Greenversations

By Kara Koehrn

In 1984, when a deadly cloud of chemical gas killed thousands of people in Bhopal India, a power movement was set in motion. Back then, Americans had little access to information about chemicals in their neighborhood. The spill in Bhopal along with another accident at a sister plant in West Virginia, awakened public interest in knowing more about potential hazards. Communities demanded information about toxic chemicals being released outside facilities, and it was in this environment that the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) was created by the Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act in 1986.

25 years later, my coworkers and I are proud to continue the community-right-to-know tradition with the publication of this year’s TRI data and analysis. The report is called the TRI National Analysis and it can tell you whether toxic chemical releases have increased or decreased nationwide, what chemicals are being released in the Denver area, which industries are releasing the highest amounts in the Los Angeles area, or whether toxic chemical releases have increased in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Take a look!

I am especially excited for this year’s analysis because it includes new features designed to make TRI data more informative and relevant. We have worked with economists to incorporate information on how the economy may be affecting TRI releases, included risks associated with TRI chemicals, more information on what facilities have done to help reduce their chemical releases, and translated even more materials than ever before into Spanish.

We publish the National Analysis every year, but EPA employees aren’t the only ones who can conduct analyses on TRI data. Any member of the public can analyze or look up what chemicals are being released in an area. My favorite tool to use for quick information about chemical releases in my zip code is myRTK (myRight-to-Know,) which I can access on my smart phone. But if I am at home and want to see long-term trends of TRI releases I use TRI Explorer or TRI.NET. Want to try? Follow this link to TRI’s tools.

We have come a long way since 1984, and I hope you take a look at the National Analysis and maybe even try a few of our analysis tools to see what chemicals are being released into your neighborhood. After all, it’s your right to know.

About the author: Kara Koehrn joined EPA’s Office of Environment Information in Washington, D.C. in 2009 and is the project leader for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) National Analysis. She recently started a potted vegetable garden at her row house apartment in the city to grow fresh food locally without pesticides.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection.Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Aaron Ferster

I’m a big fan of those “Top Ten” lists that come out at the end of every year. I like to track how many of my favorite movie critic’s Top Ten List of Films I’ve caught during the year (so far, I’ve seen most of them—and I’ve still got a couple of weeks to go before New Year’s Eve). The synopses included in the lists of Top Ten Best Novels of the year let me feel like I’m in the know about the latest literature, even though I’ve clearly spent more time at the cinema than at the bookstore.

But this year the most impressive “list” I’ve come across came out last week, when EPA and its partners from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the compounds to be tested as part of the collaborative Tox21 research program over the next couple of years

Only the list is slightly more robust than ten—it’s a 10,000 compound library.

The library contains chemicals covering a wide variety of classifications, including chemicals found in industrial processes, consumer products, and food additives, as well as human and veterinary drugs. A large number of reference compounds are also included to give researchers access to different toxicological or disease endpoints, duplicate compounds for evaluating test methods, and a small set of chemical mixtures for a pilot study.

“The Tox21 partnership integrates revolutionary advances in molecular biology, chemistry, and computer science to quickly and cost-effectively screen the thousands of chemicals in use today,” said Paul Anastas, Ph.D., the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

The compounds will be tested with a high-speed, robotic testing system that was unveiled early this year—the subject of a previous blog post here on Science Wednesday.  That means the tests will continue nearly nonstop, 24-7 until all the compounds have been analyzed.

Results of the tests will provide information useful for evaluating if any of the 10,000 chemicals have the potential to disrupt processes in the human body to an extent that would lead to adverse health effects. I’ll be sure to blog about those results once they start rolling in. But in the meantime, I’ll be at the movies.

About the author: Aaron Ferster is the senior science writer for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and the editor of Science Wednesday.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Dayna Gibbons

As far as I’m concerned, daylight savings time could not have come at a better time. Last week, EPA released its final study plan to research the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. As a member of the science communications team, part of my job was to help ensure the study plan and a host of supporting material—from a press release to web site updates to @EPAresearch “tweets”—were ready so we could share the news. There was a lot to do, and by the weekend I was grateful to have an extra hour of sleep!

