Michael P. Wilson, Ph.D, MPH Center for Occupational and Environmental Health University of California, Berkeley mpwilso

1. 9th California Unified Program Training ConferenceGarden Grove, CaliforniaFebruary 13, 2007 – Green Technology CourseGreen Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation Michael P. Wilson, Ph.D, MPH Center for Occupational and Environmental Health University of California, Berkeley mpwilson@berkeley.edu

2. Center for Occupational and Environmental Health Est. 1978 (AB 3414) Berkeley, Davis, San Francisco (northern California). • Toxicology • Epidemiology • Industrial hygiene • Environmental health policy • Occupational and environmental medicine • Occupational health nursing • Ergonomics • Labor occupational health education • Continuing professional education The University of California, Berkeley

3. The challenge of chemicals policy: Hexane/acetone-induced neurological disease in the California vehicle repair industry. Harrison et al. MMWR, Nov 16, 2001, Vol 50 #5 The University of California, Berkeley

4. Ladefoged et al. 1994. Pharm and Tox. 74:294-299. The University of California, Berkeley

5. 8h TWA breathing zone exposure concentration, mg/m3 (n=23) Toluene Acetone Hexane The University of California, Berkeley

6. Introduction of hexane-acetone blends, 1997: …unintended consequence of exempting acetone from California VOC rules. Introduction of hexane, 1988: … unintended consequence of listing chlorine-contaminated oil as hazardous waste. The University of California, Berkeley

7. Chemical management in the CA vehicle repair industry 1970: Stoddard solvent Fire hazard 1978: CFCs Ozone depletion 1990: Methylene chloride Carcinogen 1990: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Ozone depletion 1991: Perchloroethylene and hexane Dioxin emissions 1997: Hexane/acetone blends Neurotoxin 2003: 1-Bromopropane Repro toxin The University of California, Berkeley

8. Chemical management over the last 30 years Stage 1: Disposal and dilution Stage 2: Waste treatment and pollution control Stage 3: Toxics policy (chemical-by-chemical approaches; e.g. hexane case) Stage 4: Chemicals policy (transparency, accountability, chemical design, markets, life cycles) The University of California, Berkeley

9. UC Chemicals Policy Report • Assesses problems and opportunities in chemicals policy • Proposes broad policy goals • Commissioned January 2004 by: • Byron Sher (Chair, SEQC) • John Laird (Chair, ACESTM) • Released to Legislature March 14, 2006 to: • Joseph Simitian (Chair, SEQC) • Ira Ruskin (Chair, ACESTM) Download etc: http://coeh.berkeley.edu/news/06_wilson_policy.htm The University of California, Berkeley

10. Advisory Committee Members Timothy Malloy, JD School of Law, UC Los Angeles Thomas E. McKone, PhD Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Dara O’Rourke, PhD College of Natural Resources, UC Berkeley Julia Quint, PhD Department of Health Services Christine Rosen, PhD Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley David J. Vogel, PhD Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley John R. Balmes, MD School of Medicine, UC San Francisco Carl F. Cranor, PhD Department of Philosophy, UC Riverside S. Katharine Hammond, PhD School of Public Health, UC Berkeley Bill E. Kastenberg, PhD College of Engineering, UC Berkeley Ann Keller, PhD School of Public Health, UC Berkeley Amy D. Kyle, PhD, MPH School of Public Health, UC Berkeley Geoff Lomax, DrPH Department of Health Services

11. Methods • Literature review • Key informant interviews • Survey data from 37 electronics companies • 35 conferences • Presentations at 17 conferences • Advisory Committee review The University of California, Berkeley

12. Scope Source: American Chemistry Council, Guide to the Business of Chemistry, 2003

13. Report’s findings are similar to those of: • National Academy of Sciences 1984 • U.S. General Accounting Office 1994 • Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1995 • Environmental Defense 1997 • U.S. EPA 1998 • former EPA officials 2002 • RAND Science and Technology Institute 2003 • U.S. Government Accountability Office 2005 • National Academy of Sciences 2005 The University of California, Berkeley

14. Environmental Policy Developments in the European Union • Cosmetics Directive: 2004 • Waste in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): 2005 • Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS): 2006 • Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of Chemicals (REACH): 2007 The University of California, Berkeley

