States Chemicals Policy Reform: Moving Forward Ken Zarker, Co-Chair NPPR P2 Policy and Integration Workgroup Washington State Department of Ecology 2007 National Environmental Partnership Summit New Orleans, Louisiana May 2007

2 What does chemicals policy reform look like?

3 First Step: A History of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 Under Section 6602(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress established a national policy that: Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and Disposal or other releases into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner. Pollution is waste, and waste leads to shortages tomorrow… Dr. Joseph Ling

4 Why use P2 planning? Identifies materials flows and supply chain linkages. Reviews production processes and product design – why and how chemicals are being used. Creates options for reducing problem chemicals used either in production process or product design – maintaining desired function. Source: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts

5 Why use P2 planning? Better understand the performance, health safety and environmental trade-offs involved. Establishes priorities, performance targets and measuring progress towards more sustainable process and product design. Produce environmental results. Source: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts

6 So, how have things changed? Body Burden Children’s Health Toxics in Products Safer Alternatives Green Chemistry Green Engineering Chemicals Policy

7 Why is our concern for kids increasing? High rates of developmentally related diseases –Children 6–17 years of age: learning disabilities (11.5%), ADHD (8.8%), behavioral problems (6.3%) –Preschoolers: speech problems (5.8%), developmental delay (3.2%) –One in 200 children with autism –41% of parents had concerns about learning difficulties and 36% about depression or anxiety Costs in US estimated at $ billion/yr Estimate attributed to environment - $4.6 to 18.4 billion/yr Ref: Blanchard et al. Pediatrics 2006;117; (National Survey of Children’s Health) Ref: Muir and Zegarac. EHP December Ref: Landrigan et al. EHP July 2002.

8 The Chemical Big Picture 80,000 chemicals on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory –60,000 prior to TSCA 1,500 new chemicals every year EPA established categories to streamline review of new chemicals –Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) is one of 45 categories

9 Today: Emerging Chemicals Policy Issues States banning toxic flame retardants Chemical by chemical approach European Union’s Registration, Authorisation and Evaluation of Chemicals (REACH) States Chemicals Policy Framework Development Green Chemistry Innovation & Economic Opportunity

10 considered chemistry NIKE GREEN CHEMISTRY FILTER CHEMICALS EVALUATE HAZARDS PRIORITIZE THE LIST INNOVATE PRODUCT & PROCESS EVALUATE EXPOSURE Source: Nike, Inc., Used by Permission

considered chemistry TRADITIONAL RUBBERENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED RUBBER Number of “Red” Chemicals: 5 “Red” Chemicals by weight 12% Number of “Red” Chemicals: 1 “Red” Chemicals by weight 1% REDUCED TOXICS 96% BY WEIGHT TOXICS REDUCTION – EPR Source: Nike, Inc., Used by Permission

considered chemistry A relatively small volume for the rubber industry BUT A BIG (GREEN) STEP IN THE FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY By using EP Rubber Nike eliminate toxics3,000 metric tons Source: Nike, Inc., Used by Permission

13 What State efforts are underway? MA Toxics Use Reduction Institute / Lowell Center Maine Governor’s Executive Order and Task Force on Consumer Products UC Berkeley – Green Chemistry Report to CA Legislature Michigan Green Chemistry Executive Directive

14 More State & Local Efforts New York Pollution Prevention & Green Chemistry Executive Order States Chemicals Policy (West Coast, NE States, Great Lakes) City of San Francisco Multnomah County, Oregon California Green Chemistry Initiative

15 Case Study: Washington State’s PBT List MetalsMethyl-mercury Combustion By- Products Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Chlorinated Dioxins & Furans Brominated Dioxins & Furans Metals of Concern CadmiumLead Flame Retardants Polybrominated Di-phenol ethers (PBDEs) Tetrabromobisphenol A HexabromocyclododecanePentachlorobenzene Organic Chemicals 1,2,4,5- Tetrachlorobenzene Perfluorooctane Sulfonates (PFOS) HexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadiene Short-chain Chlorinated ParraffinsPolychlorinatedNaphthalenes Banned Pesticides Aldrin/DieldrinChlordaneDDT/DDD/DDE Heptachlor Epoxide ToxapheneChlordeconeEndrinMirex Banned Flame Retardants Hexabromobiphenyl Banned Organic Chemicals Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

16 Case Study: Washington’s PBT List PBT characteristics – Toxicity for humans is defined as: –(i) The chemical (or chemical group) is a carcinogen, a developmental or reproductive toxicant or a neurotoxicant; –(ii) The chemical (or chemical group) has a reference dose or equivalent toxicity measure that is less than mg/kg/day Uses of the chemical in Washington Releases of the chemical in Washington Levels of the chemical present in the Washington environment Levels of the chemical present in Washington residents Relative ranking criteria