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” as it’s more commonly called, is a stimulus technique that gas producers use to extract natural gas out of sources such as coalbeds and shale formations. (It’s also used for other applications, including oil recovery.) Many are hopeful that fracking will play a key role in unlocking natural gas from reserves across large areas of the U.S. Yet, concerns have been raised about the impact such practices might have on drinking water resources.

Toward the end of 2010, Congress directed EPA to conduct research to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. Since then, EPA has engaged with the public, the scientific community, and interested stakeholders to ensure public input into the study’s design where appropriate. The draft plan went through a public comment period and was peer-reviewed by EPA’s Science Advisory Board to ensure a scientifically sound approach.

EPA’s study will answer questions across the full hydraulic fracturing water lifecycle. This means that the data our scientists collect will help us understand the potential impacts on water resources from the beginning to end of the fracking process—from using large amounts of ground and surface waters, to drilling activities and the use of chemicals and, finally, the management, disposal, and treatment of used water.

The first study results will be released in 2012, and the final report will be released in 2014. In addition, EPA will regularly host webinars—including today at 3:30pm and tomorrow at 2:30pm—and provide updates throughout the study in order to keep the public informed of the progress. I’m sure that will continue to keep me busy, but at least I have an extra hour of sleep under my belt.

About the author: Dayna Gibbons has worked in communications at EPA since 2002.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

By Bill Finan

In the mid-1980s, I was surprised to hear stories about firefighters being injured and sometimes killed when they entered a fire scene that included chemicals. Those firefighters were brave and wanted to save lives, but they had not been trained to understand chemical hazards.

Just as firefighters often did not know what chemicals were in a burning building, or how the chemicals could harm them, it would have been difficult for the average person to know what toxic chemicals were in their neighborhoods. But after a series of deaths and injuries because of accidental chemical releases, Americans demanded to have information about chemicals in their community. EPA’s Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the motto, “If you don’t know, you don’t go,” adopted by firefighters in 1986 resulted from that public outcry.

I was part of EPA’s initial implementation of EPCRA. I understood and championed its main goal that would allow average citizens and experts in the community aware of nearby toxic chemicals to analyze how great the chemical risk is and what to do about it. EPCRA provides information about what chemicals are stored, used, and made in your community and what toxic chemicals are being released in your community too. It also helps emergency responders, like police and firefighters, plan for events where there may be life and death decisions based on the information provided by EPCRA.

EPCRA requires the establishment of state and local planning organizations made up of environmental, public health, transportation, and emergency management experts; as well as industry, police and fire departments, elected officials, news media and concerned citizens. Plus facilities must notify to local, state and EPA officials on where and how chemicals are stored and in what quantities, and if there is a chemical accident. Lastly, many facilities must report every year to EPA on releases of close to 600 toxic chemicals. These requirements empower you and your community to make informed decisions to better protect your health and your environment.

Over the last 25 years, I have been proud to continue to work on EPCRA issues and watch it evolve to help raise toxic chemical awareness and improve planning efforts. I believe that EPCRA has made American’s safer from toxic chemical accidents and I look forward to another 25 years of EPCRA.

Learn more about what we have accomplished with EPCRA

About the author: Bill Finan has been working for EPA since 1986 and helped write many of the EPA documents related to EPCRA.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Paul T. Anastas, Ph.D.

A dedicated team of scientists in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program works to assess the hazards that chemicals pose to human health. The assessments they produce, known as IRIS assessments, are not regulations. However, the information they contain is an important basis for regulatory decisions that impact the health of all Americans.

The importance of this hazard information—such as whether or not a chemical is likely carcinogenic—cannot be overstated.
Because some assessments focus on chemicals that are widely used in industry, members of the regulated community, environmental groups, the media, and the public have shown keen interest in the IRIS program. Their interest is legitimate. All Americans should be armed with the best possible scientific information on chemical hazards and feel confident that EPA is striving for continuous improvement.

