1 / 58

Impact of Changes in Chemicals Policy on Product Stewardship

This article discusses the potential effects of upcoming changes in chemicals policy on product stewardship. It examines key chemical issues facing California, implications of these issues, and possible responses. It also explores the policy leadership shown by the European Union and the potential competitive disadvantages faced by US companies.

slake
Download Presentation

Impact of Changes in Chemicals Policy on Product Stewardship

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Will Fundamental Changes in Chemicals Policy affect Product Stewardship? National ProductStewardship ForumMay 23, 2007 Michael P. Wilson, Ph.D, MPH Center for Occupational and Environmental Health University of California, Berkeley mpwilson@berkeley.edu University of California, Berkeley

  2. Center for Occupational and Environmental Health Est. 1978 (AB 3414) Berkeley, Davis, San Francisco (northern California). • Toxicology • Epidemiology • Industrial hygiene • Environmental health policy • Occupational & environmental medicine • Occupational nursing • Ergonomics • Labor education • Professional education University of California, Berkeley

  3. Green Chemistry Framework Report • Assesses problems and opportunities in chemicals policy • Proposes goals, makes policy recommendations • Commissioned January 2004 by: • Byron Sher (Chair, SEQC) • John Laird (Chair, ACESTM) • Published March 14, 2006 by UCOP for: • Joseph Simitian (Chair, SEQC) • Ira Ruskin (Chair, ACESTM) Seven legislative bills, Cal/EPA Green Chemistry Initiative in 2007 (http://coeh.berkeley.edu/news/06_wilson_policy.htm) University of California, Berkeley

  4. Advisory Committee Members Timothy Malloy, JD School of Law, UC Los Angeles Thomas E. McKone, PhD Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Dara O’Rourke, PhD College of Natural Resources, UC Berkeley Julia Quint, PhD Department of Health Services Christine Rosen, PhD Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley David J. Vogel, PhD Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley John R. Balmes, MD School of Medicine, UC San Francisco Carl F. Cranor, PhD Department of Philosophy, UC Riverside S. Katharine Hammond, PhD School of Public Health, UC Berkeley Bill E. Kastenberg, PhD College of Engineering, UC Berkeley Ann Keller, PhD School of Public Health, UC Berkeley Amy D. Kyle, PhD, MPH School of Public Health, UC Berkeley Geoff Lomax, DrPH Department of Health Services

  5. Hexane-induced peripheral neuropathy in the vehicle repair industry, 2000 - 2007 Harrison et al. MMWR, Nov 16, 2001, Vol 50 #5

  6. University of California, Berkeley

  7. 8h time-weighted average exposure concentration, mg/m3 (n=23) Toluene Acetone Hexane Wilson M, et al. J Occ Env Hyg, May 2007 University of California, Berkeley

  8. 1989: Cal/EPA targets use of perchloroethylene in the vehicle repair industry

  9. Chemical management in the CA vehicle repair industry Phase-out year Rationale 1970: Stoddard solvent Fire hazard 1978: CFCs Ozone depletion 1980: Methylene chloride Carcinogen 1985: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Ozone depletion 1990: Perchloroethylene Dioxin emissions 2002: Hexane/acetone blends Neurotoxin Next: 1-Bromopropane Repro toxin University of California, Berkeley

  10. Meanwhile, over at the Legislature… University of California, Berkeley

  11. 35 chemically-related bills in California, 2005-2006 AB 121 (Vargas) AB 263 (Chan) AB 289 (Chan) AB 319 (Chan) AB 342 (Baca) AB 597 (Montanez) AB 623 (Aanistad) AB 639 (Aghazarian) AB 752 (Karnette) AB 815 (Lieber) AB 816 (Lieber) AB 848 (Berg) AB 908 (Chu) AB 912 (Ridley-Thomas) AB 966 (Saldana) AB 985 (Dunn) AB 990 (Lieber) AB 1125 (Pavley) AB 1337 (Ruskin) AB 1342 (Assem ESTM) AB 1344 (Assem ESTM) AB 1354 (Baca) AB 1415 (Pavley) AB 1681 (Pavley) SB 419 (Simitian) SB 432 (Simitian) SB 484 (Migden) SB 490 (Lowenthal) SB 600 (Ortiz) SB 838 (Escutia) SB 849 (Escutia) SB 982 (Sen EQ comm) SB 989 (Sen EQ comm.) SB 1067 (Kehoe) SB 1070 (Kehoe) University of California, Berkeley

  12. What are the key chemical issues facing California? • What are the implications of these issues? 3) How might California respond to those issues? University of California, Berkeley

  13. What are the key chemical issues facing California? • What are the implications of these issues? 3) How might California respond to those issues? University of California, Berkeley

  14. Policy Leadership by the European Union • Cosmetics Directive: 2004 • Waste in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): 2005 • Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS): 2006 • Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of Chemicals (REACH): 2007 University of California, Berkeley

  15. As E.U. moves forward with new policy approaches… • Competitive disadvantage? • Dumping ground? • Uneven playing field in U.S.? • State action? • Market shifts? • Reform pf TSCA, FDCA? Cosmetics,WEEE, RoHS, REACH, others China RoHS, 2007 CA RoHS, 2007 Korea RoHS, 2007 Japan RoHS, 2006 The University of California, Berkeley

