Watching Our Water Ways

Environmental reporter Christopher Dunagan discusses the challenges of protecting Puget Sound and all things water-related.
Subscribe to RSS

Washington is first to tackle toxic copper in brakes

March 10th, 2010 by cdunagan

Washington state has done it again, being the first state in the country to take a legal stand against a toxic chemical.

The Legislature this week voted to phase out cooper in brake pads, provided there are reasonable alternatives and that research continues to suggest that brake pads are contributing significant amounts of toxic copper. The bill is Senate Bill 6557.

This last point about research — about the need to know more about the alternate states of copper in the environment — was raised by Silverdale resident Bob Benze. I covered his questions and success in adding an amendment to the bill in the March 1 edition of the Kitsap Sun.

Even at low levels, an ionic form of copper has been shown to affect the sense of smell in salmon, which can lead to confusion and reproductive failure. It has become a major concern, especially in urban areas. Here’s a fact sheet from the Washington Department of Ecology.

Ivy Sager-Rosenthal of the Washington Toxics Coalition supports the Puget Sound Partnership’s call for a full assessment of toxic chemicals flowing into Puget Sound and an increased focus on eliminating sources of such pollution.

Last week, Ted Sturdevant, director of Ecology, testified before Congress about actions taken by state governments, generally because the federal government has been slow to act. He and 12 other state environmental officials are calling for reform of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.

Washington was the first state to draft a formal policy phasing out persistent bioaccumulative toxics, or PBTs. This led to state laws phasing out mercury and toxic flame retardants. The latest legislation, finalized this week, will ban bisphenol-A in baby bottles and sports bottles.

Sturdevant spelled out three guiding principles for addressing persistent toxic chemicals:

“First: before you allow a substance to be put into widespread use and commerce, it makes sense to take all reasonable measures to first make sure it is safe.

“Second: if science tells us that there are toxic chemicals that pose an urgent and unacceptable threat, government should be able to protect the public and ban those chemicals.

“Third: if we know with reasonable certainty that a particular substance is dangerous to people or the food chain and doesn’t break down; and if we know that allowing continued use of that substance will spread it far and wide; and if there is an alternative substance that could perform the same task much more safely; then the right policy is simple: stop using the dangerous substance, and use the safer alternative.”

These chemicals are called “persistent” for a reason, and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are a shameful example of what can happen. The production of PCBs began in the 1920s. Despite their usefulness in a variety of applications, studies in the 1930s showed that this class of chemicals could be harmful to humans. Production increased, as did the problems, with few people paying attention to the long-term effects. In 1979, PCBs were finally banned, but even today they are still being found in animals, including humans.

PCBs are suspected of causing cancer and have been associated with developmental, reproductive and immune problems.

Sturdevant again:

“This is a critical point; when we put persistent toxics out into the world, they persist. And if they turn out to be a problem, then the problem becomes enormous, and largely unsolvable. Once out, we cannot ever truly put the PBT genie back in the bottle. This has been an expensive lesson that we all should learn from — when we uncork that bottle, let’s be as sure as we can that it makes sense to do so.”

Principles proposed by the 13 state environmental officials calling for reforms in the Toxic Substances Control Act:

Require Chemical Data Reporting. Chemical and product manufacturers should be required to develop and provide chemical health and safety information, as well as exposure and use data, including the presence of toxic chemicals in products and the associated chemical hazards and risks, to regulators, businesses, and the public.

Demonstrate Chemicals and Products are Safe.
Manufacturers should provide the necessary information to regulators to conclude that new and existing chemicals and products in commerce are safe and do not endanger the public or the environment. The public has a right to expect that the products they use are safe.

Prioritize Chemicals of Concern.
Government should identify and prioritize chemicals of concern in order to regulate the most problematic chemicals in commerce, and have the authority to take timely action to protect people and the environment. Sufficient resources should be made available to support these actions.

Protect the Most Vulnerable.
Chemical regulation should be designed to protect the most vulnerable, including pregnant women and children.

Promote Safer Chemicals and Products.
Based on green chemistry principles, manufacturers should be required to assess and identify safer alternatives to problematic chemicals of concern. Government should establish protocols for evaluating potential alternatives to chemicals of concern.

Address Emerging Contaminants.
Emerging chemicals of concern, including nanoscale materials, need to be assessed for public and environmental safety before they go into widespread commerce and use.

Strengthen Federal Law & Preserve States’ Rights.
States acknowledge the need for a strong federal chemical regulation system, while expressly preserving the authority of state and localities to implement measures to manage chemicals of concern.

Fund State Programs.
Effective state-federal governance should enhance the role of states in TSCA implementation, promote data and information sharing, and provide sustained funding for state programs. The states are in a unique position to provide innovative, cost-effective solutions for chemicals of concern prioritization, interstate data sharing, and safer chemical alternatives assessments.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

6 Responses to “Washington is first to tackle toxic copper in brakes”

  1. BlueLight Says:

    “Washington state has done it again, being the first state in the country to take a legal stand against a toxic chemical.”

    Rather than cheer, you might want to take a look at what ever-increasing environmental regulations are doing to:

    1. The cost of state government
    2. The impacts to other governmental programs, like schools
    3. The economy of our state

    Or not.

    We’re number one!!! (Actually California is number one but, hey, we’re gaining on ‘em!)

  2. cdunagan Says:

    Sorry if my blog post came across as cheering. I try to keep things on a fairly even tone. (Notice the lack of exclamation points.)

    I do recognize, however, that environmental advocates are cheering the effort to rid the environment of toxic compounds, assuming it can be done at a reasonable cost.

    Anyone else wish to comment on the cheering aspect of this and the cost to state government?

  3. clearvoicesue Says:

    I think this as well as the BPA ban for baby bottles and sports bottles are great victories for our state. Protecting health for all of us is a good thing.

  4. pika Says:

    I’ll comment. This is government doing its job and protecting citizens and the environment from harm. It’s very heartening to see, and it’s tax dollars well spent. It’s only rational to cheer this on.

  5. BlueLight Says:

    “…it’s tax dollars well spent”

    Since you’ve come to that conclusion, tell me: how many tax dollars is it?

  6. rosetess Says:

    No tax dollars spent. A cleaner, safer world, with salmon and healthier babies brought to you by the environmentalists! No charge to you! WA State is a safer place to raise a child b/c of this BPA bill (and the toxic toys bill before it, also compliments of righteous moms of WA, Enviros, and a dash of student activists in Olympia). Special interest groups have successfully lobbied to stop copper from eradicating salmon’s sense of smell. Cleaner water, cleaner baby bloodstreams. Both have long been victim to the capitalist machine that distributes the cheapest toxic they can use without killing or maiming the client straight away. Europe and Canada has banned BPA, the US has not! WA State has. Get with the program USA! Are their too many chemical/Monsanto/oil/plastics executives in the way? Throw the bums out of D.C.
    Having said all that, what’s the deal with Copper River salmon then!?

Leave a Reply

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

Enter the word yellow here:

Notify me via email of follow-up comments (without commenting):

Available on Kindle

Subscribe2

Follow WaterWatching on Twitter

Food for thought

"In the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught."Baba Dioum, Senegalese conservationist

Archives

Categories