EPA also solicits feedback on draft IRIS assessments from independent scientific experts. While their feedback has been largely positive, when issues are identified, we act to address them. This is precisely the reason EPA submits draft assessments for independent review. This means the scientific process is working.

This summer, EPA announced a set of improvements to the IRIS program in direct response to recommendations from the National Academies of Science and other independent experts. These changes make IRIS assessments clearer, more concise, and make our methods and scientific assumptions more transparent to readers. We have already begun to phase-in these changes to assessments in the IRIS pipeline.

Of the 50 chemicals currently in the IRIS pipeline, several are exceedingly complex. For example, the IRIS assessment of trichloroethylene (TCE), a widely used industrial solvent, has been under development for more than a decade. The assessment is of high interest because of its potential implications for industry and public health. After extensive independent review, it has been determined that any issues have been adequately addressed.

The TCE IRIS assessment is being released today. It concludes that TCE is carcinogenic to people and poses a human health hazard to the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system, and the developing fetus. This information will be useful to communities, businesses, and government leaders across the country as they make important decisions that impact human health and the environment.

While we know that the goal of perfection is impossible, we will continue to strive for it. We will continue to release IRIS assessments that are scientifically strong. We will continue to pursue the best science with integrity and a mission to protect the health of the American people.

About the author: Paul T. Anastas, Ph.D. is the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development and the science advisor to the Agency.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

By David Sarokin

The theme of this year’s Pollution Prevention Week is P2: The Cornerstone of Sustainability.

Is it? Can P2 really take us to a future we can honestly say is more sustainable?

Becoming sustainable is about much more than just environmental improvement. When I was working on Agenda 21 – the sustainable development action plan that grew out of the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro – we had the habit of talking about sustainability as a three-legged stool: environmental, economic and social progress, simultaneously, without improvements in one area interfering with progress in the others. I find that old image still aptly sums up what sustainability is about.

P2’s contribution to environmental progress is pretty straightforward. Use fewer material and energy resources and substitute safer chemicals and processes, and there’s less pollution, less toxic exposure, less mess across the board.

But P2 is also about — and has always been about — greater efficiency too, which is a boon to economic sustainability. Another phrase I’ve used innumerable times over the years (well…decades!) is pollution prevention pays, a message still worth repeating. Less waste means more material goes into finished products instead of into the air, water and landfills, resulting in lower costs for production, waste management and environmental compliance. Energy efficiency not only reduces greenhouse gases, but saves oodles of money during manufacture as well during the useful life of our cars, computers and other energy-consuming products. Energy Star led to $18 billion in savings last year (and I suspect that’s a conservative estimate). Commercial estimates have pegged the market in green chemistry at close to $100 billion!

Lastly, P2 builds more sustainable communities in ways both obvious and subtle. This, too, was part of our Agenda 21 focus, as we worked to add tools for community engagement into the sustainability toolbox. There are very few P2 programs that operate with a you-have-to-do-this-or-else mentality. Most of the accomplishments of P2 are built from a cooperative framework with government bureaucrats (and I use that word proudly) working with industry managers, workers on the plant floor, community representatives and environmental organizations to identify concerns, set goals, find at-the-source P2 solutions and monitor progress. The results improve local environmental and economic circumstances, to be sure. But pollution prevention also builds community relations (PDF) that didn’t exist previously, in an air of trust that, over time, becomes self-evidently effective.

This is sustainability at its best. Pollution prevention is at its foundation. The cornerstone, if you will.

About the author: David Sarokin is a proud EPA bureaucrat with a l-o-o-o-n-g history of working in pollution prevention and sustainability, beginning with his 1986 book, Cutting Chemical Wastes.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Paul T. Anastas, Ph.D.

