers and are working to ensure compliance.

Future work on flame retardants

These results show progress and a willingness among the manufacturing community to follow laws. However, the use of regrettable substitutions shows we still have work to do.

Fortunately, the Washington State Legislature agrees and has provided further funding for Ecology’s work on flame retardants and safer alternatives. They’ve requested a report by December 2014 recommending whether other flame retardants should be banned in children’s products and furniture.

Manufacturers and others interested in learning more about alternatives assessments for finding safer chemicals are invited to register for a workshop on July 9.

Stay safe & get involved

The Washington State Department of Health has additional information about how we are exposed to PBDEs and how to reduce exposure. In addition, the Northwest Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit at the University of Washington has produced a factsheet on PBDEs for pediatric health professionals.

These product-testing campaigns are just one piece of a much larger toxics puzzle. You can stay informed about all our work to reduce toxic threats by:

• Following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.
• Signing up to receive email notifications about toxic chemicals in children’s products.
• Accessing manufacturer-reported CSPA data online.
• Taking action to reduce toxic threats in your everyday life.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Andrew Wineke at (360) 407-6149.

---

Tackling Toxics: This spring, green chemistry is growing

By Andrew Wineke, communications, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction

Earth Friendly Products, Lacey, Washington

If you haven’t kept up with the progress on the Northwest green chemistry initiative, it’s time to take a fresh look.

Green chemistry seeks to prevent pollution at its source by using chemicals that are not toxic in products and manufacturing processes. Ecology is pursuing a range of opportunities to advance green chemistry, and we have a number of new resources and programs you may be interested in.

Learn more about green chemistry online

First off, green chemistry at Ecology has a new home on the web: www.ecy.wa.gov/greenchemistry. The new address will make it a little simpler for people to connect with our green chemistry team.

At that address, you’ll also find information on Northwest Green Chemistry, the new name for the Pacific Northwest green chemistry center that we are creating with help from dedicated supporters in the business and education communities. Ultimately, our goal is to spin Northwest Green Chemistry off as an independent organization so that it can coordinate green chemistry innovation and education in our region.

Join the Safer Chemistry Challenge

The Safer Chemistry Challenge is the next newcomer on the list. The goal of the Challenge is to:

• Bring more companies into the conversation about green chemistry
• Promote best practices and cross-industry conversations
• Recognize leaders in creating safer products.

We will host an introductory webinar at 9:30 a.m. May 21 for interested companies and organizations.

We have updated much of the information on our green chemistry site, but especially take note of our new pages on chemical hazard assessments and upcoming green chemistry education and events.

Ecology and Northwest Green Chemistry recently sponsored a well-attended Pinfa-NA (Phosphorus, Inorganic, Nitrogen Flame Retardants Association) conference in Seattle on flame retardants in aerospace, and we’ll be looking to get the word out in other ways in the near future.

Green chemistry is a key contributor to Ecology’s work in safer products and pollution prevention, and it’s an area where we can help our state to be a leader and an innovator. Stay in touch, because there’s much more ahead!

---

Earth ... pass it on: Tackling Toxics

Children First

By Erika Bronson, communications manager, Reducing Toxic Threats

Toxic chemicals, especially long-lasting ones that build up over time, can be found everywhere – our air, land, water … and our bodies. Some pose an immediate health threat, especially to children exposed during critical periods in their development. Others, called persistent, bioaccumulative toxics, gradually increase in the environment and in our bodies, causing disease long after we are first exposed.

Preventing exposures to toxics is the smartest, cheapest and healthiest way to protect people and the environment, which guides the Department of Ecology’s approach to reducing toxic threats in Washington.


Children are more sensitive to toxic chemicals than the general population. The presence of a chemical in a product does not necessarily mean it’s unsafe. However, knowing which chemicals of high concern to children manufacturers use in products provides essential clues to understand when safer alternatives are needed.

