The Right to Know More: A Campaign for the Expanding the Public's Right to Know About Toxic Chemicals in Consumer Products
by Alicia Culver, Senior Research Associate, INFORM, Inc.

INFORM, Inc., 120 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005

Tel: 212-361-2400, ext. 234; Fax: 212-361-2412; culver@informinc.org

 

Introduction

The public is largely kept in the dark about the extent to which toxic chemicals are used by industrial facilities and incorporated into consumer products. Expanding the public's right to know through the adoption of Materials Accounting Data reporting requirements could go a long way in generating vitally important information for emergency response personnel, planners, environmental purchasing officials, pollution prevention program managers, environmentalists and other community leaders.

 

What is Materials Accounting Data? How Does it Go Beyond the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)?

Materials Accounting Data -- which is collected only in New Jersey -- provides a comprehensive inventory of toxic chemical inputs and outputs through industrial facilities. It supplements waste-related information submitted by industrial facilities under the federal Toxics Release Inventory Program, run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TRI collects data on the quantities of nearly 650 toxic chemicals released by these plants (which include major manufacturing and energy-generating/mining facilities) into the air and water, as well as the amounts of waste that are incinerated, recycled, treated, and disposed of on-site and elsewhere.

 

But the TRI does not track what may be the greatest source of hazardous chemicals entering the environment: toxics in consumer products, which can pose exposure risks when these items are manufactured, used, recycled or disposed of in incinerators or landfills. For example, new evidence has found that landfills, where fluorescent lamps, thermometers, batteries and other mercury-containing devices have been buried, are emitting methylmercury, a potent "neurotoxin", into landfill gas and runoff. In addition, secondary iron and steel smelters, which recycle wrecked vehicles and obsolete appliances, have been identified as another major source of mercury emissions.

 

How is Materials Accounting Data Being Used or How Can It be Used?

Materials Accounting Data can fill the gap left by the TRI, by enabling the public to learn:

·        How much of each toxic chemical was used by a facility during the previous year;

·        How much was transported into the facility as feedstock; and

·        How much was shipped out of the facility in products.

 

Using New Jersey's Materials Accounting Data, INFORM conducted research in 1999 which found that more than 90 percent of the toxic materials leaving the state's industrial facilities are going into products, while only about 10 percent leaves as waste. In 2001, INFORM determined that more than 95 percent of the persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs) leaving industrial facilities from New Jersey and Massachusetts (the only other state that tracks toxic chemicals shipped in products but does not collect complete Materials Accounting Data) were going into consumer and industrial products. To demonstrate the added value of materials accounting data, INFORM recently published a report, Expanding the Public's Right to Know (see http://www.informinc.org/envirojust.htm), that compares information reported by specific facilities available under New Jersey's program with their TRI data. For example, it examines a New Jersey-based vinyl producer's use of DEHP, a probable human carcinogen and reproductive toxin widely used to make plastic resins more pliable. According to the TRI, this plant generated about 2,700 pounds of DEHP waste in 1996, while Materials Accounting Data for this facility revealed that it shipped out more than 25 million pounds of DEHP in its vinyl product that year.  INFORM determined that more than one-third of the 75 million pounds of PVC resin made by this company in 1996 consisted of DEHP, which can readily leach from vinyl products such as medical equipment, toys, flooring and packaging.

 

Clearly, the two toxic chemical tracking systems tell starkly different stories about the DEHP used by this plant. New Jersey's and Massachusetts' expanded right to know programs enable community leaders, policy-makers and others to determine the quantity of toxic chemicals being used by industrial facilities so they can identify potential threats to public health and the environment. They can then dialog -- or enter into "Good Neighbor Agreements" with facility managers about the steps these companies are taking to reduce or eliminate opportunities for exposure.

 

The Big Picture: How Materials Accounting Data Fits into the Overall Context of RTK

Research on toxic chemicals shipped in consumer products based on Materials Accounting Data is important in light of the fact that EPA's toxic chemical tracking system and pollution prevention program is focused almost exclusively on the 5-10% of toxic chemicals that are going into industrial wastes. Meanwhile, the other 90-95% of toxic chemicals are virtually ignored largely because it is not being tracked in the other 48 states.