It is rigorous, cutting edge science that allows EPA to protect human health and the environment. Every decision and action that EPA takes on behalf of the American people is based upon it. Without science, effective pursuit of the Agency’s mission would be impossible.

Scientific work at EPA takes on many forms—tools, assessments, research, analysis, and monitoring are just a few. All of this work is continuously evolving to ensure we are always using the best science and latest insights. Yesterday, the Agency announced plans to make one of its most widely used science-based tools, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), even stronger.

IRIS provides health profiles of over 500 chemicals and their potential impacts on human health. The system is publicly available and used by state and local governments, environmental specialists, healthcare professionals and international institutions to characterize the potential health effects of contaminant exposure.

In 2009, Administrator Lisa P. Jackson made significant changes to the IRIS process that vastly improved the timeliness of assessments. Since then, we’ve cut the average timeframe for completing assessments down from three plus years to 23 months and significantly reduced the backlog of assessments. In just two years, the staff dedicated to IRIS as well as funding for the program have increased by 25% and 50% respectively.

The changes announced yesterday focus on three areas of the IRIS program: accessibility of science, transparency of scientific rationale, and focused independent review. All new IRIS assessment documents will be shorter, clearer, and include more visuals and concise explanations of the rationale used to develop assessments and weigh scientific evidence. EPA will also publicly post references for all relevant studies and is working to set up a dedicated advisory committee that will focus on the quality, transparency and scientific rigor of IRIS assessments.

It is the responsibility of scientists to constantly seek out new information and insights from independent sources. Evaluating and incorporating these perspectives ensures that we always use the best science to most effectively pursue our mission. In this spirit, many of the new changes respond directly to suggestions from the National Academy of Science, a leading institution for independent scientific review.

The continuous improvement of IRIS reflects the natural evolution that accompanies all rigorous scientific work. Our continued ability to be agile—to evolve and incorporate new scientific insights—will be critical to pursuing our mission and protecting the American people.

About the author: Paul T. Anastas, Ph.D. is the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Paul T. Anastas, Ph.D.

Green Chemistry was introduced into the world 20 years ago by EPA—a blueprint for designing safer chemical products and processes. Today, not only has this powerful concept transformed the field of chemistry, but has also given us the tools to build a sustainable future.

EPA’s scientific leadership has guided the way.

The world’s first green chemistry research solicitation—Alternative Synthetic Pathways for Pollution Prevention—was released by EPA in 1991 and it was just the beginning. Scores of articles, books like Benign by Design, the first-ever research symposium on green chemistry, and numerous partnerships and collaborations emerged from the collection of excellent research in EPA’s fledgling Green Chemistry Program.

The growing body of work suggested that hazard and toxicity do not have to be elements of our products and processes. Instead, they are unintended “design flaws” that can largely be avoided with thoughtful molecular design—a revolutionary concept.

The Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards, started here at EPA in 1995, recognize innovative green chemistry solutions for pollution prevention. At its heart, the program is about demonstrating environmental and economic synergies, belying the myth that a healthy environment and a strong economy are incompatible. On average, winning technologies have eliminated nearly 200 million pounds of hazardous chemicals and solvents, saved 21 billion gallons of water and eliminated 57 million pounds of atmospheric carbon dioxide releases every year.

What began at EPA as a small, singular effort—the only research program of its kind—has grown into a collective endeavor of the worldwide scientific community. There are now green chemistry research networks in more than 30 countries on every settled continent, and at least four international scientific journals devoted to the topic. I am astounded by the brilliance, creativity, and leadership that has cultivated the field and allowed it to flourish.

Twenty years later, I am honored to be back at the Agency that brought green chemistry to life. I am humbled by the field’s progress and incredible scientific advances over the course of two decades and only more deeply humbled by the breakthroughs waiting over the horizon and the scientific discoveries yet to be made as EPA continues to pursue and support innovative work in the field of green chemistry.

