I recently had the pleasure of attending a talk by Dr. Paul Anastas at the Town Hall in Seattle. Anastas’ talk, “Designing a Sustainable Tomorrow,” concerned placing chemistry within a larger framework of sustainability. Those familiar with Anastas know that this goal has consumed much of his working life. The words of the so-called “father of green chemistry” therefore deserve summarizing, and a second look. More manufacturing businesses, designers, and even regulators should listen to what Anastas has to say.

Anastas is currently Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering at Yale University

Anastas began his talk by describing how prevailing myths about chemicals shackle us to destructive industrial habits. Most of us, for example, automatically equate the word “chemical” with toxicity. As a result we tend to think that safe chemicals don’t function as well as harmful ones. We believe progress and comfort require hazardous collateral.

Such a relationship to chemicals has put tremendous strains on our environmental and public health. Anastas gave a slew of examples highlighting the perversity of our manufacturing processes and our attempts to regulate these processes. For example: we don’t know the health consequences of many of the thousands of substances used in manufacturing, nevermind how these chemicals act in synergy; or how about that a huge portion of our chemicals are made from petroleum stock, a polluting and non-renewable resource; or that in an average manufacturing process, 90% of inputs become waste, while only 10% get used in the actual product.

“We got here with noble goals and exciting technologies,” Anastas said. But in many cases, “we try to do the right thing the wrong way.” In looking at environmental issues as siloed or disconnected from one another, we often solve one problem while creating another. We purify water with acutely lethal substances like chlorine. We make photovoltaics out of rare and toxic metals. We make compact fluorescent bulbs that rely on mercury, a known neurotoxin that presents hazards to manufacturers, consumers, and disposers.

“We can do better,” Anastas insisted. Lighting our way out of our industrial quagmire, Anastas suggests, is a new level of awareness in systems thinking that has already begun. We are in the midst of re-thinking how we as humans relate to a natural world made up of energy and matter. Anastas believes that green chemistry has an integral role to play in this process, and even more so in the designing of a new industrial world.

Green chemistry is defined by the 12 principles that Anastas helped create, but at its core, Asastas said, it means: “the design of products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances.” Its goal is not to make things less bad – as is too often the case with reactive regulations and incremental industrial changes – but to design things to be good. Anastas believes that green chemistry should serve as a principle agent in “designing systemic sustainability.”

mytilus edulis

Green chemistry principles can help us move from what Anastas calls “circumstantial” design to “intrinsic” design. Instead of taking a reactive or protective approach to environmental and health problems, we should take a proactive one. We should “design out the hazard” by creating products and systems that are inherently safer and less toxic throughout their lifecycle.

Our guides to ideal design are all around us, in the physics and chemistry of nature. Anastas compared nature’s design solutions to a few of our current industrial processes. For example, he suggested, look at the way the common blue muscle (Mytilus edulis) makes adhesives compared to the way the chemical industry does it. “The mussel uses locally available starting materials,” Anastas said. “It uses a non-toxic, dilute solution, at room temperature and pressure. And it does it underwater, just to show off.”

Anastas ended by saying that innovative businesses will not sacrifice function or profit by designing more sustainable products or systems. In addition to being better for our health, such designs will boost economic performance. Because we all share the same economy and environment, better design means better welfare for all.

But, Anastas emphasized, designing new products and systems will not follow linearly from our current industrial system. “We need transformative innovation and disruptive thinking,” he said. He suggested that we as an industrial society are acting insanely if we expect new results while continuing to manufacture and regulate in the same reactive way, by making substances a little bit more energy efficient or less toxic. “Squeezing out efficiencies” will not change the shape of our world. Radically better design will.

***

Many resources exist for businesses looking to take advantage of the economic and environmental opportunities provided by green chemistry. For example, PPRC is a member of the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3), which aims to “support implementation of green chemistry and safer chemicals and products throughout supply chains.” The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has also achieved buy-in from over 50 different manufacturing associations to its voluntary Responsible Care initiative. Responsible Care aims for continuous improvement of the industry’s health, safety, and environmental performance.

