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@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 Limit Use of Elemental Mercury: MN legislation Label Products: VT legislation Disposal Ban - MN legislation Collect Banned Products – proposed in MA 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 can’t measure you can’t 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