About the Author: Widely known as “The Father of Green Chemistry,” Paul T. Anastas, Ph.D. is currently the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development and the Science Advisor to the Agency.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Aaron Ferster

When I was a kid one of my favorite shows was a cartoon about a space-age family that tooled around in a flying, spaceship-like car. Cool. “I hope we have that when I’m a dad,” I thought.

While my mode of transportation is earthbound, some of the show’s futuristic gadgets have actually come to pass: I call home with a pocket-sized phone, video conferencing is here, and many of us spend our workdays surrounded by banks of computer screens—even if we don’t make sprockets.

I recently got another glimpse of our emerging high-tech future when EPA joined its research partners from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program, the National Institute of Health (NIH) Chemical Genomics Center, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and others to unveil a high-speed robot screening system. The robots are set up to test chemicals for their potential to trigger health problems.

The system consists of robot arms that continually move rectangle “plates” through the toxicity testing process. Each plate contains 1536 small wells that can hold a dab of chemical solution and cells (human and non-human animal), and the arm precisely moves each plate though exposure testing and computer analysis. Take a look at this video to see it in action.

The robot system, housed at the National Institutes of Health Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC) in Rockville, Maryland, was purchased as part of the Tox21 collaboration between the EPA, NIEH’s National Toxicology Program, NCGC, and FDA. Tox21 merges existing resources—research, funding and testing tools—to develop ways to more effectively predict how chemicals will affect human health and the environment.

Tox21 partners have already screened more than 2,500 chemicals for potential toxicity using robots and other innovative chemical screening technologies, such as ToxCast. EPA tapped such technologies to test oil dispersants for potential endocrine disrupting activity following the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

The 10,000 chemicals the robot system will screen include those found in industrial and consumer products, food additives, and drugs. Testing results will provide information useful for evaluating if these chemicals have the potential to disrupt human body processes enough to lead to adverse health effects.

While I’m still looking forward to my first flying car, knowing the future should contain fewer potentially harmful chemicals is pretty exciting, too. Especially now that I’m a dad.

About the author: Aaron Ferster is the editor of Science Wednesday and a frequent contributor.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

By Sarah Blau

“We don’t want to make things just a little less bad, we want to move towards a systems perspective….so tomorrow is not as unsustainable as today.”

These are the words of Dr. Paul Anastas, EPA’s assistant administrator for science. I heard Dr. Anastas speak recently at the Society of Toxicology conference in Washington, DC. These words stuck with me.

Dr. Anastas was kicking off a well-attended workshop on Green Chemistry with his presentation on “Molecular Design for Reduced Hazard.” His statement which stuck with me (quoted above) is relevant to much more than just Green Chemistry though. I heard him as basically saying: let’s have some foresight with what we’re doing here, people.

I’m reminded of one of my favorite lines from a movie: “Hindsight – it’s like foresight without a future.” “So true” I remember thinking during the movie, and this is what I thought of Dr. Anastas’ presentation as well.

He explained that a major aspect of Green Chemistry lies in the design of chemicals. Chemicals are all around us, and some of them are harmful—either to us, to the environment, or to both. Dr. Anastas believes in using a “systems perspective” with chemical research. This means looking at the whole picture, from where the chemical comes from, the processes used in its creation, its role for us or for the environment, and its potential effects on us and our environment. Basically, taking a systems perspective means utilizing great foresight to understand and predict the consequences of new chemicals in the early design stage of research.

“Design considerations are a part of green chemistry,” Anastas gave an example, “you are not just making a red dye, but a red dye that does not also cause cancer.”

What a great idea—to detect potential harmful effects as early in the designing stages of new chemicals, new materials, and new products as possible. Hindsight only offers us the opportunity to try to fix a problem. Foresight allows us the opportunity to keep problems from developing. Dr. Anastas delivered an important message about the concept of Green Chemistry, but also an important message about all aspects of research (and life too): let’s have some foresight with what we’re doing here, people.

About the author:  Sarah Blau is a student services contractor working with EPA’s science communication team.

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in Greenversations are those of the author. They do not reflect EPA policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy or science of the contents of the blog.