1. The Importance of Chemical Ranking Systems: A Department of Defense Study
Carole LeBlanc, Ph.D Emerging Contaminants Directorate Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, ODUSD (Installations & Environment) 1

2. Conducted by Noblis for Emerging Contaminants (EC) Program to
Purpose of Study
Conducted by Noblis for Emerging Contaminants (EC) Program to
Inform the Department of Defense (DoD) of the nature and the number of existing systems used within DoD
Inform the Department of the comparative nature and the number of existing systems used outside DoD (by labeling agencies, industry, government and non-profits)
Determine the extent of
Current use of DoD systems within DoD
Current (in any) and possible use of non-DoD systems within DoD 2

3. Criteria of Chemical Ranking Systems Study
Accessibility By DoD Personnel Including Use Restrictions, Costs/Fees
Different Needs of Many Potential DoD User Communities
Quality of the Chemical Ranking System
Frequency of Updates
Range of Chemicals Included
Breadth/Extent and Level of Detail Considered
Current Uses of the System
Applicability for DoD-Wide Use 3

4. Summary of Survey Comparative Results4

5. Comparative Summary (cont.)5

6. Top DoD Systems Identified
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)
Prohibited and Controlled Chemicals List (PCCL)
Army Aviation and Missile Lifecycle Management Command (AMCOM)
Following the Army Hazardous Materials Evaluation via Regulatory Impact/Priority Order Ranking System for Hazardous Product Substitution
Air Force F-22 Raptor
Hazardous Materials Program 6

7. Top DoD Systems (cont.) and Labeling System
Navy, Air Force, Marines F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Uses Lockheed Martin’s Hazardous Materials Elimination List (HMEL)
New F-35/components require Hazardous Materials Management Program (HMMP)
Green Seal
U.S. based labeling system 7

8. Top Industry, Government and Non-Profit Systems
S.C. Johnson GreenlistTM
Dolphin Safe Source
McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, LLC (MBDC)
Government
U.S. EPA Design for Environment (DfE)
Non-Profit
Zero Waste Alliance (ZWA) Chemical Assessment and Ranking System (CARS)
Earthster.org Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool
Clean Production Action (CPA) Green Screen for Safer … Chemicals 8

9. Conclusions of Chemical Ranking Study
Many Systems Depend on the Generation of Lists
Usually regulatory-driven (e.g., EPA’s ‘List of Lists’)
Surprisingly
Far more systems identified within DoD (17) than previously thought (out of ~100 systems examined)
Not So Surprisingly
Systems identified were found to be application-specific
No One Existing System Is Likely to Meet All DoD’s Needs
Partially because they rely on application-specific lists!
Unlike many business models, regulatory specificity may not protect DoD from future risks 9

10. Recommendations of Study
Establish and Support a Suite of Web-based Tools to Suit Unique DoD Users and Processes
Implementing One Uniform Chemical Ranking System DoD-Wide Is Suboptimal
Focus Resources on One Database for Chemical Ranking and Substitution That Includes ECs and Ensure That Linkages to Other Ranking Systems Are Seamless 10

11. Recommendations of Study (cont.)
Institute a QA/QC Process for Each Selected Ranking System and the Supporting Database
Combine Currently Operating Ranking Systems with a Customized Tool to Address Unique DoD Processes
Leverage Experience Gained by States and Other Organizations That Provide Technical Assistance in Chemical Ranking and Substitution Efforts 11

12. Next Steps
Provide a ‘Roadmap’ for DoD Decision-Makers to Select the Most Appropriate System for Their Purposes
Maximizes utilization of existing tools
Minimizes duplication of efforts
Conduct a ‘Phase II’ Study to Determine the Feasibility of Incorporating Elements of Some/Several/All Systems to Develop a DoD ‘Master’ Chemical Ranking System
Assists with ‘lifecycle’ efforts under Executive Order for more sustainable chemical management to reduce environmental, safety and health risks, based on sound business practices
Requires educational/training module (i.e., curriculum development and testing), with input from the authors of the various chemical ranking systems 12

13. ‘Pollution Prevention’ (P2) Speaks to the Past
Facing the Future
‘Pollution Prevention’ (P2) Speaks to the Past
Use of chemical lists of prohibited/restricted substances is a start, but by themselves…
Not responsive enough to manage chemical risks in building today’s ‘business case’
It’s Not Enough to MINIMIZE HAZARDS
It’s Time to MAXIMIZE GREEN CHEMISTRY!
Speaks to the future and sustainability 13

14. Paul Yaroschak, EC Deputy Director
Acknowledgements
Paul Yaroschak, EC Deputy Director
Drew Rak, Whitney Glaccum and Steve Gibb, Noblis
Steven Strausbauch, AFIOH/RSRE
Brooks Air Force Base 14

15. 15

16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
For More Information
Carole LeBlanc, Ph.D Special Expert Emerging Contaminants Directorate
Telephone:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! 16