IES Policy Forum

Megan Schwarzman and Michael Wilson began the forum with presenting recent Green Chemistry policy developments in California. Dr. Wilson first highlighted the fundamental problems with the policy progress in the US. The US produces and imports over 76 billion pounds of chemicals per day. Dr. Wilson explained that the current Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is antiquated and in need of overhaul. He cited three problems from the TSCA: limited public information on the intrinsic hazards and uses of chemicals, insufficient safety measures to address risks, and the failure of companies to invest in cleaner technologies to adjust capacity for the twenty-first century. Since this act was enacted in 1976, only five of approximately 80,000 hazardous chemicals on the market have been banned by the US government. With this highly prevalent inefficiency, Wilson says that a new law, one more like the EU REACH Regulation, is a necessity to ensure that the US does not fall behind the EU and the rest of the world in terms of regulating hazardous chemicals.

Megan Schwarzman presented the two recently enacted Californian laws intorucing Green Chemistry provisions. Senate Bill (SB) 509 introduces a database that records information on chemicals currently in the Californian market, an idea taken from the EU’s REACH programme. Assembly Bill (AB) 1879 requires the Department for Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to develop a process to:
−    Identify and prioritize chemicals of concern in consumer products
−    Evaluate the lifecycle impacts of their alternatives
−    Specify a regulatory response
−    Defines a “consumer product” as: a product or part of the product that is used, brought, or leased for use by a person for any purposes.
The language of AB 1879 is relatively vague. The success of the bill depends on the implementation of DTSC.

Responding to the Californian perspective, Ninja Reineke discussed in more detail the implementation of the REACH Regulation. She focussed on aspects of the identification and prioritisation of substances of very high concern (SVHCs). Dr. Reineke voiced some concern about the very short candidate list and the slow process of prioritisation of chemicals. According to her a comprehensive candidate list is needed for more information in supply chain and for the notification of SVHCs in articles. The provision of data is the key for all steps: identification, prioritisation and alternatives assessment. The NGO alternative list of SVHC, the so-called SIN list 1.0, has become an important reference for companies, authorities due to official slow process. Dr. Reineke concluded that REACH is a reality – but a very slow one.

Following the three presentations by the special guests, a roundtable discussion began. One of the first questions enquired whether the panellists foresee the US improving its response to the growing dangers of unrestricted hazardous chemicals. While Dr. Wilson responded that it has been very difficult for the country to make Green Chemistry a high priority, he admitted optimistically that California would initiate the policy changes although it will take time and more research. Another question addressed how the US is attempting to close the gap on chemical policy variation between the EU and itself with the delay of the enactment of an American REACH-like programme. The panellists responded that there are some signs that there would be a declining of the differences between the two governments on chemical policy.