An increasing number of businesses and manufacturers are incorporating green chemistry principles into product and process design. Both start-ups and major industries are creating novel materials from the ground-up, using safe, renewable, and environmentally friendly materials throughout production. Cleaning-product manufacturer Method, for example, developed a new line of cleaners and detergents that use high-efficiency solvents made from waste wood trimmings and corn-stalks.

But change has come more slowly for bulk-chemical manufacturers, or industries that produce much larger volumes of product. These industries depend on expensive and large-scale machinery optimized for cost, not health. To achieve the transformative changes that Anastas envisions will require comprehensive restructuring of production processes. It will require shifts in attitude as well as game-changing technical innovation. For example, an unanswered chemical challenge is how to make bulk chemicals from renewable feedstock rather than from crude oil.

Any ideas out there?

- Cyrus Philbrick

Communications Manager

To frame the impact of Staples’ decision, let’s look at what e-Stewards Certification means. We tend to think of recycling as an unalloyed good practice. But recycling e-waste isn’t so tidy. The Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based organization that monitors toxic trading, estimates that about 70% of the world’s e-waste gets off-loaded on the developing world. Because e-waste contains high proportions and varieties of toxic materials, the countries that handle such waste suffer a disproportionate burden of toxic exposures. Worse, they don’t have the recycling infrastructure to handle the waste safely. Typically, developed world cell phones and hard drives are incinerated, land-filled, or scavenged for valuable materials – all activities that perpetuate harmful exposures to toxins.

Enter the Basel Action Network’s e-Stewards certification program. In the absence of federal regulation prohibiting recyclers from dumping waste abroad, e-Steward fills the void with a market-based standard. E-Steward certified recyclers guarantee that hazardous e-waste does not get exported to developing countries, deposited in landfills or incinerators, sent to prison labor operations, or mined for sensitive data.

Of the commitment, Staples VP of Environmental Affairs, Mark Buckley says, “In keeping with our goal of providing environmentally responsible products and services that help our customers succeed, Staples makes it easy for our customers to recycle responsibly and help the environment. This agreement is a win for customers, the environment, and responsible recyclers.”

Many e-Steward recyclers are located too far from consumers to allow for convenient drop-off. Staples’ commitment to responsible recycling, however, means consumers can drop off their e-waste at any of the 1500 Staples stores nationwide. Accepted items include: Desktop computers, laptops, tablets, eReaders, monitors, desktop printers, copiers, scanners, faxes, all-in-ones, shredders, UPS/battery backup devices, peripherals including mice, keyboards, modems, routers and PC speakers, small electronics including GPS devices, digital cameras, MP3 players, mobile phones and cordless phones, external hard drives and small servers.

Why don’t more consumer electronics companies become e-Steward Enterprises? Thibault Worth, over at GreenBiz.com, parses some of the business logic behind Staples’ decision. Frankly, using e-Steward recyclers is more expensive for most businesses and per most electronics items than off-loading waste overseas. But Staples is banking on the longer-term impact of promoting its brand as one at the forefront of the push towards sustainability. By bringing recycling customers back to its stores, Staples aims to recycle brand loyalty.

Other brands and businesses can learn from Staples’ logic. The long-term benefits of developing responsible and transparent recycling streams may outweigh the short-term savings that businesses pocket by favoring irresponsible and harmful recycling practices.

Businesses smaller than Staples should also consider the environmental and economic benefits of responsible recycling. Smaller businesses, or groups of businesses, can collaborate to hold community e-waste collection events. If run well, such events can ensure safe recycling of potentially harmful toxic materials. For advice on hosting a collection event, check out PPRC’s Rapid Response on e-Waste Collection Events. This report provides information on securing sponsors and ensuring the event complies with local regulations. Also, it provides valuable contacts and resources.

