Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0392.139 2014-2016Murashige, Laura P/E?A Co eeo-E6s a CQLA C11[P1 % CLERK From: Edward Rau <vector777@me.com> Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2015 7:17 PM 2015 AUG { 0 AM I0. 38 To: Council Testimony Subject: Testimony in Opposition to Bill 71 Attachments: Comments on Bill 71.docx; ATT00001.htm Aloha Chairman Onishi and Members of the Committee on Environmental Management: I am a resident of Discovery Harbour, Naalehu, Hawaii and present this testimony in opposition to Bill 71 that would amend Chapter 14, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended) by adding a new article to decrease public exposure to toxic herbicides. My background includes 46 years of experience with management of hazardous substances and 41 years in environmental health practice. I have multiple related degrees, am licensed as an Environmental Health Specialist in Maryland, a Registered Hazardous Substance Professional and served for over 30 years as a Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Public Health Service. In my last position at the National Institutes of Health I created and developed the Substances of Concern Reduction Initiative, the first federal effort to identify toxic and environmentally damaging chemicals in products and promote purchasing of safer, more sustainable alternatives. The initiative received the President's 2014 GreenGov Award for Sustainability Innovation https://www.whitehouse.gov/ rg eengov/presidential-awards. In 2013 I retired from Federal Service and now own a small business in the Naalehu area engaged in research and development of plant cultivars for new crops and sustainable organic production. Our planet and this island face numerous and growing threats to environmental health. We have limited public funds, time and energy to counter these so' it is more important than ever to use the tools of science to carefully identify risks, prioritize and develop control strategies. Bill 71, like its predecessor legislation on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), is a poorly written bill, not science based and provides no evidence to support its overreaching findings. Rather it builds on and exaggerates the public's perceived risks and then mandates bans and costly, unproven alternatives to reduce them. It also diverts public resources and attention away from more pressing environmental health and sustainability issues. My specific comments on Bill 71 are listed on the attachment and I believe these provide ample justification to reject it. I would also urge the Council to bring in a team of independent subject matter experts to investigate public concerns about herbicide exposures, evaluate alternative weed control measures and then make recommendations for additional legislation if it is needed. I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments. Please contact me if you have questions concerning them. qx 1-M Sincerely, Cal Mo' Ref. Toa Rot Date .AU61$ Edward H. Rau, MS, LEHS, RHSP Captain, U.S. Public Health Service, Retired P.O. Box 350 Naalehu, HI 96772 'I FINDINGS ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED. Section 1 of the Bill titled "Findings" states "The use of toxic herbicides in public places, such as in parks and along roadways and sidewalks, subjects unknowing persons and other species to a high risk of exposure to dangerous chemicals" Presuming the County applies herbicide products in compliance with label instructions no such exposures should ever occur. If they did the products would not meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety requirements for registration and use in the United States. What is the basis of these extreme findings? No references to any studies, exposure monitoring, peer reviewed scientific literature etc. are provided to substantiate them. Without this supporting documentation the County may be unable to defend itself against costly liability litigation filed by herbicide manufacturers and other parties injured by these findings, and the entire ordinance could be overturned by the courts. "'ECO -FRIENDLY" IS NOT DEFILED. It is a subjective term used Section I (Findings) and Section 14- (Definitions). It has no definition in the Bill or regulatory parlance, and no rating criteria for comparative "eco -friendliness" are presented. In Section I "toxic herbicides" are those not deemed to be "eco -friendly". Who is charged with determining what herbicides are "deemed" "eco -friendly" or not under the ordinance and what rating criteria will be used? CHEMICAL TERMS FOR LISTED "TOXIC HERBICIDES" INCOMPLETE, INCORRECT OR UNCLEAR. Section 14-_ titled "Definitions" of the Bill defines "toxic herbicides" as those "not deemed to be eco -friendly," including but not limited to those containing certain listed chemicals. Some of the listed items are incomplete, not herbicides or compounds not likely to be found in herbicides. Chemical terms must be used correctly, and compounds should be listed with their Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number (CAS) to avoid confusion with similarly named compounds and synonyms. Examples of chemical