  16. “G.E. Chief Points to ‘Green’ Handicap” Financial TimesMay 10, 2005Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington “…the deregulatory agenda favored by the U.S. business community – particularly on environmental issues – is not providing American companies with a competitive advantage over their European counterparts.” Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman and CEO ($1.5 billion/yr Ecomagination) The University of California, Berkeley

  17. E.U. initiatives: • Affecting industrial process at point of design, supply chains • Translating precautionary principle into law • Global implications for policy, law, industrial practices Scientific suspicion of harm Reasonable grounds for concern Balance of evidence Proof of risk, clear cause-and-effect; risks outweigh benefits University of California, Berkeley

  18. What we produce, and how, is underpinned by deeper social factors. Products, processes Chemicals policy Principles of conduct; “acceptable” vs. “unacceptable” harm Epistemology, political economy Ethical norms, values University of California, Berkeley

  19. risk assessment Gather evidence Evaluate evidence The possibility of harm. Apply a pre-established standard Apply best judgment Decide Unacceptable harm Acceptable harm Ethical norms, values

  20. R - rescue E - exposure C - confinement E - extinguish O - overhaul University of California, Berkeley

  21. Setting priorities is easiest to when the outcome is visible (e.g. structure fires). Emergency services are generally well-funded. Setting priorities is difficult when the outcome is less visible (e.g. workplace diseases, climate change). Industrial hygiene is poorly funded.

  22. 1980 2002 Climate change action: reflecting changing ethics, values? Cordillera Blanca glacier, Peruvian Andes Photographs: Bryan Lynas (1980) and Mark Lynas (2002) University of California, Berkeley

  23. 75% of U.S. electronic waste goes to Asian countries. Lianjiang River, Guiyu, China Photos: Basel Action Network University of California, Berkeley

  24. 50 million tons of e-waste are discarded annually (5% of global solid waste) Guiyu, China University of California, Berkeley

  25. In New Delhi, 25,000 workers crush & burn 10-20,000 tons of e-waste annually. University of California, Berkeley

  26. Electronic waste recovery (recycling) workers, Guiyu, China

  27. 60,000 plastic bags: the number used every 5 seconds in the U.S.

  28. 426,000 cell phones: the number retired every day in the U.S.

  29. Is end of life important? Photos: California Environmental Protection Agency The University of California, Berkeley

  30. Children’s environmental health: • Critical windows of vulnerability; chemicals altering gene expression; endocrine disruption. • New Pediatric Morbidity: Asthma, certain cancers, neurodevelopmental disorders • Substances in umbilical cord blood, human fluids, tissues. • Faroe Islands Statement (Los Angeles Times, May 25, 2007) • “Toxic exposures to chemical pollutants during these windows of increased susceptibility can cause disease and disability in childhood and across the entire span of human life.” • “These adverse effects have been linked to chemical pollutants at realistic human exposure levels similar to those occurring from environmental sources.”

  31. What is going to change? Key problems with the federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1979. • Data Gap: • TSCA does not require producers to generate chemical hazard data for EPA or downstream users. • Safety Gap: • TSCA has constrained EPA’s ability to assess and control chemical hazards. • Technology Gap: • TSCA has dampened private sector interest in green chemistry, which is reflected in research and education. University of California, Berkeley

  32. Data Gap: • Pre-1979: no data requirements for 62,000 substances • Post-1979: PMN process: action by EPA on 3,500 • 67% of PMNs contain no test data • 85% contain no toxicity data • 95% contain no ecotoxicity data • Safety Gap: • EPA: Rulemaking on 5 substances since 1979 • EPA to GAO in 1994: About 16,000 of concern • Technology Gap: • 2005 NAS “Grand Challenges” report • Chemical industry’s 1996 Vision 2020 report • Education, research The University of California, Berkeley

  33. Analyses of chemical policy weaknesses in the U.S: • National Academy of Sciences 1984 • U.S. General Accounting Office 1994 • Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1995 • Environmental Defense 1997 • U.S. EPA 1998 • former EPA officials 2002 • RAND Science and Technology Institute 2003 • U.S. Government Accountability Office 2005 • National Academy of Sciences 2005 • University of California 2006 University of California, Berkeley

  34. What are the key chemical issues facing California? • What are the implications of these issues? 3) How might California respond to those issues? University of California, Berkeley

  35. The U.S. chemicals market is flawed, due to weaknesses of TSCA in: • Generating information • Regulating known hazards • Motivating investment in green chemistry Function Price Performance Hazards University of California, Berkeley

  36. The U.S. chemicals market, 1979 – 2007. Function Price Performance Safety University of California, Berkeley

  37. Courtesy Robert Kavlock, U.S. EPA, NAS Feb 7, 2005 The University of California, Berkeley

  38. The view from state agencies… To assess & prioritize chemical hazards, agencies need four pieces of information: Identity Sales volume Uses Hazards University of California, Berkeley

  39. Chemical information available to state agencies under TSCA, 1979 - 2007 University of California, Berkeley

  40. The Technology Gap. With very few exceptions, one can earn a Ph.D in chemistry in the U.S. without demonstrating a basic understanding of toxicology… …or the principles of green chemistry. Sather gate, UC Berkeley University teaching and research in chemistry reflect conditions in the chemicals market…and its regulation. The University of California, Berkeley

More Related