For more information on Staples’ recycling program and accepted items, check out Staples’ website.

-Cyrus Philbrick

Communications Manager

Click image to visit our Donation Page

We at PPRC are proud to offer such wide-ranging and quality pollution prevention assistance. GiveBIG day, May 15^th, is your chance to contribute to our work. By making a small donation on PPRC’s Donation Page on the Seattle Foundation’s website, you will help us continue to help our region’s environment, health, and economy. We’re asking for $25.

The Seattle Foundation is generously raising a “Stretch Pool” to boost all individual donations made on the Big Day. They’re also providing some tantalizing lottery prizes that any donor can win. Throughout the day, donors will be randomly selected for “Golden Ticket” prizes like $100 gift cards to Starbucks or a $1000 boost to their donation. So your $25 donation could become a $1025 donation.

We at PPRC believe we serve a vital function in the Northwest – lessening businesses’ eco-impact but not their capacity or strength. Help us help you by making a gift on May 15th.

* If you want to be reminded of GiveBIG on the Big Day, or if you just want to stay informed of all the latest pollution prevention news, follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Answers to the second two questions don’t come easily for consumers because so much is still unknown about the toxicity and make-up of the plastic materials that surround us. But a number of recent studies and publications are shining lights on the effects of food-containing plastics on our environmental and public health. For example, Susan Freinkel’s Plastic: A Toxic Love Story presents a clear and readable account of the infinite ways plastics have infiltrated our daily lives and what this means. The answers in this post draw primarily from Freinkel’s book, which I recommend to anyone as a great introduction to the remarkable and tragic history of our addiction to plastics. I’ve also drawn some info from an upcoming Rapid Response report on Sous Vide cooking by PPRC’s own Michelle Gaither. (we’ll post the Rapid Response report later this week).

How does plastic get into our food?

Plastics are tremendously variable (forgive me, plastic) substances. At the heart of this variability lies a host of additives that plastic manufacturers blend with polymers to give plastics desired properties. Additives in food packaging serve as antioxidants, stabilizers, plasticizers, lubricants, anti-microbials, and heat resistors, among other things. Additives that are lightly bound to polymers can escape, or drop off a polymer’s complex daisy chains, when these chains contact enough heat, light, or other destabilizing forces. When released, some chemical additives are drawn to fats. This tendency makes fatty foods – like cheeses, meats, and oils – common sources of our exposure to toxic plastic substances.

Should we worry?

We know that some additives interfere with our fragile hormonal regulatory systems. These so-called “endocrine disruptors” introduce noise into the symphony of hormones controlled by our endocrine system. Endocrine disruptors can enhance or block the production of hormones that are crucial to our sexual development, metabolism, and cognitive function. Studies suggest that exposure to these chemicals can cause early-puberty in females, reduced sperm counts in males, altered functions of reproductive organs, obesity, and increased rates of some breast, ovarian, testicular, and prostate cancers (Yang, et al. 2011). Unlike most other known toxins, the toxicity of endocrine disruptors does not simply increase with increased doses of the toxin. Studies like Vandenburg et al (2012) suggest that low-dose exposures can have dramatic effects. These effects depend not only on the dose but on the timing of exposure. Therefore, expectant mothers, in-utero babies, and young children are uniquely susceptible to endocrine disruptors.

Over the last few decades, a few additives – namely bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates – have caught the attention of researchers, regulators, and media for their endocrine disrupting effects. BPA is used in rigid plastic like polycarbonate (typically labeled number 7). While manufacturers advertise “BPA free” containers, we still don’t know the safety of current replacements for BPA additives. You can get a more detailed breakdown on BPA and its alternatives from a recent Rapid Response report on BPA exposure from receipts. Phthalates are typically used as plasticizers to make vinyl plastics, like polyvinyl chloride (PVC), more pliable. Many phthalates, like di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), have known associations with kidney, liver, and reproductive harm.

