Foreword
xiii
the release of toxic chemicals to the environment around a plant has an adverse
impact, putting a toxic chemical in a product for use in the home or office is more
likely to have an impact on peoples’ health. The chemical could then be released to
the water, air, or landfill when the product is used or discarded. The root cause of
toxic chemical impacts is use, not just release to a particular environmental medium.
If industry does not use a toxic chemical, then it will not be released to the environment directly or indirectly through products. By using a chemical, a company
increases the potential exposure to its workers through use, to its neighbors through
releases, and to customers through its products.
Reducing or preferably eliminating the use of a single chemical takes a considerable effort. Effort is needed to find a suitable substitute, which may cause the cost
of a product to increase. With thousands of toxic chemicals in use in hundreds of
thousands of products, this approach looks infeasible on the surface. What makes
this approach feasible, however, is that all chemicals do not have an equal toxic
impact. Ingestion of 5 mg of mercury per year is expected to adversely affect development of a child, whereas it would take 17 pounds of tert-butyl alcohol. Moreover,
some chemicals rapidly degrade after release to the environment, while others
remain toxic (persistent) for millions of years. Some chemicals bioaccumulate or
concentrate as they move up the food chain from plants to herbivores to carnivores.
For instance, fish can contain 100,000 times the concentration of mercury when
compared to the water in which they swim. These factors affect the impact that the
release of a given amount of a chemical has on our health and well-being.
Another issue is that the TRI program requires reporting of individual chemicals,
but the reporting is in pounds of chemical. Public reporting emphasizes the total
pounds released, blurring the importance of the wide variation of toxicity of chemicals on the list. The state of Washington evaluates and prioritizes toxic chemicals
released in the state and developed programs to eliminate usage of the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, starting with mercury. From this
experience, Washington State is also preparing a comprehensive chemicals policy that
intends to revamp the context of the toxic substance laws and regulations such that all
proposed products containing high-impact chemicals are discouraged. This comprehensive initiative is now in the development-and-implementation stage and includes
emerging contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals and engineered nanoparticles.
In developing the toxic chemical use reduction program in São Paulo, we were
charged with the goals of achieving the maximum reduction in toxic impact while
minimizing the regulatory burden placed on the affected companies. We therefore
developed an approach to measure the toxic impact of chemical use based on the
annual use of a chemical multiplied by factors that accounted for persistence and
toxicity. In our analysis of approximately 200 chemicals, we found that 1 chemical accounted for half, 5 chemicals accounted for 80 percent, and 10 chemicals
accounted for 90 percent of the toxic burden. In preparing this book, our analysis of
the most recent U.S. data found that one chemical (hexavalent chromium) accounted
for over 99 percent of the potential risks associated with TRI releases in 2007.
We also recommended that the emphasis be placed on use of a toxic chemical
rather than its release. It takes a fraction of the effort to inventory and report use than
to report releases. To determine release, one has to track daily usage of each product
xiii
the release of toxic chemicals to the environment around a plant has an adverse
impact, putting a toxic chemical in a product for use in the home or office is more
likely to have an impact on peoples’ health. The chemical could then be released to
the water, air, or landfill when the product is used or discarded. The root cause of
toxic chemical impacts is use, not just release to a particular environmental medium.
If industry does not use a toxic chemical, then it will not be released to the environment directly or indirectly through products. By using a chemical, a company
increases the potential exposure to its workers through use, to its neighbors through
releases, and to customers through its products.
Reducing or preferably eliminating the use of a single chemical takes a considerable effort. Effort is needed to find a suitable substitute, which may cause the cost
of a product to increase. With thousands of toxic chemicals in use in hundreds of
thousands of products, this approach looks infeasible on the surface. What makes
this approach feasible, however, is that all chemicals do not have an equal toxic
impact. Ingestion of 5 mg of mercury per year is expected to adversely affect development of a child, whereas it would take 17 pounds of tert-butyl alcohol. Moreover,
some chemicals rapidly degrade after release to the environment, while others
remain toxic (persistent) for millions of years. Some chemicals bioaccumulate or
concentrate as they move up the food chain from plants to herbivores to carnivores.
For instance, fish can contain 100,000 times the concentration of mercury when
compared to the water in which they swim. These factors affect the impact that the
release of a given amount of a chemical has on our health and well-being.
Another issue is that the TRI program requires reporting of individual chemicals,
but the reporting is in pounds of chemical. Public reporting emphasizes the total
pounds released, blurring the importance of the wide variation of toxicity of chemicals on the list. The state of Washington evaluates and prioritizes toxic chemicals
released in the state and developed programs to eliminate usage of the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, starting with mercury. From this
experience, Washington State is also preparing a comprehensive chemicals policy that
intends to revamp the context of the toxic substance laws and regulations such that all
proposed products containing high-impact chemicals are discouraged. This comprehensive initiative is now in the development-and-implementation stage and includes
emerging contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals and engineered nanoparticles.
In developing the toxic chemical use reduction program in São Paulo, we were
charged with the goals of achieving the maximum reduction in toxic impact while
minimizing the regulatory burden placed on the affected companies. We therefore
developed an approach to measure the toxic impact of chemical use based on the
annual use of a chemical multiplied by factors that accounted for persistence and
toxicity. In our analysis of approximately 200 chemicals, we found that 1 chemical accounted for half, 5 chemicals accounted for 80 percent, and 10 chemicals
accounted for 90 percent of the toxic burden. In preparing this book, our analysis of
the most recent U.S. data found that one chemical (hexavalent chromium) accounted
for over 99 percent of the potential risks associated with TRI releases in 2007.
We also recommended that the emphasis be placed on use of a toxic chemical
rather than its release. It takes a fraction of the effort to inventory and report use than
to report releases. To determine release, one has to track daily usage of each product