Optimizing Chemicals Management in the United States and Canada through the Essential-Use Approach

Chemicals have improved the functionality and convenience of industrial and consumer products, but sometimes at the expense of human or ecological health. Existing regulatory systems have proven to be inadequate for assessing and managing the tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce. A different approach is urgently needed to minimize ongoing production, use, and exposures to hazardous chemicals. The premise of the essential-use approach is that chemicals of concern should be used only in cases in which their function in specific products is necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society and when feasible alternatives are unavailable. To optimize the essential-use approach for broader implementation in the United States and Canada, we recommend that governments and businesses (1) identify chemicals of concern for essentiality assessments based on a broad range of hazard traits, going beyond toxicity; (2) expedite decision-making by avoiding unnecessary assessments and strategically asking up to three questions to determine whether the use of the chemical in the product is essential; (3) apply the essential-use approach as early as possible in the process of developing and assessing chemicals; and (4) engage diverse experts in identifying chemical uses and functions, assessing alternatives, and making essentiality determinations and share such information broadly. If optimized and expanded into regulatory systems in the United States and Canada, other policymaking bodies, and businesses, the essential-use approach can improve chemicals management and shift the market toward safer chemistries that benefit human and ecological health.

Reducing the use of carcinogens: the Massachusetts experience

Toxics use reduction (TUR) is one part of a comprehensive cancer prevention strategy. TUR emphasizes reducing the use of cancer-causing chemicals by improving manufacturing processes and identifying and adopting safer alternatives. This analysis draws on 20 years of data collected from industries reporting to the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) program to assess trends in the use and release of chemicals associated with cancer. We used a master list of known and suspected carcinogens developed from authoritative sources and a list of carcinogens grouped by their association with 11 cancer sites to analyze trends in use and release of chemicals by industrial facilities reporting to the TURA program from 1990 to 2010. The trend analysis shows that reported use and releases of carcinogens by these Massachusetts companies have decreased dramatically over time. Reported use declined 32% from 1990 to 2010, and reported releases declined 93% from 1991 to 2010 (1991 is when additional industrial sectors, including electric utilities, were phased into the program). Particularly large reductions were achieved in the use of trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene and cadmium and cadmium compounds. The analysis of groups of chemicals associated with specific cancer sites shows similar trends. Important opportunities for further reductions in many carcinogens, including formaldehyde, hexavalent chromium, and a variety of halogenated compounds are identified. Continued work to minimize the use of carcinogens can help to reduce the burden of cancer in Massachusetts and elsewhere.

Higher hazard substances under The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act: lessons from the first four years

The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) has achieved significant reductions in toxic chemical use in Massachusetts, using a combination of regulatory and voluntary measures. Historically the program has regulated only users of relatively large quantities of toxic chemicals, with services provided to facilities of all sizes on a voluntary basis. Statutory amendments adopted in 2006 created an authority to designate Higher and Lower Hazard Substances (HHS and LHS). The HHS designation extends TURA program requirements to smaller quantity chemical users. This article reports on experiences from the first four years of implementing this new authority. A case study of trichloroethylene is provided as an example. The article also discusses steps taken to regulate n-propyl bromide, a drop-in substitute for TCE that is minimally regulated at the federal level. TURA program experiences may be of interest to other jurisdictions that are working to reach small-quantity chemical users, and to categorize and prioritize chemicals.