Groundbreaking laws help move toward safer products for children and general consumers

Many laws aimed at reducing the impacts of toxic chemicals ban or limit one chemical or product at a time. Washington is taking a broader approach by creating laws addressing one of the biggest challenges in developing more effective toxic chemical policies – the lack of data.

In 1991, Washington was one of the first states to pass legislation limiting four toxic metals (mercury, lead, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium) in all packaging. The toxics in packaging law takes a broad view of packaging by including its components and covering a wide range of materials used as packaging.

In 2008, Washington passed the Children’s Safe Product Act (CSPA). The law has two parts. The first part limited the amounts of lead, cadmium and six phthalates allowed in children’s products sold in Washington after July 1, 2009. Ecology and the Department of Health enacted the second part of the law by developing a list of chemicals of high concern to children and rules requiring manufacturers to report their use of these chemicals in children’s products.

Taking action: Moving from the law books to the laboratory

During 2012 and 2013, Ecology tested children’s and consumer products to verify that manufacturers are complying with CSPA and toxics in packaging requirements. Making sure manufacturers report the required information and discontinue using restricted metals involves enforcement. So we applied for grant funding from the Washington Attorney General’s Office to purchase and test products for several classes of chemicals:

• Metals, including lead, mercury, cadmium, antimony, arsenic, molybdenum, chromium, cobalt, zinc and copper.
• Phthalates, which are used to make plastic softer.
• Parabens, which are used as preservatives in personal care products and cosmetics.
• Formaldehyde and other volatile organic chemicals.

Ecology targeted products sold by local retailers and internet sellers that we thought were likely to contain these chemicals. We carefully prepared samples from each product and sent them to a lab to be analyzed for the chemicals of concern.

What we found

After comparing our test results with manufacturer-reported data, Ecology found that most are reporting as required and that most packaging in Washington is in compliance. Due to the phased reporting schedule in CSPA, some products that we identified as non-compliant were manufactured by companies with annual sales low enough that they did not yet have to report any chemicals of high concern to children in their products.

The most common chemicals in the enforcement letters that Ecology sent to manufacturers were chemicals like antimony, cobalt, phthalates, and parabens. We found 15 potential violations of limits on phthalates and seven potential violations of limits on lead or cadmium in the children’s products tested. We also found two violations on toxic metals in packaging that came with children’s products.

Here is a video clip explaining one example:



We did find, however, that chemicals of concern to children are being used in packaging, but packaging is currently exempt from CSPA and most chemicals of concern to children are not included in the toxics in packaging legislation. Packaging was tested for CSPA metals and for phthalates. Several packaging components were found to contain phthalates, including DEHP, one of the phthalates of highest concern as a reproductive toxic chemical. Similar results were found for some of the metals of concern.

Next steps

Ecology notified manufacturers of potential violations and is working with state and federal partners to ensure compliance. We are using information reported under CSPA to help us identify opportunities to replace toxic chemicals of concern with safer alternatives. But it’s also important to realize that the products we tested were purchased some time ago and may not be on the shelves anymore.

Recently, Washington’s legislature designated $611,000 to enhance Ecology’s work on testing consumer products for toxic chemicals and assessing alternatives to these chemicals. With this funding, we will coordinate with other states to ensure effective testing of products and packaging. As part of this funding package, the legislature also authorized Ecology to review the uses and alternatives to various flame retardants.

Putting together the toxics puzzle provides the big picture

These product-testing campaigns are just one piece of a much larger toxics puzzle. Thousands of toxic chemicals are used in our economy today, and we have limited data on how these chemicals impact people and the environment.

To effectively reduce toxic threats, we need new tools to help manufacturers make more informed choices about chemicals in their products. The smartest, cheapest and healthiest way to protect people and the environment is to find safer alternatives for chemicals of concern.

Ecology is working to reduce toxic threats through a series of projects and initiatives that we will cover in the Tackling Toxics ECOconnect blog series, including:

• Enforcing the Better Brakes Law to reduce the use of toxics, such as copper, asbestos, and certain heavy metals, in automotive brake pads and shoes.
• Developing chemical action plans for some of the worst chemicals. Currently we are working on a plan to identify and reduce sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
• Adopting a standard, statewide process for manufacturers to find safer alternatives to toxic chemicals.

