Alternatives Assessment for Chemical Substitution: Insights and Methodology

1. 5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study Liz Harriman Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell National Environmental Partnership Summit May 2007

2. Overview • Substitution – Global and Local Context • 5 Chemicals Study Overview • Stakeholder Process • Alternatives Assessment Methodology • Technical • Financial • Environmental, Health and Safety • Example Results • Key EH&S and Assessment Issues • Conclusions

3. Substitution: Global and Local Context • International – European Union • Denmark, Germany, France, etc. substitution studies • REACH • National – US • EPA DfE Flame Retardant Study, Formulators Project • States • Numerous state efforts to restrict certain chemicals (typically restriction M, substitution V) • WA (decaBDE), ME (PBDEs), CA (perc), etc.

4. Substitution: Local Context • Massachusetts • Toxics Use Reduction Act 1989, Amended 2006 • An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts - Safer Alternatives bill filed • Promoted by Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow • FY06 5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study • How does alternatives assessment work? What will it tell us?

5. 5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment - Legislative Request • State legislature charged TURI with assessing alternatives to 5 chemicals: • Lead • Formaldehyde • Perchloroethylene • Hexavalent chromium • di-(2 ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) • 11 months to complete study and report • For each substance: • Describe significant uses in manufacturing and products • Identify possibly alternatives, proven and emergent, for selected uses

6. 5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment - Scope • Assess potential of alternatives to serve as substitutes for specific applications: • Technical feasibility • Financial feasibility • Environmental, and public/occupational health and safety • High priority uses and alternatives to be assessed • Stakeholder interest • Use in Massachusetts • Manufacturing balanced with consumer products • Potential for substitutes and improvement • Alternatives include: chemicals, materials and products/function substitutes

7. Selected Chemical Uses Perchloroethylene DEHP Formaldehyde Lead Hexavalent Chromium

8. Alternatives AssessmentMethodology • Initial screen for PBTs and Carcinogens • Investigation of feasibility, applicability for different applications and situations • Qualitative assessment of [ +, =, -, or ? ] for important and relevant parameters for: • technical • financial • environmental • human health • safety • Summary of important and relevant life cycle considerations for product/function substitutes

9. Key EH&S Parameters: Preferred Sources • Published, publicly available, references from authoritative bodies • HSDB, NIOSH, IRIS, IARC, USEPA fact sheets, NFPA • Models – PBT Profiler • State/International sources • CA Prop 65, EU ESIS, WMA, IPCC • Industry Sources • MSDS • Published studies

10. Technical Feasibility • Key performance requirements • Longevity, physical characteristics, quality, maintenance, etc. • Sources of information • Industry and user experience • Previous robust studies • Technical experts • Manufacturer’s product information

11. Key EH&S Parameters: Environmental • PBT {PBT Profiler} • Persistence/Biological Degradability • Bioaccumulation • Aquatic Toxicity • Environmental Mobility {HSDB, PBT Profiler} • Water solubility, Kd, log Kow, Koc • Degradation products {HSDB, studies} • Ozone depletion potential {WMA} • Global Warming Potential {IPCC}

12. Key EH&S Parameters: Human Health • Human health – Chronic/CMR • Carcinogenicity {EPA, IARC} • Mutagenicity {EU ESIS} • Reproductive/developmental toxicity {EU ESIS, CA Prop 65} • Endocrine Disruption – no accepted standard • Human health – acute/occupational • Oral LD50, Inhalation LC50, Dermal Ld50 {HSDB} • IDLH, PEL, REL {NIOSH} • Irritation {HSDB, NIOSH, MSDS} • Skin Sensitization {ACGIH, AIHA} • Reference Dose {HSDB, IRIS} • Metabolites of concern {HSDB}

13. Key EH&S Parameters: Safety • Safety • Corrosivity {HSDB, MSDS} • Reactivity {NIOSH, MSDS} • Flash Point {HSDB, MSDS} • Flammability {NIOSH, MSDS} • Vapor Pressure {HSDB, MSDS}

14. Formaldehyde Alternatives Assessment Summary for Preserved Specimens for Educational Dissection COMPARISON KEY + Better = Similar - Worse ?Unknown

15. EH&S Data Issues • “Authoritative bodies” don’t always have most up-to-date information • Data discrepancies • Data gaps • Not enough measured data (e.g., PBT), so used modelling results • No US consensus on some indicators (e.g., endocrine disruption) • Inability to include complexity, different interpretations of study results, etc.

16. EH&S Assessment Issues • Mixtures • Material alternatives vs. chemical alternatives • e.g., different flooring materials rather than different plasticizers • Process alternatives – achieve function, but no comparable substance to compare against • Video dissection vs. formaldehyde preserved specimens

17. Conclusions • In every application studied, at least one alternative was identified that was • commercially available, • was likely to meet the technical requirements of some users, and • was likely to have reduced environmental and occupational health and safety impacts.

18. Conclusions (cont.) • Study results are useful for: • Businesses or educated consumers • Apply results to their specific application and values • Researchers • Pulls together current state of knowledge about alternatives and potential impacts • Policy-makers • Provides information about potential for substitution for specific chemicals and uses • Study available at www.turi.org

19. Thank-you • Contact Information: Liz Harriman Deputy Director MA Toxics Use Reduction Institute University of Massachusetts Lowell One University Ave. Lowell, MA 01854 harriman@turi.org 978-934-3387