EPP in San Francisco: Building

Transcription

1 EPP in San Francisco: Building Sandwiches Breaking Down Barriers Debbie Raphael Toxics Reduction Program Manager (415)

2 The Sandwich Approach to Green Purchasing Buy-In From the Top Technical Purchasing Specifications Educated End-Users Participation of Stakeholders

3 San Francisco s Pest Management Sandwich Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Ordinance DOE, Depart. IPM Coord. and Safety Officers, Contractors Trained gardeners, maintenance and facilities staff, nurses, carpenters, occupants

4 San Francisco s Clean Air Vehicle Sandwich Healthy Air and Smog Ordinance Clean Air Program in DOE and Purchasing Central Shops

5 San Francisco s Arsenic Treated Wood Sandwich Arsenic Treated Wood Ordinance DOE - technical specs, education Purchasing - contracts Carpenters: Port, Rec/Park, Public Works; Dept. of Building Inspection

6 Other Sandwiches Under Construction: 100% Recycled Content/PCF Paper Custodial Products Building Maintenance Products Paint Low mercury fluorescent lights Energy efficient machines/lighting

7 Getting to the meat of the Developing Criteria sandwich: Science based Transparent and participatory process Objective thresholds Evaluating Products Testing for Efficacy Crafting purchasing language/process Creating Approved Lists

8 Approved Lists: Simple List of vendors supplying 30% post consumer recycled content paper Complex Pesticides used within an Integrated Pest Management Program Pressure Treated Wood

9 Criteria for Pesticides HAZARD + EXPOSURE = RISK Human Health Acute Chronic Environmental Bio- accumulation Half-life life Ground water contaminant Non-Target Effects Wildlife Bees Fish Degree of Application Broadcast Spot Treatment Mode of Application Liquid Spray Granules Solid or gel baits Location Hillside Aquatic Turf areas Hard surfaces Indoor Other Factors in Decision Making Process: - Availability of alternatives -Cost - Community concern

10 Pesticide Type A=aquatic F=fungicide I= insecticide H=herbicide S=slug V=vertebrate Use Category A = allow ed L= limited L* = special concern Hazard Tier (defined by Dr. Philip Dickey, WA Toxics Coaliton) Product Name Active Ingredients EPA Reg # Use Limitations F L ** 3336 GC thiophanate-methyl Greens, highest profile athletic fields F L ** 3336 WP phenylenebis-thioallophanate Greens, nursery, roses Advance Dual Choice Ant I A *** Bait sulfuramid AA-499 I L ** Agnique MMF surface film isooctadecyl-hydroxyl Standing water, human health concerns. I L * Altosid Briquets methoprene PUC for contained sewage treatment facilities F L AQ 10 Biofungicide Ampelomyces Nurseries, roses, dahlias for powdery mildew. More information is needed an active ingredient. A A *** Aquashade acid yellow-23,acid blue AA I A ** Avert Cockroach Bait Station abamectin AA-499 I A ** Avert Gel abamectin AA I A ** Avert Pressurized Cockrch Bt abamectin I L ** Avid avermectin AA-618 Nursery use only. I L ** Azatin XL Azadirachtin Nurseries and established plants for interiorscapes. H A *** Bio-Weed corn gluten meal I L ** Borid boric acid ZA-9444 limit human exposure to dust I L *** BotaniGard ES Beauveria bassiana strain Control of thrips on landscaped plants. Biological product but some concern over bee toxicity. F L* * Champ Formula copper hydroxide One year limit, Conservatory I A *** Cinnamite Cinnamaldehyde ZA-65626

11 Arsenic Treated Wood Ordinance Bans purchases of pressure treated wood containing arsenic Calls on Dept. of Environment to develop a list of alternatives Sets up an exemption for submerged saltwater aquatic structures Requires plan for sealing, replacement, and posting of existing structures containing arsenic

12 Criteria for Wood Preservatives: Must follow American Wood Preserver Association standards NO: EPA prohibited/discouraged uses NO: Violation of state or local law, policy, BMP NO: Release or creation of dioxins NO: EPA Priority PBT list or Waste Minimization Priority Chemicals list NO: Known, likely or probable carcinogen NO: Reproductive or developmental toxicant NO: Designation as CA Hazardous Waste Minimize copper around surface water

13 Who's doing green purchasing? Federal: States: Counties: Cities: EPA, National Park Service, Post Office Massachusetts, Minnesota, California (?) San Francisco, King (WA) Santa Monica, Palo Alto, Seattle

14 Greatest Barriers to Green Purchasing: Political will at the top Inertia to change at the bottom Burden of Criteria Development and Product Evaluation

15 Need for Coordinated Efforts at the State Level: Efficiency for Agencies Credibility to Upper Management/Industry Consistency for manufacturers Power to Drive the Market Place

16 The Core Question in Green Purchasing and Pollution Prevention: Is it legal? Is it safe? Instead: Is it necessary?