alex stone chemist, wa dept. of ecology epa prioritization workshop april 6-7, 2010 1
TRANSCRIPT
Chemical Selection and Prioritization for
Washington’s Children’s Safe Product Act (CSPA)
Alex StoneChemist, WA Dept. of Ecology
EPA Prioritization WorkshopApril 6-7, 2010
1
CSPA ImplementationThree Phases
1. Identification of Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCCs)
2. Prioritization of CHCCs3. Final review and determination of CHCCs
to be placed into regulation
2
Phase 1Identify High Priority Chemicals (HPC)Identify Chemicals in Potential Exposure
SourcesIdentify Chemicals of High Concern to
Children (CHCCs), i. e. chemicals that are:1. An HPC and2. Found in at least one of the potential
exposure pathways
‘High Priority Chemicals’ (HPCs): (From legislation)
Section 2: Definitions‘High priority chemical’ as identified by:
• State agency• Federal agency• Accredited research university• Other scientific evidence deemed authoritative by Ecology
One or more of the following criteria:a) Developmental toxinb) Cause:
• Cancer• Genetic damage• Reproductive harm• Endocrine disruptor
c) Damage:• Nervous system• Immune system• Organs• Other systemic toxicity
d) PBTe) vPvB (very persistent & very bioaccumulative)
HPCs
4
HPC Sources:
United States: Federal United States: StateProp 65-Total 721
EPA TRI PBT Chemicals 64 Prop 65 Cancer 509EPA VCCEP 23 Prop 65 Developmental 256Nat. Waste Min. Prg. Priority Chem. 33 Prop 65 Female 42Nat. Tox Prg. Reproduction 39 Prop 65 Male 60Nat. Tox Prg. Carcinogens-Known 55 WA PBTs 74
Nat. Tox Prg. Carcinogens-Suspected 181 International: EuropeIRIS Total 128 EU Endocrine Disruptors Cat 1 91 IRIS 1986 Category A (known) 11 EU Endocrine Disruptors Cat 2 54 IRIS 1986 Category B1 (probable-humans) 5 EU SVHC (Substances of Very High Concern) 16 IRIS 1986 Category B2 (probable-animal) 65 EU PBTs 28 IRIS 1986 Category C (possible) 39 EU Chemicals identified for Risk Assessment 140 IRIS 1996 Known/likely 8 OSPAR Chemicals of Concern 306
IRIS 1999 Carcinogens 4 OSPAR 1997 Chemicals for Priority Action 35
IRIS 2005 Suggestive Evidence 1 IARC Group 1 Known Carcinogens 47
IRIS Oral RfD Critical Effects 4 IARC Group 2a Probable Carcinogens 52IARC Group 2b Possible Carcinogens 222
Other International: CanadaGrandjean Neuro/developmental toxicants 201 Canadian PBiT list 393
5
From HPCs, identify ‘chemicals of high concern to children (CHCCs):
(From legislation)
Exposure Lists:
Section 4: Identifying high priority chemicals of high concern for children
after considering a child’s or developing fetus’s potential for exposure to each chemical.
One or more of the following criteria: Chemicals found in biomonitoring studies:
a) Humans Umbilical cord blood Breast milk Urine Other bodily tissues or fluids
b) Chemicals found in: Household dust Indoor air Drinking water Elsewhere in the home
c) Added or present in consumer product used or present in the home 6
Exposure
Exposure Chemical Selection
Generated data in 4 Biomonitoring & potential exposure areas
– Biomonitoring NHANES & Danish Birth Cohort Journal Articles
– Indoor Air & Dust CA Air Resources Board Journal Articles
– Drinking Water EPA drinking water standards Journal Articles
– Products Primarily Danish and Dutch consumer product studies
7
8
Exposure Information Source Number of Chemicals
Biomonitoring Studies 280Drinking Water 239Indoor Air and House Dust 290Consumer Products 1,798
2,607 Total
2,419 Unique (sum)
2,219 Unique (CAS)
Exposure Chemical Results
9
Chemicals removed before further prioritization:
10
178
476
Phase 2 Governor’s veto message directed Ecology
to place greater emphasis upon chemicals found in children’s products
Prioritized products based upon 3 toxicity criteria of most importance to children and presence in children’s products
Used a ‘weight-of-evidence’ approach
11
Phase 2Toxicity criteria
1. Developmental or reproductive toxicity2. Endocrine disruption3. Carcinogenicity
Exposure criteria4. Presence in Children’s products5. Exposure potential from those products6. Known exposure in general population
Created ‘Score Card’ to evaluate CHCCs Filled out score cards on 178 potential CHCCs
12
Phase 2 (cont.)
