Workshop presentations Introduction Dr. A. Michael Warhurst Lowell Center for Sustainable Production Framing a Future Chemicals Policy 27-29th April 2005

Workshop presentations

Introduction

Dr. A. Michael WarhurstLowell Center for Sustainable

Production

Framing a Future Chemicals Policy27-29th April 2005

Colonnade hotel, Boston, MA, USA

Aim of workshops

• To discuss key aspects of sustainable chemicals management

• To focus on solutions, through identification of options for possible future discussion and investigation

0. Introduction

Structure of workshops

• Each workshop had a background paper, which was presented briefly by the author • The background papers are views of the

author, they are not comprehensive reviews of the issue

• The papers were intended to start the discussion in the workshops, and pose some key questions

• The author was normally the rapporteur

• A facilitator ensured that:• All participants were able to contribute to the

discussion• The discussion stayed focussed on solutions,

and generated options

0. Introduction

Outcome of workshops

• Workshops were not expected to reach consensus, but it was hoped that they would discuss a number of options• Some options may be mutually exclusive, others

might be best done together• Not everyone would support every option

• Reporting of the workshops:• Comments will not be attributed to individuals -

“Chatham House Rules”• Facilitator, rapporteur and note takers will

collaborate to ensure the workshop is reported fairly and accurately

• A short summary of the discussion was presented by the rapporteur on Friday afternoon (see following slides)

• A workshop summary will be written up after the meeting, and published on the LCSP web site

0. Introduction

List of workshops

• Promotion of innovation, green chemistry and alternative materials

• Defining and obtaining good quality information for decision making

• Improving Information Flows – in Supply Chains and Beyond

• Integration of US and Global chemical initiatives.• Promotion and development of substitution and

alternatives assessment• Integrating improved chemicals management into

business processes, including product design• Improving our understanding of substance flows

through the economy

0. Introduction

Note re slides

• The following slides were produced under great time pressure during the conference

• They are not a definitive record of the workshops, nor do they necessarily fully represent the views of those in the workshops

0. Introduction

Workshop #1: Promotion of Innovation, Green Chemistry and

Alternative Materials

Rapporteur - Andrea Larson

1. Innovation

Option Categories

• Primary research• Education• Transparency• Market campaigns

1. Innovation

Primary Researchin Green Chemistry

• Green Chemistry funding by federal agencies (NSF, NIH, DOE, DOD…)

• State level partnerships (like TURI)

1. Innovation

Education

• Educate the educators• Curriculum development• K-12• Higher ed• Industry funding

1. Innovation

Transparency

• Credible 3rd party certification• Labeling for consumers• Alternatives assessment

requirements• Better information for

manufacturers• Content information for large

buyers

1. Innovation

1. Innovation

Market Campaigns

• Retailer focus• Identify leaders and laggards

Information needs for decision-making that protects health and

spurs innovation

Credible information is critical for companies, workers, government and the

public to understand and make better decision and to stimulate innovation in

safer chemicals and processes.Rapporteur - Mike Wilson

2. Information needs

What kind of information is needed for decision-making, depending on

user (firm, government, worker, consumer)

• Toxicity, ecotoxicity, fate, physical properties, cumulative and interactive effect, mixtures.

• Use, volume, qualitative exposure (occupational, env dispersion etc)

• Alternative, green chemistry• Materials flows, life cycle issues


Information produced by whom?

• Producer responsible for generating data, distributing through commerce and understanding uses, including exposure.

• Key questions: Verifying data produced by manufacturers; introducing opportunities for participatory process; transparency of process; CBI issues; liability concerns.


Information needs and format depends on who the information

is intended for.

• Producers;• Supply chain: industrial users,

formulators;• Retailers;• Government agencies, policymakers;• Workers and their representatives;• Non-governmental organizations;• Individual consumers


What is the minimum amount of information needed for decision-

making?

• Screening tools necessary and appropriate;

• QRA not prerequisite to action;• Screening tools needed for

toxicity;• P, B and toxicity issue.


Options

• Increase body of information and make it accessible;

• Develop more tools for rapid screening; Swedish strategy;

• Policy for assuring duty of care;• Policy for assuring distribution of

chemical information to wide body of stakeholders.


Options

• Combination of regulation, incentives to achieve chemical safety and innovation.

• Clearinghouses of public information on alternatives, tech assistance.

• Revise TSCA to introduce health and environment into design of chemicals.


Rapporteur: Richard DenisonFacilitator: Liz Harriman

Workshop 3. Improving Information Flows – In Supply

Chains and Beyond

Report-back on workshop outcomes

3. Information flow

Summary of Discussion

• Broad agreement that richer and freer flow of information is needed• Power of info is in its use• Less agreement on what info and for what

purpose; whose responsibility

• Value chain barriers are real and impede all actors/stakeholders• CBI, liability, competition/secrecy

• MSDS insufficient• Inconsistent, poor quality, little/no constituent

information• Needed but also other needs: articles,

lifecycle, reflect transformations

3. Information flow

Key issues discussed

• Need to dissect current scope of CBI claims

• How much info should be provided by whom? • Responsibility needs to flow down supply

chain• Hazards only vs. composition• Public ability to understand not excuse to

withhold• Interpretation or appropriate decision

framework should not be left to provider only• More than hazard (i.e., risk) info needed for

workplace

3. Information flow

Options for CBI

• Distinguish between CBI, proprietary info in US law• Criteria for when chemical identity can

be CBI

• Provide data ownership protection while allowing disclosure• Ensure data compensation/sharing• Patents, exclusivity rights• Purchasers reward disclosure in

marketplace• Address liability?

3. Information flow

Options: How much info should be provided?

• Crux of debate: All info available, then distilled for specific vs. Provide info tailored to need/user

• Options:• Mfr: Process to identify info needs by

sector/product type/user; • could use vol or reg to decide what gets

provided

• NGO: Require release of full info; range of users decide how to use

3. Information flow

Options: How much info should be provided?

• Downstream user: • Require GHS data for all substances; govt

database• Materials declaration model – other

sectors

• Labor: Require employer to assess chemical risk to workers

3. Information flow

Rapporteur: Mark Rossi

Workshop 4. Integration of US & Global Chemical Initiatives


4. Integration

Key options discussed

• Implement GHS (in the U.S.)• Data Sharing• Confidential Business Information

(CBI)• POPs Ratification• High Production Volume (HPV)

Chemical Data• Stakeholder Working Group on

Information Sharing

4. Integration

Implement GHS (in the U.S.)

• Harmonize across sectors & agencies• De-link from legislation• Make the business case:

• Business to business dialogue• Business – government dialogue

• Joint campaign in support of implementation

• GHS data are very important to downstream users

4. Integration

Data Sharing

• Clearinghouse• Where to locate it? Trade associations?• Government role? Facilitate? Require?

• Compensation?• E-bay for chemical data – “chem bay”

• Share data for (free) w/downsteam users in exchange for upstream sharing of findings

• Inter-government data exchange – mechanism is being created (EU & US data portal) – create global data

• SAICM?• Government incentives/sanctions for

providing data

4. Integration

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

• Agree on what information should be CBI, what information should never be CBI, & when CBI should be invoked

• Need to separate CBI from proprietary data

• Need proposal from businesses on how to handle CBI

4. Integration

POPs Ratification (in the U.S.)

• NGO-Business collaboration on ratifying POPs• Need to address implementation

question? How new chemicals are added to the treaty (disagreement

• Ratify treaty at state level?

4. Integration

High Production Volume (HPV) Data

• Mesh HPV data with other data being collected• Need long-term testing data on HPV

chemicals• Options / priorities for lower volume

chemicals• See Canada / Europe as model on how to

do this

4. Integration

Stakeholder Working Group

• Information Sharing, including POPs, HPV, GHS• NAFTA, North American Commission

for Environmental Cooperation to host dialogue

4. Integration

Beverley Thorpe (Rapp)Sally Edwards, Pam Civie, Cathy

Crumbley

Alternatives Assessment and Substitution


5. Substitution

Key Themes discussed

• Theme 1• Substitution Planning

• Theme 2• Education

• Theme 3• Government Role

• Theme 4• Institutional Customers and Role of

Procurement

5. Substitution

Theme 1: Substitution Planning

• Elements:• 1 Mandatory/Voluntary • 2 Who? Involve workers, community• 3 Methodology: LCA? Indicators? RA?

Inherent hazard as basis?

