Synergist - April 2011

• A modernized TSCA should encourage
technological innovation and a glob-
ally competitive industry in the U.S.

The debate over key TSCA reform provisions continues. In the meantime, interest in chemical management and dialogue continues to expand around the world. Last October, for example, China promulgated regulatory requirements similar to those of REACH.

State Initiatives

Most U.S. states lack the means for collecting data on, evaluating and regulating toxic materials. As concern about the health and environmental effects of toxics has risen, states have considered chemicals on a case-by-case basis or regulated them solely on disposal. Several state agencies have limited authority over the same chemical but in different products or at different stages of the product’s life cycle. This approach has created an apparently ineffective patchwork process for identifying, evaluating and regulating chemicals in commerce.

The tide is shifting. Between 2003 and 2010, 71 chemical safety laws were adopted in 18 states, encompassing 41 percent of the U.S. population. 4 State legislation that controls toxic chemicals appears to have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The goals of the California Green Chemistry Initiative, launched in 2007, include developing a consistent means for evaluating risk, reducing exposure, encouraging less toxic industrial processes, and identifying safer, nonchemical alternatives. Some proponents consider green chemistry to be a new approach to occupational and environmental protection. Instead of managing toxic chemicals at the end of the life cycle, green chemistry attempts to reduce or eliminate their use from the start.

The Green Chemistry Initiative and its companion regulations could be some of the most important environmental health and safety legislation in more than 30 years. Under the state’s green chemistry law, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control within Cal-EPA was directed to develop regulations for identifying “chemicals of concern” and regulating the consumer products that contain those chemicals. These regulations require manufacturers to profile

their chemicals and associated full life cycle risks before placing them in commerce. The question is whether the best way to produce this information is through regulation or promotion of research.

Industry groups and environmentalists are closely following California’s efforts. The state’s work could be a potential model for other states and the federal government to follow when evaluating the use of toxic chemicals in consumer products. Chemical makers and others, however, remain cautious about the developing legislation, which has moved through several drafts. It is a big jump from draft agency policy principles language to implementation. Whatever the outcome, California’s approach to identifying and selecting chemicals for regulatory action is expected to be more science based, with quicker regulatory responses and greater transparency, and, ultimately, be more protective of consumers.

The Reform Debate

In 2009, the Obama administration endorsed reform of U.S. chemicals policy with a proposal that chemical producers be required to submit sufficient hazard, exposure, and use data for EPA to determine whether chemicals meet a health-based safety standard. 5 Many believe that this proposal could advance the argument for TSCA reform; however, the jump from draft policy to agency implementation is immense. Can these changes be put into action within a reasonable time frame? Will they make a difference? Will they duplicate regulations already in existence?

In the best of situations, reform at the federal and state levels would have several benefits. It would produce enhanced, scientifically-based data on interrelated factors affecting human health and ecosystems. It would enable better decisions regarding the risks of consumer products. It would give manufacturers greater responsibility for generating scientific data on their products. It would represent an integrated global chemical policy, enable action in the face of scientific uncertainty, and result in more knowledgeable consumers.

However, reform might also mean
excessively conservative and possibly
conflicting regulations superimposed
on existing regulations; confusion over
requirements; and tremendous implemen-
tation difficulties.

ChrisLaszcz-Davis,MS,CIH,REA,isprincipal,The Environmental Quality Organization, LLC, in Lafayette,Calif.,presidentoftheCaliforniaIndustrial HygieneCouncil(CIHC)andformerVP,EH&S, KaiserAluminum&ChemicalCorporation.Shecan bereachedatChrisLD@EQ-Organization.comor (925) 330-1774.

SusanD.Ripple,MS,CIH,istheNorthAmericaIn-dustrial Hygiene Expertise Center resource leader andprincipalcoordinatorforoccupationalexposure limitsatTheDowChemicalCompanyinMidland, Mich.Shecanbereachedatsdripple@dow.comor (989) 636-5572.

References

1. OSHA: “Facts on Aligning the Hazard Communication Standard to the

GHS.” [Online] Available at www. osha.gov/as/opa/facts-hcs-ghs. html (accessed February 23, 2011).

2. EPA: “High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS).” [Online] Available at www.epa.gov/chemrtk/ hpvis/ index.html (accessed February 23, 2011).

3. Schwarzmann, M.R., and M.P. Wilson: “New Science for Chemicals Policy.” Science 326 (5956): 1065–1066 (2009).

4. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families: “30 States Nationwide to Announce

Upcoming Bills to Protect Kids and Families from Toxic Chemicals on Wed. Jan 19,” news release, Jan. 18, 2011 ( www.saferchemicals.org).

5. EPA: “Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation.” [Online] Available at www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemi cals/pubs/ principles.html (2009).