2002 Symposium: Past, Present & Future of Toxic Substances in the Environment

by Mika Pringle Tolson

Arthur Winer welcomes the 175 students, faculty, staff, TSR&TP committee members, and public attendees to the 15th Annual Symposium in Long Beach.

Associate Director Arthur Winer kicked off the 15th Annual Research Symposium Friday evening with a brief talk on TSR&TP's past, present, and future. He said he remembers very clearly a pivotal event in December of 1984 - the Union Carbide disaster in India in which many people unnecessarily died and were injured as a result of a toxic chemical spill. In the aftermath, toxics in the environment were very much at the forefront for political leaders in California. The TSR&TP began as a mandate from the California State Legislature to the University of California in 1985 to develop a program to focus research on toxic substances in the environment. As a result, the UC Office of the President brought together UC faculty and administrators to create a toxics working group that soon evolved into the TSR&TP we know today. The TSR&TP consists of lead campus programs as centers of excellence in focused areas, as well as an investigator-initiated grants program to fund cutting edge research. Winer said the success of the program is derived from the nature of the leadership - director, associate directors, and executive and advisory committees, the structure of the program - lead campuses and open yearly grant competitions, and the quality of the faculty and students in the program. He praised Jerry Last's leadership for keeping the program viable and dynamic for almost 17 years. But, he added, the program would not be a success without the excellent students and faculty involved. He encouraged everyone to continue their research in this area that is so important to California.

Connection Between TSR&TP & the State

"State government looks to the University of California for its research needs," began Bill Vance, TSR&TP's Advisory Committee representative from Cal EPA and featured speaker for Friday evening. He emphasized the connection between the TSR&TP and service to the State of California on the issues of MTBE and chromium 6. "The TSR&TP has been of great service to the State," he continued, "in helping us make better environmental and policy decisions based on sound science and good advice."

In 1998, the state sought the help of UC scientists with the MTBE issue after it was discovered contaminating several drinking water wells. A state legislature bill charged UC with determining the cost and benefits of MTBE, and that task was passed down to the TSR&TP which organized an interdisciplinary research group to perform the studies in record time. In November of 1998, the TSR&TP delivered the final report to Governor Wilson, indicating that there were no significant air quality benefits to MTBE as an oxygenate in gasoline, and that there were significant environmental impacts on water. As a result, Governor Davis made a certification in December of 1999 that MTBE posed a threat to the environment and called for a ban by 2002. Said Vance, "That certification was a solid endorsement of the UC report and outcome of the hearings."

Chrome 6 was brought to the public's attention in 2000 by the Department of Health Services and the movie Erin Brokovich. The interest was in whether the assumptions about its health risks were correct. So the State once again looked to the University of California. Jerry Last chaired the chromate toxicity review panel that reported back to the State in September 2001. The panel concluded that there was not sufficient scientific evidence to determine whether chrome 6 in drinking water is carcinogenic, and recommended further analysis. The risk of very low levels of chrome 6 suggested by a single published animal study was not deemed to be sound science that should serve as the basis for the proposed public health guideline which would have cost additional billions of dollars. "This represents another success story in the interactions of the State and the University" Vance said, "to ensure that the best available science is brought into the policy decisions made by State government."

Vance previewed some future issues where the state might seek UC's assistance: perchlorate contamination in ground water, the disposal of copper-chromate-arsenic treated wood, and pharmaceuticals in drinking water.

"There is a present and future role for TSR&TP to help the State with its research needs," concluded Vance. "In particular, applied research to our real world problems is essential to improving our environment."

Keynote: The Importance of Interdisciplinary Programs & The Future of Toxics

Keynote speaker Mary Nichols, California Secretary for Resources, began by emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary programs such as the TSR&TP. She said in her position, she encounters problems every day that require an interdisciplinary approach to solving them, a fact of life for any kind of environmental program whether it is regulation, public health, environmental health, or preservation of habitat.

California Secretary for Resources Mary Nichols talked about the importance of programs like the TSR&TP in preparing students for jobs that require interdisciplinary skills.

