State Comprehensive Chemical policy

1. State Comprehensive Chemical policy Moving past one-at-a-time chemical “de-selection”

2. Elements of a Comprehensive State Bill • Identify which chemicals are of concern • Identify which chemicals are of particularly high concern because of their hazard and people are exposed to them (e.g. PBTs) • Figure out how to help people avoid chemicals of high concern (bans, restrictions, labeling) • Require manufacturers to disclose if priority chemicals are in their products • Select safer alternatives

3. Maine Comprehensive policy • Kid Safe Product Act passed in 2008 • Creates a framework around consumer products • 2009 List of ~1,700 chemicals of high concern published • 2010 first two priority chemicals identified (BPA and Nonylphenol) • 2011 BPA phase out (all reusable food and beverage containers) approved by legislature and finalized by agency effective Jan 2012 • July 2011 - Manufacturers required to disclose information on prioritized chemicals • State may authorize ban or restriction on a priority chemical if there is a safer alternative • 2011 Revisions • Original list of chemicals of concern will now be a list of 70 chemicals (remove chemicals that can’t be regulated e.g. drugs, pesticides) • Refined to consumer products in home, school or daycare facility or outside used by kids • Manufacturers report “intentionally added” chemicals

4. Washington Comprehensive policy • Child Safe product act passed in 2008 • Bans children’s products containing lead, cadmium, phthalates • Defines high priority chemicals based on their inherent hazards • July 2011 - State identifies list of 66 high priority chemicals considering potential for exposure to a child or fetus • Fall 2011 - Manufacturers must disclose information on any products containing priority chemicals. • State must identify products that contain these chemicals • 2012 - Recommend policy options to the legislature address children’s products containing these chemicals.

5. California Comprehensive policy • Bills passed in 2008 • Require state to create a process to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern in consumer products. • Considers volume of chemical in CA commerce, potential for exposure, and potential effects on sensitive subgroups • Requires specification of action to be taken, including requiring additional information or labeling, controlling exposure, restrictions or bans on chemicals, and funding for green chemistry challenge grants if no safer alternatives exist. • Establishes Green Ribbon Science panel • Requires state to collaborate

6. Minnesota Listing bill • Toxic Free Kids Act 2009 • July 2010 list of 1,756 chemicals of concern published • December 2010, state agency report to the recommending that manufacturers report if they make products that contain priority chemicals. It also recommended policies to promote green chemistry. • January 2011 list of 9 priority chemicals published including three phthalates (BBP, DBP, DEHP, two halogenated flame retardants (decaBDE and HBCD) as well as lead, cadmium, formaldehyde and BPA.

7. Comparison • All define lists based on hazard criteria and select priority chemicals • All consider exposure • Require manufacturer reporting (WA, ME, CA) • Require alternatives assessment (ME, CA) • Safer alternatives required (ME, CA) • Fee funding (ME)

8. Starting with a listing bill Incredibly effective way to send a market signal State Agencies - Biggest Roadblock or best friend • Directly influence the fiscal note – you have to have them on board Strategies to reduce fiscal impact to states and build state agency confidence • Utilize the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse • ID a starter short list of chemicals and allow for new ones to be added • State agency to state agency contact