Some good news – sort of – is that the FDA regulates, or at least tries to regulate, plastic containers and materials that come into contact with food. For FDA approval, plastics manufacturers (of Food Contact Substances) submit their products to tests that measure chemical migration at temperatures that the container or wrap is likely to encounter during ordinary use. However, scientists don’t know enough about the toxicity of many of the additives we encounter to determine whether or not these chemicals are safe for us in the long run. The FDA maintains an inventory of additives approved as safe for their intended use. But this list currently includes controversial chemicals like phthalates and BPA. So one could argue that FDA “approval” does not hold much weight. In addition to contacting media-flagged chemicals (currently being scrutinized by the scientific community), we contact hundreds of additives that we know little or nothing about because researchers haven’t yet studied their toxic effects. A recent study (Yang et al., 2001) suggests that many of the 455 commercially available plastic products – even some widely considered safe by manufactuers and the FDA, such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-densitypolyethylene (LDPE) – leach additives when exposed to stress.

Consumers and businesses are often powerless to find out exactly which chemicals exist in the plastic cookware they buy. Under our current chemical regulatory system, manufacturers generally are not required to list the ingredients of their materials. When asked for ingredients lists, some manufacturers are unwilling to provide them. Such blockades to accessing information about plastic constituents harms our ability to regulate potentially harmful toxins. Before toxicologists can assess the toxicity of any plastic container, they need to know which polymers and additives make up a product.

Such ongoing uncertainties are scary. As Freinkel suggests, we are all lab rats in a tremendously large experiment on the long term effects of low-level barrages of plastic toxins. To an extent, we need to accept that we are now all “part plastic.”

What can we do now?

But does this mean we should all just sit around and see what happens, or which health affects arise? As Freinkel suggests, no way. Consumers and businesses aren’t powerless in the face of invisible toxic threats. We can make important decisions to minimize our exposures. Check out The Ecologist’s quick guide to storing food safely in plastic containers to see which types of containers are safe and which ones to watch out for. Here are a few tips that anyone can follow to protect against unwanted exposure:

• Avoid microwaving or heating food in plastic containers.

• Avoid PVC (#3) containers, food wrap, and juice bottles.

• Avoid (#7) containers for food contact use. (#7) includes several resins, one of them being polycarbonate. Some polycarbonates may still be manufactured with BPA.

• Avoid storing plastic water bottles in hot places like the backseat of your car. Instead use refillable bottles.

• Avoid cooking in “turkey” or oven bags.

As for businesses working with Sous Vide packaging or plastic films, Michelle Gaither provides a few legal and good-practice tips. Businesses should:

• Demand disclosure of SV packaging material, or disclosure of ingredients.

• Demand safer plastics from suppliers.

• Allow PPRC to conduct a preliminary review of toxicity data and endpoints of the constituents. PPRC is able to assist businesses in this manner under our Rapid Response service.

• Businesses with resources can look into safer chemical assessment protocols, such as GreenScreen^TM , EPA’s DfE Alternatives Assessment, multi-state Alternatives Assessment Guidance, or other methods.

What can we do in the long term?

Finally, as Freinkel and chemical law specialists like John Wargo point out, the most effective way to protect ourselves from the harmful effects of plastic toxins would be to change our current chemical regulatory system. Rather than rely on the current framework of chemical management, which deems chemicals “innocent until proven guilty,” consumers and businesses could help demand a more precautionary and preventative approach to approving chemicals for production. Demanding more producer accountability and labeling of chemicals in polymer products would help scientific testing of worrisome plastic toxins proceed more quickly and effectively. Changing a regulatory system, however, takes a lot of time and work. It requires viable and agreeable political and scientific alternatives.

Do you have suggestions about how to avoid potentially harmful plastic food packaging? Or do you know of any tips or resources for consumers and businesses who want to ensure they are using safe plastic products? Please let us know what you think in the comments.

