(May 6, 2008) Businesses already are taking steps to further enhance the safe use of chemicals, the California Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business interests are reminding the state agency that is considering additional regulations as part of what is being called the California “Green Chemistry Initiative.”

The initiative should help catalyze the adaptation already under way within industry, including more systematic application of green chemistry principles, The Thursday Group coalition writes in comments submitted this week to the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

In April 2007, Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, assigned the DTSC to lead other agencies in developing the initiative, which moves the state from chemical-specific regulations to more all-inclusive policies modeled after Canada and the European Union.

“Green Chemistry seeks to transform industrial activity to create a zero-waste society,” states the executive summary of a Cal/EPA report compiling policy options suggested during hearings in the first phase of the initiative program.

Sound Science Needed

Sound science and an approach that evaluates risks versus benefits should form the foundation for the regulatory structure, the coalition said. In addition, the process must give due consideration to the economic and societal needs of all Californians, the coalition states.

The coalition — made up of 65 business, industry, agriculture and other association groups — is committed to promoting public policies that strike a reasonable balance between economic growth and environmental protection. Coalition members acknowledge that environmental protection is an integral component of doing business in today’s world and can provide a company an additional selling point in gaining customers.

California has some of the most stringent environmental laws in the country, some of which go beyond federal laws.

General Principles

The coalition emphasizes that the state’s continued economic prosperity depends on leadership that uses the laws to protect the environment while leaving California businesses the flexibility to implement innovative, cost-effective solutions that promote business objectives.

The comments note that coalition members “are strong advocates of the philosophy that the marketplace should choose winners and losers when it comes to products.” The coalition cautions against a “command and control regulatory scheme” that will stifle innovation, slow the economy and have a negative impact on job growth in California.

Specific Issues

The coalition’s comments on specific issues include the following:

• A tax on the production of hazardous chemicals isn’t a viable policy option because it will spur businesses to move production out of the state, place California businesses at a disadvantage when the economy is softening and could create adverse incentives.
• Bans of existing chemicals provide no guarantee of “greener” outcomes. Green chemistry is about reducing risks to health and the environment and not just substituting one hazard for another. A more rational alternative would be a risk reduction policy that accounts for the economic, social, health and environmental dimensions of chemistry.
• California must determine if developing safer alternatives to products currently on the market is simply a desire or a priority. Developing recognition programs, tax incentives, regulatory efficiency and liability mitigation would be a declaration of California’s priorities and willingness to be a partner in this process.
• Rather than punishing companies for failing to use what the state deems to be “safer alternatives,” the state should recognize that the decision of manufacturers to use one chemical over another is far too complex and confidential to allow for a system that punishes choices. California should instead seek to provide an incentive for companies to use safer alternatives in their products, especially when a move to an alternative causes significant investment and risk for the business.
• The state must commit itself to protect confidential business information, such as product ingredients. The Green Chemistry Initiative should not create a one-size-fits-all approach when well-established and well-enforced guidelines already are in place that have been crafted to suit the needs of specific product categories.
• Any standard for risk assessment developed under the Green Chemistry Initiative should be applied to both in-use chemicals and new alternatives. A different standard would lead to unintended consequences and undermine the goals of the initiative.

Process

The department is holding a series of public hearings this month on suggestions it has received for its Green Chemistry Initiative. Recommendations for future policies are to be presented to the Governor later this summer, according to the timeline posted on the department website.

Staff Contact: Jason Schmelzer

Additional Materials

Environmental Regulation