Difference between revisions of "Team:UC Davis/Practices"
Amichelmore (Talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 479: | Line 479: | ||
<b>Sources:</b><br> | <b>Sources:</b><br> | ||
− | + | <a href="http://jmvh.org/article/ddt-and-silent-spring-fifty-years-after/"> [1]</a> Berry-Caban, Cristobal S. "DDT and Silent Spring: Fifty Years after." JMVH. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015.<br> | |
+ | <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/ddt-regulatory-history-brief-survey-1975"> [2]</a> "EPA." DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (to 1975). N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015.<br> | ||
+ | <a href="http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/projects/pge/index.shtml"> [3]</a> "PG&E Hinkley Chromium Cleanup." Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015.<br> | ||
+ | <a href="http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Organic_Chemistry/Organic_Chemistry_With_a_Biological_Emphasis/Chapter_04%3A_Structure_Determination_I/Section_4.3%3A_Ultraviolet_and_visible_spectroscopy"> [4]</a> Soderberg, Tim. "Ultraviolet and Visible Spectroscopy." UC Davis Chem Wiki. N.p., n.d. Web.<br> | ||
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
Line 488: | Line 491: | ||
<b>Sources:</b><br> | <b>Sources:</b><br> | ||
− | http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/projects/pge/index.shtml | + | <a href="http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/projects/pge/index.shtml"> [1]</a> "PG&E Hinkley Chromium Cleanup." <i>Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board</i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. |
<br><br> | <br><br> | ||
Revision as of 21:03, 18 September 2015
|
In the United States, the primary legislative framework regarding chemical use is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was passed into law in 1976. The two main objectives of the law are to:
This law, though good intentioned, is widely recognized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, etc. as ineffective at allowing regulatory agencies to assess hazardous traits of a majority of commercial chemicals and to control chemicals of significant concern. Wilson et al identified two major flaws with TCSA as follows:
This “Catch 22” situation has severely restricted the EPA’s jurisdiction. “In the first 15 years under TSCA, the agency was able to review the risks of about 1,200 (2%) of the 62,000 existing chemicals, despite the fact that the agency estimated that about 16,000 (26%) were potentially of concern based on their production volume and chemical properties” [3] Many agencies are pushing for a reform of this law and in response, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act and the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015 have been drafted, but policy makers remain largely divided on the best way to reform TSCA. As a result, these acts have been stalled in Congress. Let’s be clear, however, that valiant efforts are being made domestically and abroad to address the issue of chemical regulation.
Sources: [1] "EPA." Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. EPA, 9 Mar. 2015. Web. [2] Stephenson, John B. "Chemical Regulation: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of EPA's Chemical Review Program." U.S. GAO -. GAO, 2 Aug. 2006. Web. [3] Wilson, Michael P., and Megan R. Schwarzman. "Toward a New U.S. Chemicals Policy: Rebuilding the Foundation to Advance New Science, Green Chemistry, and Environmental Health."Microform & Digitization Review 41.1 (2012): n. pag. Aug. 2009. Web. [4] Mergel, Maria. "Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)." - Toxipedia. N.p., 23 Mar. 2011. Web. [5] "Toxicology Testing in the 21st Century (Tox21)." EPA. EPA, n.d. Web. [6] "REACH - Chemicals - Environment - European Commission." European Commission. N.p., 09 Aug. 2015. Web. Policy change through government is often slow due to bureaucratic red tape, however government is not the only player in a chemicals life cycle. To better understand our problem space, we talked to experts about triclosan specifically, but what we learned shed light on the complexities of the issue of chemical regulation in general, as well as the need for a thoughtful, nuanced approach. |
Because triclosan is predominantly found in consumer products, it makes its way into the environment mainly through waste-water effluent. Since waste water treatment plants are the primary interface between chemicals and the environment, we started exploring our problem space by better understanding how triclosan, and other chemicals, are regulated and monitored at the waste-water treatment plant level.
