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 Long history of state level chemicals policy efforts – states traditionally drivers of innovation at the federal level New drivers for state level policy New drivers for state level policy Various approaches to state level policy Various approaches to state level policy Lessons learned 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 Hazard Communication/right to know Pollution Prevention Pollution Prevention State level restrictions State level restrictions Packaging/labeling Packaging/labeling Overarching strategies Overarching strategies Local, State and regional 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) Speed of federal policy to address issues of state/local concern (local impacts) Market demands driven by governments– Europe/Japan – and other stakeholders Market demands driven by governments– Europe/Japan – and other stakeholders Need to build market niches for new products Need to build market niches for new products Frustration of state level officials at lack of data/other limitations in federal policy Frustration of state level officials at lack of data/other limitations in federal policy Concerns over toxics in products Concerns over toxics in products Solutions often local in nature Solutions often local in nature

5. Safer Alternatives Chemical Restrictions Procurement Right-to-Know policies chemical Toxics Use Reduction / Pollution Prevention state

6. Right to Know - An Important Driver for Prevention Toxics Release Inventory and chemical storage and accident scenario data. Toxics Release Inventory and chemical storage and accident scenario data. Chemical use/throughput data Chemical use/throughput data Demonstrated inefficiencies in chemicals management, allows “public” to understand potential risks Demonstrated inefficiencies in chemicals management, allows “public” to understand potential risks Useful information for workers and communities to promote prevention Useful information for workers and communities to promote prevention

7. More right to know initiatives Links to hazard/risk data – ie www.scorecard.org Links to hazard/risk data – ie www.scorecard.orgwww.scorecard.org Now biomonitoring data linked to research and outreach Now biomonitoring data linked to research and outreach Labeling efforts: Labeling efforts: CA Prop 65 (1986) 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) Started with PCBs, CFCs and some pesticides (DDT) Mercury (numerous states and different approaches) Mercury (numerous states and different approaches) Packaging Packaging UFFI UFFI Lead Lead PBDEs PBDEs PERC/Solvents PERC/Solvents PBTs PBTs Local/state procurement policies Local/state procurement policies Often linked to particular products (ie paint, insulation) or media (waste/air) Often linked to particular products (ie paint, insulation) or media (waste/air)

9. New England Governors, Eastern Canadian Premiers endorse Regional Mercury Action Plan (1998) Limit Use of Elemental Mercury: MN legislation model legislation Interstate Clearinghouse Restrict Sale of Certain Products: MN legislation Label Products: VT legislation Disposal Ban - MN legislation Collect Banned Products – proposed in MA mercury

10. State Appropriation for fiscal year 2005 – funding for chemical action plans for PBTs, including PBDEs and mercury Establishes: criteria for selecting which PBTs to prepare chemical action plans the scope and content of chemical action plans procedures to review and update the list list of PBTs criteria to identify PBTs Defines:

11. Toxics in Packaging Legislation Introduced in 1989 Introduced in 1989 19 states 19 states Restrict: Restrict: Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Hexavalent Chromium Exemptions w/expiration dates: recycled materials, reusable packaging, no alternatives 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 Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine mandatory planning programs, with materials accounting/planning requirements Goals for waste reduction Goals for waste reduction Education Education Technical assistance and research for prevention Technical assistance and research for prevention Tax credits and other incentives Tax credits and other incentives Product take back now being discussed Product take back now being discussed

13. Example: Toxics Use Reduction Goal: 50% reduction in toxic waste Goal: 50% reduction in toxic waste Focus on Ways to reduce waste and chemical use rather than “acceptable exposures” Focus on Ways to reduce waste and chemical use rather than “acceptable exposures” Evidence but not proof of toxicity of chemicals on TUR list Evidence but not proof of toxicity of chemicals on TUR list Quantify materials used (why and how) Quantify materials used (why and how) Understand costs of chemical use Understand costs of chemical use

14. Example: Toxics Use Reduction Examine alternatives Examine alternatives Innovation and technical support Innovation and technical support Measure progress and re-evaluate Measure progress and re-evaluate Results: 1990-2000 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) Benefits to industry $15 million (not considering health/environmental benefits)

15. MA TCE Cleaning Use Data

16. An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts: Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals Aid businesses 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 Raise funds through fees Set deadlines Proposed Legislation

17. Lessons Learned – Critical Role of Information Need good information on chemical hazards and exposures Need good information on chemical hazards and exposures Need for good materials and supply chain accounting information (both manufacturing and product flows) 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 metrics to measure progress Need good information on alternatives to problem substances 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 Innovation requires both willingness AND capacity Technical and research support is critical for industry innovation 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 Recognition of leaders Need guidance for substitution/use reduction planning to ensure risk minimization 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 for tools to rapidly characterize chemical hazards, exposures and risks Need effective prioritization schemes Need effective prioritization schemes Tools that identify positive criteria in chemicals. Tools that identify positive criteria in chemicals. Need for tools to compare alternative chemicals/processes 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 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) 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 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 States should work together to share resources/capacity and build momentum for national change