 

When industrial facilities first began reporting to the TRI in 1987, having data on their toxic emissions available to the public gave them a powerful incentive to reduce these releases. Over the years, the TRI has become the primary indicator of environmental performance at many of the nation's largest manufacturing plans. An expanded chemical reporting system similar to those in New Jersey and Massachusetts -- that tracks the quantitiesof toxic substances used and "shipped in product" -- would yield additional pollution prevention benefits. Communities that adopt such a program can use the data to encourage firms to reduce their overall use of toxic chemicals and find safer substitutes to potentially harmful substances contained in their products.

 

The Materials Accounting Data program does have limitations:

·        First, it suffers from the same threshold issues that limits the TRI (since it tracks the same chemicals at nearly the same thresholds that have been established under TRI).

·        Second, it does not always indicate exactly which chemicals are going into which product. Thus, if a facility manufactures several different products, it may be impossible to determine the extent to which each toxic chemical is going into a specific product. In other words, the data on toxics in products is often aggregated at the facility level.

·        New Jersey's data is not currently available on the Internet (although INFORM is helping the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to do that).

 

How Can Materials Accounting Data Be Useful As a Tool for Expanding Constituencies, for Advancing Corporate Campaigns or For Supporting Other Advocacy Activities Such as Negotiation with Facilities, "Good Neighbor" Agreements, etc.)

 

Materials Accounting Data can be useful for expanding constituencies for corporate campaigns and other advocacy activities because it gives activists more complete information about the overall use of toxic chemicals by industrial facilities, including the quantities being transported to the facility as feedstock and out in products. Toxic chemicals used by facilities is a much better indicator of overall risks than releases or wastes. This information is also useful to activists that are working to promote environmentally preferable purchasing of products by helping them to determine the use of toxic chemicals by product manufacturers. Since New Jersey also requires facilities to report the type of product that each chemical is shipped in, it can help pinpoint specific types of products (such as paints, cleaning supplies and batteries) that contain toxic chemicals.

 

Three other important audiences for Materials Accounting Data include:

·        Emergency response personnel such as firefighters who can use this information to determine the full extent of toxic chemical use at a facility (as well as transportation of toxic chemicals to and from a facility).

·        Procurement officials, who can use this data to determine which manufacturing facilities are incorporating toxic chemicals into products they may be interested in buying.

·        Pollution prevention managers, who can better track the extent to which companies have reduced or eliminated overall toxic chemical use in addition to releases.

·        Policy-makers and planners, who can get a better overall picture of toxic chemical use to establish future environmental priorities.

 

What are other methods by which activists and progressive policy-makers can gain information about toxic chemicals in consumer products:

 

1)      Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires manufacturers to list ingredients that are on the EPA's TRI list in levels above "de minimis" concentrations and to make this information available to the public. OSHA also mandates that the manufacturer list any other ingredient known to be hazardous, but how that is defined is left up to the manufacturer. Many companies post the MSDS for their product on the Internet, although that is not required.

 

2)      Product Labeling Laws: Perhaps the most effective product labeling law is Prop 65, which requires manufacturers to provide consumers with a "clear and reasonable warning" about the presence of  "all chemicals that are known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm" and has a "Citizen Suit" provision to enforce it. Companies found guilty of failing to label must pay attorneys fees and restitution. Often, companies settle out of court and agree to reformulate their products in order to eliminate toxic ingredients. (See http://www.calepa.ca.gov/publications/factsheets/1997/prop65fs.htm.)

Vermont has enacted a Mercury Education and Reduction Law (see http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ead/mercury/Labeling/statutes.htm) requiring manufacturers that sell products in the state to disclose the presence of mercury and inform consumers of proper disposal options. The State of Vermont has established a database of mercury-containing products based on the manufacturer reports.

