1. 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

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 V Denmark, Germany, France, etc. substitution studies M REACH National – US V 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 V Toxics Use Reduction Act 1989, Amended 2006 M An 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. 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 Formaldehyde DEHP Lead Hexavalent Chromium

8. Alternatives Assessment Methodology 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 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 ColorNot life-like +++ n/a TextureHardened ++= n/a StiffnessRigid ++= n/a OdorIrritating ++=+ LongevityIndefinite ?? - + Special handlingExtensive ++++ AvailabilityGood ==== Educational valueGood === - Financial Criteria Cost (per specimen)$5.60 +++ n/a Environ- mental Criteria EcoToxicity Not acutely toxic, except to zooplakton --- + Hazardous Waste Storage/ Disposal Regulated ++++ CarcinogenYes ++++ Human Health Criteria LD50 (oral rat)100 mg/kg ++++ SensitizerYes ++=/++ Skin AdsorptionYes ===+ IrritationSevere ++++ 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