15. Electronic waste recovery workers, Guiyu, ChinaCourtesy Basel Action Network The University of California, Berkeley

16. E.U. REACH Chemicals produced or imported at >1 ton/year/producer Registration: tiered tox and use data About 30,000 chemicals 3, 6, 11-yr phase-in Data requirements depend on volume Evaluation: >100 tons/year About 5,000 chemicals De-authorization: inadequate control About 1,400 – 2,000 “chemicals of very high concern” (no 1 ton trigger for these) Authorization Authorization: for CMR, PBT, vPvB De-authorization: benefit too small

17. 35 chemically-related bills in California, 2005-2006 AB 121 (Vargas) AB 263 (Chan) AB 289 (Chan) AB 319 (Chan) AB 342 (Baca) AB 597 (Montanez) AB 623 (Aanistad) AB 639 (Aghazarian) AB 752 (Karnette) AB 815 (Lieber) AB 816 (Lieber) AB 848 (Berg) AB 908 (Chu) AB 912 (Ridley-Thomas) AB 966 (Saldana) AB 985 (Dunn) AB 990 (Lieber) AB 1125 (Pavley) AB 1337 (Ruskin) AB 1342 (Assem ESTM) AB 1344 (Assem ESTM) AB 1354 (Baca) AB 1415 (Pavley) AB 1681 (Pavley) SB 419 (Simitian) SB 432 (Simitian) SB 484 (Migden) SB 490 (Lowenthal) SB 600 (Ortiz) SB 838 (Escutia) SB 849 (Escutia) SB 982 (Sen EQ comm) SB 989 (Sen EQ comm.) SB 1067 (Kehoe) SB 1070 (Kehoe) The University of California, Berkeley

18. California’s expected population growth, 1990-2050 2006 = 36 million Source: California Dept of Finance, CA pop. trends, 1990 – 2050 The University of California, Berkeley

19. Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation. • What is the problem? • What is the cause of the problem? 3) How can we respond to these problems? The University of California, Berkeley

20. Consumers Workers Public environmental health Chemical producers Children Industry & business Downstream users Municipal agencies The Legislature Green chemistry Government State agencies The University of California, Berkeley

21. Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation. 1) What is the problem? • Data Gap: The market “undervalues” the hazardous properties of chemicals relative to their function, price, and performance. • Safety Gap: Government is unable to assess chemical hazards and control those of greatest concern. • Technology Gap: The U.S. private sector is investing minimally in cleaner chemical technologies, such as green chemistry. The University of California, Berkeley

22. Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation. 2) What is the cause of the problem? • We have federal statutes… • that do not require transparency and accountability. • This has produced a chemicals market… • that allows potentially hazardous chemicals to remain competitive. The University of California, Berkeley

23. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act of 1979. • Data Gap: • TSCA (and FFDCA) do not require producers to generate and disclose chemical hazard data for government or downstream users. • Safety Gap: • TSCA (and FFDCA) have constrained government’s ability to efficiently assess and control chemical hazards. • Technology Gap: • The resulting chemicals market has dampened private sector interest in green chemistry, as reflected in R&D funding and in education. The University of California, Berkeley

24. Example 1. Data Gap Downstream users To make informed decisions about chemicals, buyers need four pieces of information: Function Price Performance Hazards The University of California, Berkeley

25. In the present market, hazard information (e.g. toxicity) is largely missing. Function Price Performance Safety The University of California, Berkeley

26. Example 2. Data Gap Agencies To assess & prioritize chemical hazards, state agencies need at least four pieces of information: Identity Sales volume Uses Hazards The University of California, Berkeley

27. This information is unavailable to agencies in California and other states. The University of California, Berkeley

28. Example 3. Safety Gap • Under TSCA (& FFDCA), government carries the burden of proving risk… • yet producers are under no obligation to provide the information necessary for government to do so… • which produces a logical paralysis. Scientific suspicion of harm Reasonable grounds for concern Balance of evidence Clear evidence of risk; risks outweigh benefits The University of California, Berkeley

29. Example 4. Technology Gap. With very few exceptions, one can earn a Ph.D in chemistry in the U.S. without demonstrating a basic understanding of toxicology… …or the principles of green chemistry. Sather Gate, UC Berkeley Why? Because university teaching and research in chemistry reflect conditions in the chemicals market. The University of California, Berkeley

