But loophole could leave product on the market
Oakland Tribune, Douglas Fischer
Published January 25, 2006
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wednesday asked industry to sharply curtail use of a class of compounds crucial for the manufacture of such items as microwave popcorn bags, Teflon-coated cookware and stain-resistant blue jeans amid concerns the chemicals are accumulating in our bodies and could cause cancer.
The chemicals, so-called perfluorinated compounds, particularly one known as "PFOA," would join an extremely short list of compounds banned or subject to voluntary withdrawals in the U.S.
"The science is still coming in. But the concern is there," said Susan Hazen, the EPA's acting assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "So acting now to minimize the release of PFOA is the right thing to do."
Activists cheered the effort as the opening of a "hopeful chapter." But loopholes in the program suggested Wednesday that the EPA's action would not force perfluorinated compounds off the market.
PFOA and its ilk are technically "processing aids" crucial for the manufacture of stain-, stick- and water-repellent materials. Virtually indestructible, they touch every aspect of modern life: the reason baked beans don't leak through paper plates, stains don't mar silk blouses or white carpets, and Gore-Tex coats are waterproof. Car engines, computer chips and cell phones would not be as small and efficient as they are today without PFOA's ability to withstand heat and a harsh environment.
But they also increasingly appear in the bodies of humans and wildlife worldwide, from the equator to the North Pole. Little is known about levels in humans, but industry studies have found a 5 parts-per-billion average in the blood of U.S. residents; last year the Environmental Working Group found perfluorinated compounds in the umbilical cord blood of all 10 babies tested.
The EPA last year labeled PFOA a "probable" carcinogen. Hazen said Wednesday that though levels in humans remain far below what is considered harmful, nobody wanted to wait for it to become a problem.
"There will be no more continued loadings to the environment," she said. "Having that happen now, rather than waiting a number of years, is a very, very positive outcome."
The EPA has asked all eight manufacturers selling PFOA globally to reduce emissions coming from both manufacturing processes and consumer products by 2010 to 5 percent of their 2000 levels. The ultimate goal is to have all PFOA emissions eliminated by 2015.
But while other chemical bans and phase-outs, most recently of a common flame retardant known as PBDEs, have driven the targeted chemical from commerce, this program could leave the use and demand of perfluorinated compounds unchanged, since it addresses only PFOA "emissions" - not production.
One example: DuPont, the nation's sole domestic PFOA manufacturer, said Wednesday it has no replacement for the chemical and that it would continue production as it complies with the EPA's request.
"We have to continue using it," said David Boothe, strategic planning manager for DuPont's fluoroproducts division. "We've been looking for 30 years and have found no acceptable alternative. We're going to focus really hard on the emissions from manufacturing."
DuPont needs PFOA to make one of its most profitable product lines: Teflon. Its North Carolina PFOA plant is state-of-the-art and has cut emissions at least 94 percent. And the company maintains products such as Teflon-coated cookware contain, at most, extremely trace amounts of PFOA as a byproduct.
Indeed, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson acknowledged the program's limitations in a letter to the eight PFOA manufacturers: "The agency also recognizes that technological and cost issues may preclude eliminating PFOA and related chemicals entirely from emissions and products by 2015."
Charles Auer, director of the EPA's office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, said the effort aims to foster competition and innovation to work toward a goal, which, he added, "we recognize is a stretch."
"This is not a ban," he said. "But it nonetheless is very significant."
And that was good enough Wednesday for activists. "There's no denying it's a step forward," said Richard Wiles, vice president for the Environmental Working Group.
"Now we just have to make sure it happens."
This newspaper's special report on our chemical "body burden" can be found on the web at
www.insidebayarea.com/bodyburden.
This article also ran in the following five outlets (if no headline is listed, headline is the same as above):
Inside Bay Area (Calif.)
Alameda Times-Star (Calif.)
Daily Review Online (Calif.)
The Argus (Calif.)
Tri-Valley Herald (Calif.)