Get involved

You can stay informed on these issues by:

• Following our Tackling Toxics series right here on the ECOconnect blog.
• Signing up to receive email notifications about toxic chemicals in children’s products.
• Accessing manufacturer-reported CSPA data online.
• Taking action to reduce toxic threats in your everyday life.

2012 Washington Solid Waste Highlights

By Ellen Caywood, Environmental Planner, Waste 2 Resources Program

Washington’s waste management system relies on partnerships among state and local governments and the private sector. State law requires the Department of Ecology to develop regulations for solid waste handling and disposal facilities, and a state plan for managing and reducing waste.

To track progress, Ecology compiles an annual report of solid waste disposal and recycling trends in Washington. The report also tracks moderate risk waste trends, and what Ecology is doing to reduce the use and impacts of toxic substances.

Top Tidbits

We invite you to learn more in the 22nd Annual Solid Waste Status Report but want to share a quick list of tidbits:

• E-Cycle surpassed 200 million pounds of electronics recycled in the first five years! Learn more in Chapter 2.
• Learn about ways to recover nutrients and fuels from organic materials – composting, anaerobic digesters, and more in Chapter 2.
• Reducing toxic threats by preventing uses or releases in the first place is the smartest, cheapest, and healthiest approach. Learn about Ecology’s efforts in Chapter 2.
• What is the status of local solid and hazardous waste plans? How can I be involved in updating these plans? See Chapter 2 for details.
• In spite of continued budget reductions for litter pickup programs, over four million pounds of litter was collected in 2012 by the Ecology Youth Corps, local partners through the Community Litter Collection Program, and the Departments of Correction and Natural Resources. Details in Chapter 3.
• The 2012 statewide recycling rate was 50 percent. Find out which materials are included and the benefits of recycling in Chapter 4.
• In 2012, over 23 million pounds of hazardous waste was collected, and 84 percent was recycled, reused or used for energy recovery. Find out what types of wastes and details by county in Chapter 5.

Find all this and much, much more in the 22nd Annual Solid Waste Status Report!

Please contact Ellen Caywood for more information (360-407-6132).

---

"E-waste" - What do you do with it?

By Miles Kuntz, E-Cycle Washington Program, Lacey

Since E-Cycle Washington began five years ago, over 212 million pounds of electronics - equal to the weight of 383 fully loaded 787 Dreamliner jets - were recycled. That kept nearly 14 million pounds of lead alone out of landfills! The Department of Ecology estimates that 915,000 TVs, computers and monitors were recycled in 2013 through E-Cycle Washington.

Click image to enlarge.

E-cycling not only recycles valuable materials within our electronics, but it also assures that toxic components like lead, cadmium, arsenic and brominated flame retardants are managed responsibly and kept out of the environment – and our food chain. The Department of Ecology oversees the E-Cycle Washington program to ensure hazardous components are safely managed and to maximize recycling of all materials.

What is e-waste?

E-waste (or electronic waste) is consumer electronics that no longer work or are just outdated and unwanted. It includes computers, other office equipment, TVs, mobile phones, entertainment devices and more.

But these devices are only "e-waste" if you throw them in the trash. Electronics are full of valuable materials like copper, aluminum, glass and even plastics that you can recycle.

Don't trash it; E-Cycle at a location near you!

Washington’s free, statewide E-Cycle program provides convenient collection sites for computers (including tablets), monitors, e-readers, portable DVD players and TVs. By state law, the E-Cycle program is paid for by the manufacturers of these devices.

There are 335 free E-Cycle drop-off sites spread throughout the state with at least one in every county. You can find the one nearest you by searching EcycleWashington.org or calling 1-800-RECYCLE.

Some common electronics, such as cell phones and printers, are not currently in the E-Cycle program, but a few larger electronics retailers take these and other electronics for free through their own recycling programs. Check with local retailers like Best Buy and Staples to see if you can recycle your cell phones, printers and other items with them.