17 Case Study: Washington State’s Chemical Action Plans Completed: –Mercury (2003) –Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) (2006) Proposed: –Lead –Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) –Perfluorooctane Sulfonates (PFOS)

18 Case Study: What is in a Chemical Action Plan? Collaboratively developed with Dept. of Health Identifies, characterizes and evaluates uses and releases of a specific PBT Recommends actions to protect human health or the environment

19 What information is in a CAP? Production and Washington-specific uses/releases Human health and environmental impacts Evaluation of current management approaches Identification of policy options –Reducing use, phase out, managing wastes, minimizing exposures, safer substitutes –Consistent with existing state and federal law –Consider economic and social impacts Implementation actions Performance measures/milestones

20 What are the Measurable Results? Source: WA Mercury Chemical Action Plan Between 2001 and 2006 there is approximately 2,300 pounds per year of mercury no longer being released into the environment 2006 Estimated 3,700 lbs/yr released into the environment in WA 2001 Estimated 6,000 lbs/yr released into the environment in WA Mercury CAP

21 Where can we improve? Avoid working backwards –Detection  exposure  health concern  regulation  alternative Green chemistry up front Understanding sources and pathways Consumer education

22 What about the Lowell Center Alternatives Assessment Framework? Creating an open source framework for the relatively quick assessment of safer and more socially just alternatives. “Open source” means the collaborative development, sharing, and growth of methods, tools, and databases that facilitate decision making. “Relatively quick assessment” means that the process results in robust decisions informed by the best available science, while avoiding paralysis by analysis.

23 Lowell Center Alternatives Assessment Framework Source: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts

24 Chemicals Policy: A Three- Pronged Approach Close Data Gaps: Require companies to review & conduct alternatives assessment with the chemicals they use; Close Safety Gap: Substitute safer chemicals in products and manufacturing; and, Close Technology Gap: Invest in research and assistance for businesses to switch to the safest chemicals.

25 Classify Chemicals for Action Classify chemicals in tiers based on hazard of chemical/breakdown products. Move beyond PBTs—Carcinogens, Mutagens, Reproductive Toxics, Developmental, ED, vPvB, other toxics of equivalent concern. Propel shifts to use of safest chemicals via combination of regulation, incentives, technical assistance.

26 Preferred fully tested / very low or no hazards Chemical Action Pyramid Actions  Phase Out  Reduce Use / Substitute  Give Preference Highly Hazardous PBT, others Moderately Hazardous  Use /Continue Improvement Source: Washington Toxics Coalition, March 2007

27 Substitution Requirements/Assistance Requirements for substitution planning— products and industrial processes Provide Technical Assistance (TURI model) Toxic Chemical Fees as Incentives Companies will be more competitive in world market

28 Data Further prioritize chemicals through data collection on use, exposure Require manufactures to disclose the chemicals used in products and practices (e.g. cosmetics, consumer products, etc..) Establish a multi-state clearinghouse to gather data on chemical use in products (e.g. mercury).

29 Green Chemistry Green chemistry is critical to solution. Establish and fund green chemistry programs in institutions and in agencies. Provide technical assistance to businesses wanting to improve their practices and products Provide preference for cleanest, safest chemicals Tax incentives for using safest chemicals, innovative design changes

30 Congress: Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005 H.R / S Among other things, provides grants to institutions to revise undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering Includes Green Supplier Network Grants Partnerships Pollution Prevention at the molecular level

31 Companies Moving Forward Kaiser Permanente: reducing reliance on carcinogens and reproductive toxicants Herman Miller: new product design process; zero hazardous waste/emissions by 2020 Dell: phased out PBDEs, created Chemical Use Policy

32 Moving ahead in the States Legislation & Policy –MA Toxic Use Reduction Act (Revised) –WA PBDE Ban –CA Green Chemistry Initiative Executive Orders –Maine Governor’s Task Force on Consumer Products –MI Green Chemistry –NY Pollution Prevention and Green Chemistry

33 Moving ahead in the States State Agency Green Procurement NE States, Great Lakes & West Coast States Chemicals Policy Development Business Technical Assistance –Facility and Chemicals Planning –REACH Workshops –Safer Chemical Alternatives Assessment –NPPR States Collaborative

34 Western States Chemicals Policy Meeting The objective of the first meeting West Coast States Chemicals Policy Meeting was to share information and discuss opportunities to collaborate on chemicals policy, legislative initiatives, green chemistry, and PBT reduction efforts. California, Oregon and Washington State

35 “Thanks for making Chemicals Policy happen” Alexander and Ethan

36 Contact Information Ken Zarker, P2 Section Manager Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Washington State Department of Ecology P.O. Box Olympia, Washington Ph: Em: