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

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 2. Information needs

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. 2. Information needs

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 2. Information needs

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. 2. Information needs

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. 2. Information needs

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. 2. Information needs

Rapporteur: Richard Denison Facilitator: 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 Report-back on workshop outcomes 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 Report-back on workshop outcomes 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 Report-back on workshop outcomes 6. Chemicals Management

Consumer OEM Supplier Formulator Chemical RegulatorGovernment Education workers community Who is Responsible? 6. Chemicals Management

Summary of Discussion Information / Education Regulations / Incentives Accountability Lessons from the 90’s P2 Efforts Roles & Responsibilities across supply chain 6. Chemicals Management

Key options discussed Goals from OEMs Set the direction w/ measurable targets Better chemical information Dual track MSDSs Incentives / Regulation Information, rewards, & regulated minimum 6. Chemicals Management

Option 1: OEM Goals Elements: Identify requirements Assess impacts Measurable targets tracked Advantages: Prioritization Market focus Problems: Complex supply chain Public participation 6. Chemicals Management

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 6. Chemicals Management

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 6. Chemicals Management

Rapporteur: Cheri Peele Workshop 7. Substance Flow Analysis Report-back on workshop outcomes 7. Substance flows

Summary of Discussion 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: