Toxics Use Reduction Institute

5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study

Liz Harriman

Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell

National Environmental Partnership Summit

May 2007

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

Substitution: Global and Local Context

• International – European UnionV Denmark, Germany, France, etc. substitution

studiesMREACH

• National – USV 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.

Substitution: Local Context

• MassachusettsV Toxics Use Reduction Act 1989, Amended 2006MAn Act for a Healthy Massachusetts - Safer

Alternatives bill filed• Promoted by Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow

V FY06 5 Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study• How does alternatives assessment work? What will it

tell us?

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

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

Selected Chemical Uses

PerchloroethyleneFormaldehyde

DEHP

LeadHexavalent Chromium

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

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

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

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}

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}

Key EH&S Parameters: Safety

• Safety– Corrosivity {HSDB, MSDS}– Reactivity {NIOSH, MSDS}– Flash Point {HSDB, MSDS}– Flammability {NIOSH, MSDS}– Vapor Pressure {HSDB, MSDS}

Formaldehyde Alternatives Assessment Summary for Preserved Specimens for Educational Dissection

Assessment Criteria

Formalin-Fixed Specimen

(Reference)

Comparison Relative to Specimens in Formalin

Form-alternate(propylene glycol

based)

STF(includes

Diazolid-inyl urea)

Ward’s(glutar-aldehyde

based)

Video/Virtual

Dissection

Technical/Performance

Criteria

Color Not life-like + + + n/aTexture Hardened + + = n/aStiffness Rigid + + = n/aOdor Irritating + + = +

Longevity Indefinite ? ? - +

Special handling Extensive + + + +

Availability Good = = = =

Educational value Good = = = -Financial Criteria

Cost (per specimen) $5.60 + + + n/a

Environ-mental

Criteria

EcoToxicityNot acutely toxic, except to

zooplakton - - - +

Hazardous Waste Storage/ Disposal

Regulated + + + +

Carcinogen Yes + + + +

Human Health

Criteria

LD50 (oral rat) 100 mg/kg + + + +

Sensitizer Yes + + =/+ +

Skin Adsorption Yes = = = +

Irritation Severe + + + +

COMPARISON KEY+ Better = Similar - Worse ? Unknown

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.

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

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.

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

Thank-you

• Contact Information:

Liz HarrimanDeputy Director

MA Toxics Use Reduction InstituteUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

One University Ave.

Lowell, MA 01854

harriman@turi.org

978-934-3387