13
Known Possible Unlikely
Worst 29 15 0
Severe 16 32 0
Bad 2 4 0
Add WA PBTs back onto list Reduced 178 to 65 potential CHCCs
14
50-00-0 Formaldehyde 108-88-3 Toluene57-55-6 Propylene glycol 108-95-2 Phenol60-29-7 Diethyl ether 109-86-4 2-Methoxyethanol62-53-3 Aniline 110-80-5 Ethylene glycol monoethyl ester62-75-9 N-nitrosodimethylamine 115-96-8 TCE; Tris-(2-chlorethyl)-phosphate71-36-3 1-Butanol 118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene; HCB71-43-2 Benzene 119-93-7 3,3’- Dimethylbenzidine75-01-4 Vinyl chloride 120-47-8 Ethyl paraben75-07-0 Acetaldehyde 123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane75-09-2 Methylene chloride 127-18-4 Perchloroethylene; Tetrachlorethylene75-15-0 Carbon disulfide 131-11-3 Dimethyl phthalate78-93-3 Methyl ethyl ketone 131-55-5 Benzophenone-279-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 140-66-9 4-tert-Octylphenol79-94-7 TBBPA; Tetrabromobisphenol A 140-67-0 Estragole80-05-7 Bisphenol A 149-57-5 2-Ethyl hexanoic acid84-66-2 DEP; Diethyl phthalate 556-67-2 Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane84-75-3 di-n-hexylphthalate 608-93-5 PeCB; pentachlorobenzene85-44-9 Phthalic anhydride 842-07-9 C.I. Solvent Yellow 1486-30-6 N-nitroso-diphenylamine 872-50-4 1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinon; NMP87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 1163-19-5 BDE 209; Deca-BDE94-13-3 n-Propyl paraben 1763-23-1 PFOS94-26-8 Butyl paraben 1806-26-4 4-Octylphenol95-53-4 2-Aminotoluene 4376-20-9 MEHP; Mono-2-ethylhexyl phthalate95-80-7 2,4-Toluenediamine 5466-77-3 2-Ethylhexyl-p-methoxycinnamate99-76-3 Methyl paraben 7439-97-6 Mercury & mercury compounds99-96-7 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid 7439-98-7 Molybdenum & Molybdenum compounds100-41-
4Ethyl benzene 7440-36-0 Antimony & Antimony compounds
100-42-5
Styrene 7440-38-2 Arsenic & Arsenic compounds
104-40-5
4-n-Nonylphenol; n-NP 7440-41-7 Beryllium & Beryllium compounds
106-47-8
Chloroaniline 7440-48-4 Cobalt & Cobalt compounds
107-13-1
Acrylonitrile25013-16-
5Butylated Hydroxyanisole; BHA
107-21-1
1,2-Ethandiol; Ethylene glycol25154-52-
3Nonylphenol
25637-99-4
HBCD; Hexabromocyclododecane
Phase 3Final review of 65 CHCCs to determine those
placed into regulation
Four components part of final determination:1. Final toxicity and exposure review2. Determination of a reasonable analytical
method3. Determination of a reporting level4. Overall policy review
In the meantime conducting Pilot Rule
15
Pilot Rule Create draft rule Work with regulated community and
interested parties to evaluate effectiveness of proposed rule
Based upon input, propose final rule which will contain final list of CHCCs
Undergo formal public comment process Once finalized, any product sold or
manufactured in WA must report to Ecology presence of chemical in product and certain additional information
16
LinksChildren Safe Product Act & Pilot Rule Process:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/rules/ruleChildSafePilot.html
Phase 1 process:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9G-4Y5H5XP-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6cbd6a426cb849743c8d27f7da883874
17