 

Some states and the federal government have enacted labeling requirements for specific products that contain toxic chemicals. For example, under the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, batteries with cadmium or lead sold in the United States must be labeled and easily removable from products to facilitate recycling (while mercury-containing batteries are banned from sale; see http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/battery.txt). While this information may be useful to consumers, alone, it has not resulted in a significant increase in battery recycling. In fact, product labeling is often viewed as a weaker alternative to restricting the sale of products containing hazardous chemicals altogether. Europe, in contrast, is in the process of banning the sale of all electrical equipment including batteries containing cadmium and other hazardous materials under a new Reduction of Hazardous Substances Directive (see http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/00347_en.htm) and requiring manufacturers to take responsibility for recycling all battery-containing equipment under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive.

 

3)      Procurement Requirements: Some states require disclosure of toxic constituents in products that are sold to government entities under individual procurement contracts. For example, with INFORM's technical support, the Minnesota Department of Administration recently required vehicle vendors to report the presence of mercury in their vehicles (in addition to prohibiting the sale of vehicles with certain mercury-containing components such as convenience light switches and HID headlamps). Their most recent vehicle bid specified that:

 

Because of hazards posed to the environment, it is the intent of the State of Minnesota to phase out the purchase of vehicles manufactured with any components containing mercury. It is the intent of the State of Minnesota, in the solicitation next year, to require that vehicles be free of headlamps containing mercury and convenience lighting switches containing mercury. It is also the intent of the State of Minnesota, within the next three years, to require all vehicles to be free of mercury.

 

Complete and accurate data regarding all components containing mercury is required in all responses to this solicitation. Failure to supply the required information may result in the rejection of your response.

 

Although disclosures regarding the use of mercury will not impact the award of contracts this year, agencies purchasing vehicles will be encouraged to consider this environmental issue when making choices among available contract options. The State's largest single purchaser of vehicles, the Travel Management Division within the Minnesota Department of Administration, will consider mercury content, as well as price and other factors when selecting vehicles.

 

4)      Eco-labeling Organizations

·        Green Seal is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization "dedicated to protecting the environment by promoting the manufacture and sale of environmentally responsible consumer products. It sets environmental standards and awards a 'Green Seal of Approval' to products that cause less harm to the environment than other similar products." Its standards for products such as paints and janitorial cleaners establish maximum toxic chemical content levels, among other environmental criteria. Green Seal certifies products that meet its standards and provides information to the public through its website at http://www.greenseal.org.

 

·        Other countries have government-based eco-labeling programs such as Canada's Terra Choice (see http://www.terrachoice.ca/), the Nordic Swan and Germany's Blue Angel and the European Union Flower. It is important to note that these programs are voluntary. As a result, while consumers can gain access to information about products that benefit the environment, they generally still lack data on products that are damaging the environment. For more information on eco-labeling, see http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/environmental-labeling/report.html.

 

·        TCO Certification. TCO, a Swedish based eco-labeling program has established environmental criteria for computer equipment based on stringent, yet state-of-the-art, standards. For example, it has certified over 1,400 PCs and monitors devoid of chlorinated solvents and freons, mercury and cadmium, and brominated flame retardants (in monitors only). For more information on TCO, see http://www.tco-info.com.

 

·        Verification labels. Many companies make environmental claims about their products, but not all are scientifically verified. Several organizations in the United States, most notably Scientific Certification Systems, test products at the request of manufacturers to verify claims about specific environmental attributes, including the presence or absence of toxic or ozone-depleting chemicals. For more information, see http://www.scs1.com/.

 

INFORM has established a Purchasing for Pollution Prevention webpage which lists products that contain persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs) such as lead, mercury and dioxin as well as safer substitutes that are available at a reasonable price and meet government specifications (see http://www.informinc.org/PBT.htm.)

Send comments on this paper to Alicia Culver

For More information, see Expanding the Public's Right to Know: Materials Accounting Data as a Tool for Promoting Environmental Justice and Pollution Prevention (2000) and Tracking Toxic Chemicals: The Value of Materials Accounting Data (1997) on INFORM's website at http://www.informinc.org