Nichols gave an overview of some of the environmental issues she has been working on. She said that about 90,000 properties in California are idle or underutilized because of environmental contamination, or the perception of it. For every $1 the government spends to clean up these brownfields, $2.45 can be leveraged in private capital. More than 300 sites have already been cleaned up and created 21,000 jobs as a result, with $75 million in additional tax revenue. Governor Davis indicated in his report on brownfields that we should spend more on their redevelopment. To this end, the state has eased the cleanup liability for land owners. If the owners can show that they did not cause the contamination, they won't be liable for cleanup. This policy was changed as a result of the widespread MTBE contamination of wells.

Military bases are also significant resources in California. Another round of closures is currently being considered. The last time around, planners failed to include the cost of cleanup in the total cost of base turnover. "It may be cheaper to keep some of these sites active rather than closing them down", said Nichols. In addition, we need to look toward maintaining open space and habitat on these bases. "Some of our bases are major repositories of threatened and endangered species", she added.

Nichols concluded her talk with a look to the future. Environmental programs in California will be balanced on public health and environmental health, focusing on restoration and sustainability. These programs will have to be cross-disciplinary. Said Nichols, "The TSR&TP is providing one of the models for how we are going to develop scientists and regulators who know how to communicate and deal with these issues."

The floor was opened to the audience for questions.

1. Dan Chang (UC Davis faculty): How can government change to do life-cycle thinking? Is a new structure needed?
Nichols answered that yes, a new structure is needed, and her administration is trying to do that. But change on this level takes a lot of time, and right now is a bad time to restructure due to the current budget constraints. They have made some changes such as co-locating all the divisions of Cal EPA in the same building in Sacramento to facilitate communication and collaboration. She has also identified a talent pool of biologists, geologists, and other scientists in the state and this has led to a group looking at enhancing the role of science and scientists in the agencies. UC Davis and the state are also working together, and this is leading to productive collaborations, for example, in the development of websites and data sharing between agencies. The next big step is a reorganization of all the environmental programs around watershed jurisdictional lines.

Nichols talks with researchers during the break

Nichols (center in blue suit) and Arthur Winer (to her right) answer questions from TSR&TP researchers.

2. Rebecca Verity (UC San Diego doctoral student): How do we determine how clean is clean with brownfields redevelopment sites?
Nichols answered that in uncertainty we still have to make risk management decisions. Leaving the site as is isn't necessarily less hazardous than trying to clean it up and use it again. People are beginning to want to make risk management decisions on a case by case basis. You can usually get people to agree that some kinds of uses are acceptable for a brownfields site.
Verity also asked about ongoing monitoring so we can continue to clean up as science advances. Nichols said that is a good question. Cleaning up brownfields is an evolving practice.

3. Mike Wilson (UC Berkeley postdoctoral researcher): Regarding the MTBE issue, what are the effects of NAFTA on future regulations in CA in light of the Methanex law suit (the Canadian MTBE-producer that sued CA because the ban on MTBE takes away their market)? That ban on MTBE is in conflict with NAFTA.
Nichols responded that the Methanex lawsuit is not likely to win. State and federal government are fighting it. With regard to trade regulations, countries and states have a right to protect public health. Protecting public health should supercede any free trade agreements.

4. Barry Wilson (UC Davis faculty) gave his thanks to Nichols for embracing the problem of MTBE contamination responsibly and cleaning it up, rather than shipping it off.

5. Susan Anderson (UC Davis faculty) asked what Nichols saw as the biggest issue with wetlands.
"Wetlands are hot right now!" Nichols responded emphatically. People are waking up and noticing wetland areas in their own communities as a source of biological diversity for habitat and that they are badly in need of restoration. Two of the biggest projects the state is looking at right now are Bolsa Chica Wetlands in Orange County and the ring of salt ponds around San Francisco Bay that currently belong to Cargill. These are multi-million dollar projects that involve many different agencies.

6. Rich Ambrose (UC Los Angeles faculty): How can we deal with the tension to protect and restore with development pressures on the same areas?
Nichols responded that she thought at the beginning of her tenure a tool could be developed to weigh the factors that make an area valuable, but there are too many factors, and they change with the area. We can at least help to expose what the issues are and answer the question of why we would want to spend money to save one place and not another. She emphasized that small urban reserves are very important for preserving nature in our own backyards. But we need to do both - preserve traditional wildlife corridors and set aside urban reserves. If people are closer to nature in their daily lives, they'll be more likely to want to preserve it.

Table of Contents Next Article