-Cyrus Philbrick, Communications Manager

and Michelle Gaither, Industrial Engineer

As currently envisioned, a small number of product-COC combinations, perhaps three-to-five, will be identified for the initial round of assessments. Once identified, all manufacturers of a priority product will be required to quantify the level of COCs in their own product(s) and begin a process to identify safer alternative ingredients. Manufacturers can also choose to eliminate the COC altogether or find a non-chemical approach to achieve the same product function. For example, a toxic flame retardant in a plastic cover could be replaced in future designs with an inherently flame-resistant metal cover.

So, why should businesses in the Northwest care? The law applies to products sold in California regardless of manufacturing origin. Once listed, manufacturers of priority products must respond with required data on chemicals of concern. If manufacturers don’t respond, the role of “responsible entity” travels down the supply chain to either distributors or retailers. It may be easier for retailers to remove a product from their shelves rather than bear the burden of preparing an assessment of alternatives.

DTSC has a website with draft regulation language, technical reviewers comments and a large volume of public comments from stakeholders of all stripes. We’ll be discussing various aspects of the legislation in future blog pieces. For starters, here’s a brief rundown on the chemicals likely to be included in DTSC’s Chemicals of Concern list. Rather than start from scratch with a new process to identify COCs, DTSC is putting together a comprehensive list of toxic chemicals identified by various authoritative bodies, both nationally and internationally. The lists are mostly of two flavors: 1) lists of chemicals selected for their inherent hazard, say carcinogenicity, but also 2) lists based on ecosystem or bio-monitoring, suggestive of human or environmental exposure. By marrying hazard and exposure considerations, DTSC approximates some measure of overall risk without the resource and time intensive process of a full-blown environmental risk assessment.

The hazard-based lists include all the expected bad actors: carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants (so-called CMRs) and also several lists of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs).  A few of the lists have been controversial, such as a European Commission list of chemicals for evaluation as endocrine disruptors. Some stakeholders have complained that not all the lists have involved proper stakeholder processes during development. All in all, DTSC estimates that the final list will contain around 1200 chemicals. Industry is naturally concerned with the need to analyze and track such a long list. Details on DTSC’s source lists are described in a “Proposed Chemicals Lists” document at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/LawsRegsPolicies/Regs/upload/COC-lists-weblinksv2.pdf.

The final details on the COC list must be posted within 30 days of the effective date of the regulation (likely to be January 2013). If your organization utilizes any materials with likely COCs, you should consider what impact the pending regulation may have on your business. Begin conversations with suppliers on disclosure of ingredients and unintended contaminants in your raw materials. Contact PPRC if you have concerns about the pending California legislation, questions about chemicals in your products or processes, or need help communicating with suppliers or customers on chemicals issues.

Owner Joe Garcia and Marney Jett of Clean Water Services in photo. Mobile Joe’s is a new business, although Mr. Garcia also still owns Reedville Body and Paint Company in Beaverton (now managed by his son, Chris). Mobile Joe’s is specializing in RV’s and wanted to set up shop with all of the best environmental practices possible.

Washington County Facilities and Parks

Candi Paradis, Washington County Facilities and Parks Manager and her team adopted EcoBiz practices for their Facilities operations and Parks that include Haag Lake, Metzger Park and other facilities.

About the DERA Partnership

A public-private partnership among three entities united by a common goal: fuel efficiency in the transportation industry.

Green Actions: Freight Wing manufactures aerodynamic trailer side skirts—fairings that direct airflow away from the underside of a tractor Team_webtrailer, increasing a truck’s highway fuel efficiency by an average of five percent. Interstate Distributor is a national leader in regional and transcontinental trucking. The two were brought together by the PPRC, which secured emission reduction grant money from the Environmental Protection Agency to help Interstate outfit 2,058 of its 53-foot trailers with Freight Wing trailer skirts. Interstate will pay 71 percent of the project cost, with the EPA funding covering the remainder.