terminology problems in Bill 71: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic. This is a chemical name fragment. It was probably intended to be 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid but it is also part of the name of other related compounds. Dioxin. Dioxin is not an herbicide or herbicide ingredient. This term can be used to refer to a diverse range of compounds with dioxin -like toxicity, or more commonly a specific dioxin 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodib enzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), which is the most toxic dioxin compound. This needs to be clarified. TCDD was never commercially manufactured or added as an herbicide ingredient; it was a manufacturing contaminant in the herbicide 2,4,5- 2 Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (also known as 2,4,5-T), a component of the infamous "Agent Orange" used in the Vietnam War. Use of 2,4,5-T as an herbicide on all food crops except rice was halted by the USDA in 1970, and all remaining uses were banned by the EPA in 1985 - some 30 years ago. TCDD is not present in domestically produced herbicides and human exposure to dioxins from herbicides in use now is certainly negligible by comparison with exposures to dioxins released from numerous combustion processes. It is unclear why this proposed ordinance lists dioxin. It implies that it is present in the herbicides in use now and poses a threat. Bipyridinium. This is another chemical name fragment and that refers to an ion. It is not an herbicide and bipyridinium ions may not be present in herbicides. The intent here may have been to refer to the bipyridinium group of herbicides that includes Paraquat. Regardless, it is inappropriate to refer to chemical groups for the purposes of this ordinance as some groups contain many different herbicides that present significantly different risk profiles. Diphenyl Ether (DPE) is not an herbicide. It is a chemical primarily used as a heat transfer medium and as a fragrance additive in soaps to impart a. geranium -like scent. The intent here may have been to refer to the Diphenyl Ether group of herbicides that contain a DPE like chemical structure. They may not actually contain DPE. Again, it this is an inappropriate use of grouping names. Tyrosine Breakdown Products are not herbicides or ingredients in herbicides. Tyrosine is an amino acid used by cells to build proteins and has some medical applications for reduction of stress and treatment of insomnia. Its "breakdown products" could presumably be released from natural processes such as the digestion or metabolism of proteins and tyrosine. The flawed reference here may have been intended to refer to herbicides such as glyphosate that work by interfering with tyrosine synthesis in plants. CONTROL MEASURES ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL. The "Findings" also state that there "is more and evidence that cumulative exposure to toxic herbicides, such as those containing glyphosate, (emphasis added) is harmful to people as well as to land and water ecosystems." From this it is assumed that the intent of the bill is to prevent these exposures. Control measures in the Bill attempt to do this by prohibiting the use of "Toxic herbicides" that are defined later in the document by pesticide label information and signal words. Herbicides with only a signal label [sic] of "caution" are excluded from the definition of "Toxic herbicides." There are multiple problems with this approach and the wording of the Bill: 3 1. The usage of "signal words" or "signal labels" is inconsistent, incorrect and sometimes conflicting. Signal words like "CAUTION" are defined by the EPA regulations and must be placed in bold print on the face labels of pesticide containers. 2. These signal words are based on acute, short term toxicity testing only, not on cumulative exposure or environmental hazards and in many cases they are of little or no value as descriptors of long-term risks, which the bill is attempting to address. 3. The terms "toxic to fish," or "toxic to fish and wildlife" are not signal words. 4. EPA regulates pesticide labeling and does not use the term "signal labels." 5. The word "CAUTION" is applied to products that present the lowest level of risk requiring any use of signal words on the label. Products that present even lower risk or no risk are not required to have signal words but such very low risk products would not be exempted under this bill if the label contained other listed words like "toxic to fish". These problems may render the control provisions in this bill inoperative as they present conflicting directives. For example, the label on a bottle of Roundup® Weed and Grass Killer distributed by Monsanto indicates that it contains glyphosate as a single active ingredient (Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt 50.2%). The label does not use the words "dangerous," "toxic to fish," or "toxic to fish and wildlife," and the signal word on the face of the label is CAUTION. Another example is atrazine that also displays the signal word "CAUTION" on its label. Under the control provisions of Bill# 71 (Section 14-_ titled "Definitions") these two herbicides would be excluded from the definition of "toxic herbicides" and could continue to be used in public places. Yet the same section of the proposed ordinance specifically includes glyphosate and atrazine in the definition of "toxic herbicides" that the bill intends to ban. RISKS POSED BY ALTERNATIVES HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. Alternatives proposed for the use of toxic substances, in this case herbicides used on non-food crops, should be subjected to an objective assessment to identify risks posed by the alternative for comparison with those of the substance in question. Failure to conduct risk -risk assessment may result in'the adoption of alternatives that exacerbate risks and may have unintended adverse consequences. An example from the Bill is the proposed banning of glyphosate based herbicides and directives to use manual weed removal methods as an alternative. This alternative would likely include use of mowers and trimmers with gasoline powered engines. ALTERNATIVES MY INCREASE RISKS - EXAMPLE. One risk associated with glyphosate is its potential to cause cancer in exposed individuals. Recently, the World Health Organization's International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans" (Category 2A). Other major research organizations have disputed this classification but I will use it here 4 for illustration. In Category 2A, IARC lists other activities with similar levels of cancer risk. These include working night shifts or as a barber or hairdresser, and exposure to emissions from high temperature frying of food. Coffee, our primary agricultural crop, is listed as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in the same group, Category 2B. Workers engaged in manual weed removal operations would likely have significant unprotected exposure to sunlight, wood dust from sawing operations, gasoline vapors containing benzene, and air emissions from small engines, which emit significant levels of particulates and other toxic air pollutants. Sunlight, benzene, wood dust and particulate matter in outdoor air pollution are all classified by IARC in Category 1, the highest cancer risk category, reserved for exposures known to be carcinogenic to humans. Using these IARC criteria, the cancer risks posed to unprotected workers and the environment from manual weed removal operations are significantly higher than those posed to workers in protective personal protective equipment applying glyphosate in accordance with EPA health and safety regulations. ALTERNATIVES IMPRACTICAL AND NOT AVIALABLE AT THE REQURED SCALE. Among the unsubstantiated "findings" reported in Section I is the statement that alternative ways of managing weeds are available, including "manual removal, planting of cover plants that beautify public ways and roadsides and other more eco -friendly spray applications." No references are provided to confirm the availability, feasibility or assessment of risks posed by any of these alternatives, particularly on a scale necessary for countywide application. Briefly, here are some of the problems associated with these "available alternatives": Manual Removal of weeds from the approximately 1000 miles of roadway is simply not feasible given the current constraints of manpower and budget. It would require huge expenditures for hiring of a large number of workers, purchasing and maintenance of vehicles and equipment, and disposal of the weeds removed. Risks associated with this potentially dangerous work would include but not be limited to conflicts with traffic, projectiles from moving and cutting operations, fires and accidents. Weed mowing and removal equipment would likely use fossil fuels, be noisy and emit significant amounts of toxic air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Planting of Cover Plants. This is idealistic but may be impractical over most of the public areas to be maintained. It would require selection, growing, planting and maintaining an array of non-invasive plant species that can effectively compete with fast growing, invasive weeds; are adapted to the many microclimates and soil types found over the island; do not require irrigation; and are compatible with the operational requirements of roadways, bikeways, sidewalks and waterways. While it may be desirable to try this in limited areas and conduct the research necessary to develop such cover plants they are not currently available as an option for most areas. 5 Like the manual removal option planting and maintaining these cover plants would also require large amounts of labor and materials that are not available. More Eco -Friendly Spray Applications. Implementing this would require comparison of the "eco -friendliness" of herbicides currently in use with others. No herbicides are totally benign. "Eco -friendliness" has not been defined, it lacks measurement criteria and the proposed ordinance does not indicate who will rate the herbicides for this. Only EPA registered herbicides can be used and it is doubtful that other herbicides with a better profile of effectiveness, cost and risk avoidance are available. If so they would already be in wide use.