The Landscape of State Chemicals Regulation

1
The Landscape of State Chemicals Regulation

• Joel A. Tickner, ScD
• Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
• University of Massachusetts Lowell
• Joel_tickner_at_uml.edu

2
Overview

• Long history of state level chemicals policy
  efforts states traditionally drivers of
  innovation at the federal level
• New drivers for state level policy
• Various approaches to state level policy
• Lessons learned
• Change is happening prepare!
• Thinking thoughtfully about policies that address
  problems while stimulating innovation
• Ultimate goal should be reform of federal policy

3
History of state level chemicals policy

• Hazard Communication/right to know
• Pollution Prevention
• State level restrictions
• Packaging/labeling
• Overarching strategies
• Local, State and regional
• Great Lakes
• New England Governors

4
Drivers for chemicals policy reform in the states

• Speed of federal policy to address issues of
  state/local concern (local impacts)
• Market demands driven by governments
  Europe/Japan and other stakeholders
• Need to build market niches for new products
• Frustration of state level officials at lack of
  data/other limitations in federal policy
• Concerns over toxics in products
• Solutions often local in nature

5
Chemical Restrictions
Right-to-Know
Toxics Use Reduction / Pollution Prevention
Safer Alternatives
Procurement
state
chemical
policies
6
Right to Know - An Important Driver for Prevention

• Toxics Release Inventory and chemical storage and
  accident scenario data.
• Chemical use/throughput data
• Demonstrated inefficiencies in chemicals
  management, allows public to understand
  potential risks
• Useful information for workers and communities to
  promote prevention

7
More right to know initiatives

• Links to hazard/risk data ie www.scorecard.org
• Now biomonitoring data linked to research and
  outreach
• Labeling efforts
• CA Prop 65 (1986)
• List of carcinogens reproductive toxicants
• Product Labels requires firms to provide clear
  and reasonable warning to exposed individuals

8
State level chemical restrictions

• Started with PCBs, CFCs and some pesticides (DDT)
• Mercury (numerous states and different
  approaches)
• Packaging
• UFFI
• Lead
• PBDEs
• PERC/Solvents
• PBTs
• Local/state procurement policies
• Often linked to particular products (ie paint,
  insulation) or media (waste/air)

9
Interstate Clearinghouse
Restrict Sale of Certain Products MN legislation
Label Products VT legislation
Disposal Ban - MN legislation
Collect Banned Products proposed in MA

• Limit Use of Elemental Mercury MN legislation

New England Governors, Eastern Canadian Premiers
endorse Regional Mercury Action Plan (1998)
model
mercury
legislation
10
Establishes
criteria to identify PBTs

Defines
procedures to review and update the list
the scope and content of chemical action plans
list of PBTs
criteria for selecting which PBTs to prepare
chemical action plans

• State Appropriation for fiscal year 2005
• funding for chemical action plans for PBTs,
  including PBDEs and mercury

11

• Toxics in Packaging Legislation
• Introduced in 1989
• 19 states
• Restrict
• Lead, Mercury, Cadmium,
• Hexavalent Chromium
• Exemptions w/expiration dates recycled
  materials, reusable packaging, no alternatives

12
Pollution Prevention at the State Level

• Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine mandatory
  planning programs, with materials
  accounting/planning requirements
• Goals for waste reduction
• Education
• Technical assistance and research for prevention
• Tax credits and other incentives
• Product take back now being discussed

13
Example Toxics Use Reduction

• Goal 50 reduction in toxic waste
• Focus on Ways to reduce waste and chemical use
  rather than acceptable exposures
• Evidence but not proof of toxicity of chemicals
  on TUR list
• Quantify materials used (why and how)
• Understand costs of chemical use

14
Example Toxics Use Reduction

• Examine alternatives
• Innovation and technical support
• Measure progress and re-evaluate
• Results 1990-2000
• 60 reduction in waste
• 40 reduction in use
• 80 reduction in emissions
• Benefits to industry 15 million (not considering
  health/environmental benefits)

15
MA TCE Cleaning Use Data
16
Steps to Safer Alternatives
10 priority toxic chemicals (lead, TCE, PCE,
PBDEs, DEHP, et al)

Alternatives assessment to identify feasible
safer alternatives
Exempt uses without feasible safer alternatives
Priorities -- greatest exposures, easiest to
replace
Aid businesses
Set deadlines
Raise funds through fees
An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts Safer
Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals
Proposed Legislation
17
Lessons Learned Critical Role of Information

• Need good information on chemical hazards and
  exposures
• Need for good materials and supply chain
  accounting information (both manufacturing and
  product flows)
• Materials not efficiently managed (what you cant
  measure you cant manage)
• Identifies opportunities for greater efficiency
  and supply chain uses and places for substitution
• Need good metrics to measure progress
• Need good information on alternatives to problem
  substances
• Market pressures from good information on
  alternatives

18
Lessons Learned - Innovation

• Innovation requires both willingness AND capacity
• Technical and research support is critical for
  industry innovation
• Demonstration projects/sites
• Networking of firms
• Research and Development of safer chemicals
• Efficacy testing of chemicals
• Direct Technical assistance to firms
• Recognition of leaders
• Need guidance for substitution/use reduction
  planning to ensure risk minimization

19
Lessons Learned rapid screening and assessment
tools

• Need for tools to rapidly characterize chemical
  hazards, exposures and risks
• Need effective prioritization schemes
• Tools that identify positive criteria in
  chemicals.
• Need for tools to compare alternative
  chemicals/processes

20
Conclusion

• Limited and uncoordinated set of chemicals
  policies at the state level but some important
  lessons
• States important laboratories for innovation but
  resources limited for data collection
  (particularly chemical testing which should be a
  federal activity)
• Need both tools for collecting information and
  informing public but also for supporting
  innovation
• States should work together to share
  resources/capacity and build momentum for
  national change

21
(No Transcript)