30. Total daily U.S. chemical production and importation: = 42 billion pounds (623,000 tankers) (TSCA IUR). • Total daily California sales of chemical products alone: = 644 million pounds (inc. water) (2,700 tankers) (CA ARB). The University of California, Berkeley

31. The workplace Consumer products Waste streams Ecosystems: air, water, food, soil Global trade The University of California, Berkeley

32. Public health issues related to chemicals • Hazardous waste: 600 new hazardous waste sites needed each month in U.S. up to 2033 (77,000 today) ($250 billion). CA DTSC: 975 employees working on hazwaste, 25 on poll prevention; emerging “dumping ground” issue. • Workers: Yearly CA morbidity (23,000) and mortality (6,500). PELS for only 193 of 2,800 HPV chemicals (~7%). • Bioaccumulative chemicals: 688 found by EPA; CDC; CA SB 1379 (Perata). • New pediatric morbidity estimates: Asthma (10-35%), certain cancers (2-10%), neurodevelopmental disorders (5-20%) related to chemical exposures. • Endocrine disruption: Early human evidence, substantive animal evidence. • Umbilical cord blood: Early studies showing presence of many chemicals. The University of California, Berkeley

33. Global chemical production is expected to double every 25-years. The University of California, Berkeley

34. Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation. • How can we respond to these problems? • Chemicals policy to re-orient the market to green chemistry. The University of California, Berkeley

35. Will E.U. policies result in E.U. competitive advantage in cleaner technologies, such as green chemistry? Other issues: • U.S. competitiveness in these areas? • Potential for U.S. to become “dumping ground?” • Will E.U. policies create “uneven playing field” among U.S. companies? • Will states begin to leverage E.U. databases to implement new policy? • Increased activity by U.S. NGOs for chemicals policy reform? • How will the chemicals market respond to new hazard information? • Will pressure increase to reform TSCA, FFDCA? Cosmetics,WEEE, RoHS, REACH, others China RoHS, 2007 CA RoHS, 2007 Korea RoHS, 2007 Japan RoHS, 2006 The University of California, Berkeley

36. “G.E. Chief Points to ‘Green’ Handicap” Financial TimesMay 10, 2005Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington “…the deregulatory agenda favored by the U.S. business community – particularly on environmental issues – is not providing American companies with a competitive advantage over their European counterparts.” Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman and CEO (Ecomagination) The University of California, Berkeley

37. A systems approach is needed to produce enduring changes in the chemical sector. Example: electricity use. Total electricity use per capita, kWh, 1960 - 2002 Courtesy John Wilson, CA Energy Commission The University of California, Berkeley

38. The design of chemical products and processes to reduce and/or eliminate substances hazardous to human health and the environment. 12 principles proposed by Anastas &Warner. Anastas, P.T. and J. Warner. 1999. Green Chemistry Theory and Practice The University of California, Berkeley

39. From a policy perspective, • green chemistry links public & environmental health… • with new business & investment opportunities. The University of California, Berkeley

40. UC chemicals policy analysis Barriers to green chemistry Drivers of green chemistry The University of California, Berkeley

41. UC chemicals policy analysis Barriers to green chemistry Drivers of green chemistry TSCA, other statutes Data Gap Safety Gap Tech. Gap Markets Government Buyers: no haz data Sellers: no case for GC Inability to assess haz Inability to control haz • Hazard undervalued against price, function - Hazardous chemicals competitive in market - Green chemistry innovation impeded

42. UC chemicals policy analysis Barriers to green chemistry Drivers of green chemistry E.U. Directives Downstream users Industry leaders NGO activity Green chem. entrepreneurs Public opinion California Legislature Government procurement Climate change National Academy The University of California, Berkeley

43. UC chemicals policy analysis Barriers to green chemistry Drivers of green chemistry Recommendations Policy objectives: Close the Data, Safety & Technology Gaps: * Improve the flow of information in the chemicals market. * Improve government capacity to act. * Implement other incentives for green chemistry. Issues, models, mechanisms: * Leverage market forces. * Address chemical life cycle. * Place least demands on government. * Motivate technology innovation and diffusion, etc. The University of California, Berkeley

44. UC chemicals policy analysis Barriers to green chemistry Drivers of green chemistry Recommendations Policy objective Ideal mechanisms In choosing not to act: * Existing problems will expand in California. * U.S. & California could become “dumping ground.” * CA will cede leadership in green chemistry. The University of California, Berkeley

45. Thank you! The University of California, Berkeley