• Advantages:• 1Mandatory: Level Playing field• 2 Prioritise common indicators/criteria used

• Problems:• 1Lack of uniform consistent method• 2 different value judgments/who pays

5. Substitution

Theme 2: Education

• Elements:• 1Labeling • 2 Broader consumer awareness• 3 Training within industry/academia

• Advantages:• 1stimulates market (NGO advocate)• 2 Rewards responsible companies

• Problems:• 1False Advertising/self promotion/Liability• 2 not individual consumer responsibility

5. Substitution

Theme 3: Government role

• Elements:• 1 Chemical Plant Security• 2 substitution planning/chemical

info/Bans/phase outs• 3 R&D, tax incentives/subsidy elimination

• Advantages:• 1 Level playing field for companies• 2 Fills current data gaps

• Problems:• 1 No clear transition planning• 2 lack of government commitment

5. Substitution

Theme 4: Institutional customers/Procurement

• Elements:• 1 Review specifications• 2 Can be ‘biggest’ driver• 3 Where is government responsibility?

• Advantages:• 1 Quickly move market• 2 takes onus off individual consumer

• Problems:• 1Specs can hinder (eg carpets)• 2 Company Staffing? Time?

5. Substitution

Recommendations for follow up

• Duplicate this type of conference in Europe and Asia …

• Common ground statement from conference (landmark conference!)

• Workshops needed for: • Practical Tools - eg, Alternative Assessment • Retailers• Best Practices for: Specific Industry sectors

(eg toys) • Advocacy groups, labor, gov’t …

5. Substitution

Rapporteur: Tom Swarr

Workshop 6. Integrating Chemicals

Management into Business Decisions


6. Chemicals Management

Consumer

OEM

Supplier

Formulator

Chemical

Regulator Government

Education

workers

community

Who is Responsible?



• Information / Education• Regulations / Incentives• Accountability• Lessons from the 90’s P2 Efforts• Roles & Responsibilities across

supply chain


Key options discussed

• Goals from OEMs• Set the direction w/ measurable

targets

• Better chemical information• Dual track MSDSs

• Incentives / Regulation• Information, rewards, & regulated

minimum


Option 1: OEM Goals

• Elements:• Identify requirements • Assess impacts• Measurable targets tracked

• Advantages:• Prioritization• Market focus

• Problems:• Complex supply chain• Public participation


Option 2: Chemical Information

• Elements:• Technical data for design/ develop• Food pyramid for general audience• Targeted & harmonized information

• Advantages:• Better information = better informed

decision- makers

• Problems:• Cost, flow through supply chain• Access


Option 3: Incentives

• Elements:• 3rd party certified information (labels,

required use information, etc.)• Green procurement / funding• Regulated floor

• Advantages / Problems:• Finding the balance• Public participation• UL label doesn’t guarantee no fire


Rapporteur: Cheri Peele

Workshop 7. Substance Flow Analysis

• Report-back on workshop outcomes

7. Substance flows


• Value of analysis depends on many variables• Which materials?• Who would use information? For what

purpose(s)?• Scope of information?• At what cost? To whom?

• Need for systematic methodology

7. Substance flows

Variable 1: Materials

• PBTs• High-value recyclable materials• High-exposure chemicals (body

burden)• High-volume and hazardous• Substances of regional concern

7. Substance flows

Variable 2: Users of Analysis

• Regulators• OEMs/Downstream users• Recyclers• Affected communities• Researchers focusing on exposure• Product/ process developers

7. Substance flows

Variable 3: Scope of Information Collected

• Exposure information vs. mass flow

• Black box economy vs. material flow through economy

• Include environmental fate & transformation?

• Consider:• Transformation of chemicals• What data is available

7. Substance flows

Variable 4: Data Collection

• How much is already available?• EPA• USGS• USDA

• Need to find most cost-effective point to ask questions• How much do manufacturers know?• CBI

7. Substance flows

Next steps

• Each workshop will be written up, and these write ups will be incorporated in the conference report.

• The conference report will be available on the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production’s Chemicals Policy web site:

• www.chemicalspolicy.org

Documents

Workshop presentations Introduction Dr. A. Michael Warhurst Lowell Center for Sustainable Production Framing a Future Chemicals Policy 27-29th April 2005