We talked to Michael Fan, Senior Environmental Engineer at the waste-water management facility on campus, who has been operating the facility for the past 25 years.
He told us that campus waste water effluent is monitored in two main ways: [1] "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - Wastewater." State Water Resources Control Board. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2015.
|
Our conversations with Bruce Hammock, a National Academy Member for his work in environmental toxicology, highlighted the need to approach the issue of chemical regulation responsibly.
|
From talking to experts, we concluded that its hard to track and monitor the spread of chemicals because chemicals are found in a range of products and make their way into the environment through a variety of routes. In the environment, chemicals interact with one another – oftentimes synergistically. Aquatic organisms are particularly at risk because of their chronic exposure to toxic chemicals. To more effectively manage risks experts are pursuing the following measures:
And have expressed the need for:
From these conversations, we gathered that there are many “pressure points” for change regarding chemical use. To better understand what levers have been effectively pushed in the past to instigate change, we researched landmark chemical regulation cases. |
1. DDT When DDT first came out in the 1940s it was touted as a wonder-chemical: a safe and effective way to get rid of annoying bugs! As early as 1945, scientists began to uncover DDTs harmful effects on the environment and human health. But it wasn’t until 1962, when Rachel Carson authored her seminal work, that DDTs harmful effects were brought into the public eye. Much of the data that Carson drew from wasn’t new, but what Carson's work did was raise enough public awareness to pressure government to take legislative action. In 1972, a ban was placed on its agricultural use in the US as well as its export. Sources: [1] Berry-Caban, Cristobal S. "DDT and Silent Spring: Fifty Years after." JMVH. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. [2] "EPA." DDT Regulatory History: A Brief Survey (to 1975). N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. [3] "PG&E Hinkley Chromium Cleanup." Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. [4] Soderberg, Tim. "Ultraviolet and Visible Spectroscopy." UC Davis Chem Wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 2. The PG&E Hinkley Chromium Cleanup (Erin Brokovich) Between the years 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium (chromium 6) to prevent corrosion in the cooling towers of their compressor station located in the Mojave Desert. Some of this waste-water made its way into nearby bodies of water, including the town of Hinkley, leading to severe contamination of the water with carcinogenic hexavalent chromium. In a study conducted by PG&E, average hexavalent chromium levels in Hinkely were recorded as ranging from an average of 1.19 parts-per-billion (ppb) to a high of 20 ppb. The proposed California health goal for hexavalent chromium, as of 2011, as defined by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is .02 ppb. [1] Citizen scientist/environmentalist Erin Brokovich was instrumental in calling legal attention to this issue. Sources: [1] "PG&E Hinkley Chromium Cleanup." Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. The DDT and Chromium 6 case studies demonstrated how citizen scientists, with sound data, were instrumental in bringing chemical use issues into the public realm and pushing for legislative action; and from talking to experts, we identified that raising awareness about appropriate chemical use can have a real impact. From these case studies and our conversations with experts, we identified civic engagement as an effective catalyst for change. Our next task was figuring out an effective way to go about raising public awareness, so we studied previous civic engagement initiatives and identified factors that made these initiatives effective. ↥
|
Code for America’s “Adopt a Fire Hydrant” initiative highlights the role technology can play in forging a beneficial relationship between citizens and government, and effectively uses gamification to motivate user behavior. [1] Pahlka, Jennifer. "Coding a Better Government." Code for America. N.p., Feb. 2012. Web. [2] "About | Code for America." TED. N.p., n.d. Web. [3] Ober, Erik Michaels. "Adopt-a-Hydrant | Code for America." Code for America. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. |
What could work better:
Calculate your carbon footprint apps, while good intentioned, could be more effective. This carbon footprint app case study highlighted the misconception that if people know what their carbon footprint is, they will be motivated to make lifestyle changes. It also further emphasized the need for us to think critically about how our proposed solution could actually inspire change. [1] "Why You've Never Measured Your Carbon Footprint." GreenBiz. N.p., 18 Feb. 2014. Web. ↥
|