Results: The project, which began in earnest in September 2010, will save a total of 16 million gallons of fuel over its lifespan, preventing more than 182,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the article in Seattle Business.

Learn the details about the DERA Partnership.

In the course of our careers, we all collect stories. Here’s one of my P2 favorites.

Years ago, I asked a number of chemical companies to open their facilities to me so I could learn where P2 was occurring. I was pleasantly surprised at the number of companies who invited me in.

One facility, a urea-formaldehyde resin manufacturer, discovered P2 during a crisis. The company had discharged its wastewater to the local sewage plant. But a permit renewal suddenly restricted discharges to just a few parts per million of formaldehyde. The plant was stuck! There was no room for an on-site treatment facility, and it was too expensive to truck the wastes off-site. The company considered shuttering the aging facility.

The plant manager found a novel solution: a plant walk-through!

“For the first time,” he told me, “I went through our processes, step by step, to see where wastes were coming from.” His workers to did the same, and found dozens of instances of avoidable wastes. A disconnected hose, for example, was left to leak into a floor drain. “Not a lot in terms of lost material,” he noted, “but enough to contaminate a few million gallons of wastewater.”

The largest single source of waste was the backwash used to clean a product filter, a step that produced a wastestream with high concentrations of chemicals. The product caught in the filter was just a bit “lumpy” according to the plant manager. They had been rinsing the filter this way for a generation, without ever considering alternatives.

The workers devised a simple procedure to break up the lumps and reroute the backwash into the process, avoiding the generation of a huge quantity of formaldehyde-contaminated wastewater. The procedure also improved the overall economics of the resin production.

With a few more clever tweaks, the plant achieved its new discharge limits.

There were a few valuable take-aways from this story:

•     Waste that is out of sight, is out of mind
•     Challenge workers to eliminate waste, and they’ll probably find a way.
•     Pollution prevention pays
•     Regulations can be your friend

David Sarokin is a P2 specialist at EPA and the author of Cutting Chemical Wastes, one of the first major studies to focus on pollution prevention in the chemical industry.

This article was originally published on the EPA’s Greenversations blog. 

E3 is a framework through which local communities connect local manufacturers with best technical assistance available. Each community is supported by coalition of federal agencies that have joined forces to form E3. E3 combines the strengths of federal, state, and local resources to promote sustainable manufacturing and economic growth throughout the United States. Communities use E3 to help boost local economies to achieve their unique sustainability goals and priorities. E3 directly

helps manufacturers reduce costs, cut wastes, and be more competitive.

Join us on October 23 for our 2012 Regional Roundtable in Suquamish, WA at our E3 Workshop where we’ll be covering:

• Build alliances with technical assistance providers from Energy, Labor, SBA, Commerce, EPA and Agriculture
• Shape the E-3 Northwest agenda – priorities and governance,
• Map deal flow for improved lead generation, proposal development, financing, delivery and evaluation, and to
• Receive hands on Lean and Green training at a local manufacturing facility.

For more information about E3, go to: http://www.e3.gov
For more about EPA: http://www.epa.gov/

The best way to protect the Earth and its people is to stop creating pollution in the first place – that realization became America’s official policy in 1990 with the Federal Pollution Prevention Act’s, declaration that, “Pollution should be prevented or reduced at its source, whenever possible.” Pollution Prevention (P2) Week highlights the efforts of EPA, its partners, and the public in making pollution prevention a cornerstone of sustainability.

This year, the theme for the week is “Safe Chemicals for a Safer World” and highlights the importance of green chemistry and safer chemical work throughout the industry. Some of the work PPRC is currently involved with includes:

• Our Safer Chemicals Partnership with Washington Department of Ecology
• Our 2012 Regional Roundtable, which includes a day of Green Chemistry Training and a separate Green Chemistry Roundtable

Also, make sure to view the current list of PPRC projects for the most up-to-date information about all the work we do.