States chemicals policy reform moving forward
1 / 36

States Chemicals Policy Reform: Moving Forward - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' States Chemicals Policy Reform: Moving Forward' - clara

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
States chemicals policy reform moving forward

States Chemicals Policy Reform: Moving Forward

Ken Zarker, Co-Chair

NPPR P2 Policy and Integration Workgroup

Washington State Department of Ecology

[email protected]

2007 National Environmental Partnership Summit

New Orleans, Louisiana

May 2007

First step a history of the pollution prevention act of 1990
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

Why use p2 planning
Why use P2 planning? 1990

  • 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

Why use p2 planning1
Why use P2 planning? 1990

  • 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

So how have things changed
So, how have things changed? 1990

  • Body Burden

  • Children’s Health

  • Toxics in Products

  • Safer Alternatives

  • Green Chemistry

  • Green Engineering

  • Chemicals Policy

Why is our concern for kids increasing
Why is our concern for kids increasing? 1990

  • 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 $81.5 - 167 billion/yr

    • Estimate attributed to environment - $4.6 to 18.4 billion/yr

Ref: Blanchard et al. Pediatrics 2006;117;1202-1212 (National Survey of Children’s Health)

Ref: Muir and Zegarac. EHP December 2001.

Ref: Landrigan et al. EHP July 2002.

The chemical big picture
The Chemical Big Picture 1990

  • 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

Today: Emerging Chemicals Policy Issues 1990

  • 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








considered chemistry


Source: Nike, Inc., Used by Permission




of “Red” Chemicals:



of “Red” Chemicals:


considered chemistry


“Red” Chemicals by weight


“Red” Chemicals by weight




Source: Nike, Inc., Used by Permission

By using 1990

EP Rubber

Nike eliminate

3,000 metric tons


A relatively small volumefor the rubber industry

considered chemistry



Source: Nike, Inc., Used by Permission

What state efforts are underway
What State efforts are underway? 1990

  • 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

More state local efforts
More State & Local Efforts 1990

  • 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

Case study washington state s pbt list

Metals 1990


Combustion By-Products

Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Chlorinated Dioxins & Furans

Brominated Dioxins & Furans

Metals of Concern



Flame Retardants

Polybrominated Di-phenol ethers (PBDEs)

Tetrabromobisphenol A



Organic Chemicals


Perfluorooctane Sulfonates (PFOS)



Short-chain Chlorinated




Case Study: Washington State’s PBT List

Banned Pesticides




Heptachlor Epoxide





Banned Flame Retardants


Banned Organic Chemicals

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Case study washington s pbt list
Case Study: Washington’s PBT List 1990

Relative ranking criteria

  • 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 0.003 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

Case study washington state s chemical action plans
Case Study: Washington State’s Chemical Action Plans 1990

  • Completed:

    • Mercury (2003)

    • Polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) (2006)

  • Proposed:

    • Lead - 2007

    • Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) - 2008

    • Perfluorooctane Sulfonates (PFOS) - 2009

Case study what is in a chemical action plan
Case Study: What is in a Chemical Action Plan? 1990

  • 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

What information is in a cap
What information is in a CAP? 1990

  • 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

What are the Measurable Results? 1990

Mercury CAP


Estimated 6,000 lbs/yr

released into the environment in WA


Estimated 3,700 lbs/yr

released into the environment in WA

Between 2001 and 2006 there is approximately 2,300 pounds per year of mercury no longer being released into the environment

Source: WA Mercury Chemical Action Plan

Where can we improve
Where can we improve? 1990

  • Avoid working backwards

    • Detection  exposure  health concern  regulation  alternative

  • Green chemistry up front

  • Understanding sources and pathways

  • Consumer education

What about the lowell center alternatives assessment framework
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.

Lowell Center Framework?




Source: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of Massachusetts

Chemicals policy a three pronged approach
Chemicals Policy: A Three-Pronged Approach Framework?

  • 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.

Classify chemicals for action
Classify Chemicals for Action Framework?

  • 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.

Chemical action pyramid

PBT, others Framework?



Preferredfully tested / very low or no hazards

Chemical Action Pyramid


  • Phase Out

  • Reduce Use / Substitute

Moderately Hazardous

  • Use /Continue Improvement

  • Give Preference

Source: Washington Toxics Coalition, March 2007

Substitution requirements assistance
Substitution Requirements/Assistance Framework?

  • 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

Data Framework?

  • 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).

Green chemistry
Green Chemistry Framework?

  • 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

Congress: Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005

Pollution Prevention at the molecular level

  • H.R. 1215 / S. 1270

  • Among other things, provides grants to institutions to revise undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering

  • Includes Green Supplier Network Grants

  • Partnerships

Companies moving forward
Companies Moving Forward 2005

  • 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

Moving ahead in the states
Moving ahead in the States 2005

  • 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

Moving ahead in the states1
Moving ahead in the States 2005

  • 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

Western States Chemicals Policy Meeting 2005

California, Oregon and Washington State

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.

Thanks for making chemicals policy happen
2005Thanks for making Chemicals Policy happen”

Alexander and Ethan

Contact information
Contact Information 2005

Ken Zarker, P2 Section Manager

Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction

Washington State Department of Ecology

P.O. Box 47600

Olympia, Washington 98501-7600

Ph: 360-407-6724

Em: [email protected]