If you have any questions about E-Cycle Washington, contact Miles.Kuntz@ecy.wa.gov, (360) 407-7157, or Christine.Haun@ecy.wa.gov, (360) 407-6107.

---

Toxic releases increase in Washington while some industries reduce emissions

By Erika Holmes, Hazardous Waste & Toxics Reduction Program

Releases of toxic chemicals in Washington increased in 2012, according to data reported annually to the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). The data is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) report. Ecology works with reporting facilities to find ways to reduce toxic releases.

The annual TRI report provides key information about toxic releases to air, land, and water in our communities. Most of these releases are planned and managed, though some are accidental. TRI is a publicly available database of detailed information on nearly 650 chemicals disposed or otherwise released by nearly 21,000 industrial and federal facilities nationwide.

Washington's 2012 Report

In 2012, 310 Washington facilities reported releasing 19.6 million pounds of toxic chemicals to air, land, or water. Half of these releases were to air. Toxic releases in Washington increased 1.1 percent from 2011 to 2012.

 

More facilities are managing their waste on-site instead of disposing of it off-site. Washington facilities recovered 60.5 million pounds of waste for on-site energy, increasing 356 percent from 2011. On-site recycling and treatment also increased, reducing the pollution, cost of transportation, and risk of spills associated with moving waste off-site.

“Although we never want to see an increase in toxic releases, we are encouraged that some facilities reduced emissions through process improvement,” said K Seiler, who manages Ecology’s Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program. “Ecology works hard to create meaningful partnerships with industries to help them reduce or eliminate the use of toxics, often at a savings to the business.”

Two facilities stood out for cutting their toxic releases:

• Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) reduced ammonia emissions to the air at its Aberdeen plant by more than half.  SPI, a wood products company, generates renewable electricity by burning wood waste from its sawmill to power steam turbines. To reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, the company injects ammonia into the exhaust gases. Too much ammonia is itself a challenge, however, so in 2010 SPI began installing monitoring equipment to ensure it is using just the right amount. The new equipment allowed SPI to cut its ammonia emissions from 87,377 pounds in 2011 to 42,825 pounds in 2012.
• Tesoro Refining & Marketing installed emissions control equipment on their stacks, decreasing sulfuric acid aerosols reaching the air. By doing so, the company reduced those emissions from 158,095 pounds in 2011 to 120,091 pounds in 2012.

Ecology leads the state’s efforts to reduce toxics in our air, land, and water by:

• Providing free technical assistance to help facilities prevent pollution.
• Encouraging the use of safer alternatives to harmful chemicals.
• Promoting green chemistry.

To learn more about Washington’s 2012 TRI data, please visit Ecology’s 2012 Washington Toxics Release Inventory web page. You may also contact Ecology’s TRI Coordinator, Diane Fowler at (360) 407-6171.  

Find out more about toxic chemicals in your community – it’s your right to know!

You can access EPA’s data about releases of toxic chemicals to better understand the types and amounts of releases and the potential related risks in your community. TRI is an especially important data source for environmental releases of chemicals of particular concern, such as mercury, dioxins, and other persistent, bio-accumulative, toxic (PBT) chemicals. 

Access TRI data online

Envirofacts provides access to TRI and other EPA databases that contain information about environmental activities that can affect air, water, and land anywhere in the United States. Use Envirofacts to learn more about these environmental activities in an area or generate maps of environmental information.

TRI Explorer is a searchable database of TRI data to help communities identify facilities and chemical releases or other waste management activities that warrant further study and analysis. Combined with hazard and exposure information, the TRI Explorer can be a valuable tool for identifying potential chemical hazards in communities.

The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) provides information about risks to human health related to potential exposures to TRI chemicals. RSEI is a screening-level model that combines TRI information on the amount of toxic chemical releases with other risk factors to help assess the relative hazard and risk of chemicals, facilities and industries.

---