Environmental Policy Forum

On October 28th 2010 the Institute for European Studies (IES) and the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) within the framework of their Environmental Policy Forum organized the event titled Paths towards the Use of Safer Chemicals. Around 20 participants came to the event and contributed with their questions and comments at the end of the session.

Chemicals are a major part of everyday life. They are used in most production processes and consumer products. Workers and consumer are exposed to chemicals every day at their workplace, at home and almost everywhere else. Although these chemicals have sometimes been in commercial use for decades, there is not sufficient data to assess comprehensively the hazards and risks of many of them. Additionally, innovation for safer alternatives has been slow and many chemicals with hazardous properties and risks have not been substituted with safer alternatives.
To address these gaps, the European Union introduced a Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) in 2006 and California initiated the Green Chemistry Initiative and specifically, an Act on Safer Alternatives for Consumer Products in 2008. The Environmental Policy Forum looked at the different approaches in the EU and the US to fostering the substitution of hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives.

The first speaker Lauren Heine is a Scientific Director of the Clean Production Action in the United States began by describing U.S. instruments tackling hazardous chemicals. She mentioned how tools being developed on the other side of the Atlantic are in many ways inspired by the European REACH Regulation and RoHS Directive and in that relation, explained how the various instruments work, including the U.S. Environmental protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Chemical Alternatives Assessment (CAA), and its application in industry. CAA can be used to evaluate the hazards posed by chemicals during relevant phases in the product life cycle and to provide a basis for informed decision-making, through comparison of potential environmental and human health. The CAA, according to Heine also makes sense for business, as substituting one chemical for another is expensive, and making the right choice in the first try is key. Another instrument described by Heine is the Green Screen for Safer Chemicals (Green Screen). This tool is also aimed at assisting manufacturers in selecting safer substitutes and is based on hazard determinations from the CAA. The resulting data provide those choosing chemicals with a calibrated tool to weigh the health and environmental trade-offs among alternatives. By using several levels of benchmarks, an industry can see his/her score, and raise it by switching out the most hazardous chemicals.  Heine also gave practical examples of companies using the tools.

Bjorn Hansen, Deputy Head of Unit, European Commission, DG Environment, Unit on Chemicals and Nanomaterials followed Heine, by giving insight into the European REACH directive. He explained that the roots of the directive lead back to the ’92 Rio Summit, and chapter 19 in Agenda 21, dedicated to chemicals and calling for more information on them. The 2002 World Summit called for sustainability in the chemical sector and worldwide collaboration. REACH became the EU’s contribution. After going through the development of the REACH directive, Hansen described the policy framework, the multiplicity of objectives and the compromises made. Hansen continued by discussing the implementation through Registration, Evaluation, Restrictions and Authorisation, claiming that the Registration is the most important factor, as it obliges industry to test the chemical it uses, and acts as a motor of safety and increases industry’s responsibility/liability.

The other parts function as corrective measures. Hansen then spoke about REACH and the concept of substitution, claiming that considerable improvements have been made. The main driver for substitution in Reach is the work of industry leading up to registration, where safety becomes part of the product sold; substances with better safety concepts or safer alternatives will have a market advantage. In his conclusions, Hansen described the Authorisation process as new, complex and a slow one. It does put additional pressure for substitution, but industry benefits by being an early mover as the registration process is less limited and gives the industry more freedom. Despite having only a short time for discussions, they proved to be lively, and the speakers had to answer some challenging questions on prevention, assessment of goals, Life cycle analysis, and the concept of use of safer chemicals versus the safe use of chemicals.