Flame Retardants: An Overview of Environmental Regulations

Transcription

1 health & environmental sciences failure analysis & prevention Flame Retardants: An Overview of Environmental Regulations Kristin Robrock, Ph.D., P.E. A leading engineering & scientific consulting firm dedicated to helping our clients solve their technical problems.

2 2 Outline New US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) State Regulations Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) NEW!

3 3 New TSCA NEW! Signed into law on June 22, 2016 Law that oversees chemicals, including flame retardants New TSCA gives EPA more authority to regulate chemicals Mandates EPA to conduct 10 chemical risk evaluations per year EPA can ask for more data Manufacturers can pay the EPA to conduct a risk evaluation

4 4 Why New TSCA? Original law did not give EPA sufficient authority to ban chemicals EPA could not ban asbestos Hodge-podge of State laws is difficult for business Environmental groups and business worked together

5 5 TSCA Chemical Evaluation Process Chemicals Existing Chemicals New Chemicals

6 6 TSCA Chemical Evaluation Process Chemicals Existing Chemicals New Chemicals High Priority EPA must conduct a risk evaluation within 3 years Low Priority No further action Does not pose unreasonable risk Poses unreasonable risk Ban and/or phaseout

7 7 TSCA Chemical Evaluation Process Chemicals Existing Chemicals New Chemicals EPA must make an affirmative finding of safety prior to entry into market within 90 days Not likely to present an unreasonable risk Need more data Presents an unreasonable risk Ban/restriction

8 8 EPA Assessment of Existing Chemicals EPA must review at least 10 existing chemicals each year and determine: High priority chemicals Low priority chemicals First list will be issued in December % of chemicals must result in high priority rating and 50% in low priority rating

9 9 Which Existing Chemicals will EPA Review? First 10 chemicals must come from the 2014 TSCA Work Plan Next 10 chemicals could come from: 2014 TSCA Work Plan PBT list EPA FR Alternative Reports FR Significant New Use Rules

10 TSCA Work Plan HALOGENATED PHOSPHATE INORGANIC TCEP Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate TPP Triphenylphosphate AT Antimony trioxide (synergist only) Minimal risk to ecological receptors iptpp Isopropylated triphenyl phosphate

11 11 Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemicals EPA must also prioritize PBT chemicals PBT flame retardants: TBBPA

12 EPA FR Alternative Assessments 12

13 13 EPA Assessment of FRs Used in Textiles Flame Retardant Human Health Aquatic Toxicity Environmental Fate Greatest Concern Brominated Flame Retardants Brominated poly(phenylether) Medium Low Very High Env. persistence Decabromodiphenyl ethane High Low Very High Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) High Very high Very high Tetrabromobisphenol A Bis (2,3-dibromopropyl) Ether Benzoic acid, 2,3,4,5-tetrabromo-, 2-ethylhexyl ester (TBB) Di(2-ethylhexyl) tetrabromophthalate (TBPH) Env. persistence Aquatic toxicity, bioaccumulation Medium Low Very high Env. persistence Medium Low High Medium Low High Env. persistence, bioaccumulation Env. persistence, bioaccumulation Brominated Epoxy Oligomer and Polymers Low Low Very high Env. persistence Bromobenzyl acrylate Low Low Very high Env. persistence Brominated Polystyrene Low Low Very high Env. persistence

14 14 EPA Assessment of FRs Used in Textiles Flame Retardant Human Health Aquatic Toxicity Environmental Fate Greatest Concern Phosphate-based Flame Retardants Tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) Tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) High High High High High Medium Carcinogenicity, reproductive, aq. tox., env. persistence Acute toxicity, carcinogenicity, developmental Polyphosphonate Low Low Very High Env. persistence Tris(tribromoneopentyl) phosphate High Low High Neurological, env. persistence Melamine cyanurate High Low Very High Env. persistence Inorganic Flame Retardants Aluminum diethylphosphinate Medium Medium High Env. persistence Aluminum hydroxide Medium Medium High Env. persistence Ammonium polyphosphate Low Low Very high Env. persistence Antimony trioxide (synergist) High High High Aquatic toxicity Zinc borate High High High Neuro., aquatic tox., env. persistence,

15 15 How Will EPA Prioritize and Assess Risk? EPA has not yet established how they will define high versus low priority chemicals EPA has not yet established how they will conduct the risk evaluations However, risk evaluation process must: Evaluate conditions of use (chemical in specific product) Cannot consider costs Assess susceptible populations Must propose processes by December 2016 and establish processes by June 2017

16 16 Significant New Use Rules (SNUR) EPA requires notification prior to manufacturing, importing, and processing of a particular substance EPA has 90 days to review request and may prohibit its use

17 17 Significant New Use Rules for FRs PBDEs Proposed SNUR April 2012 Anyone importing or processing PBDEs in an article after December 31, 2013 must notify the EPA Would require testing of product s effects on health and the environment Has not been finalized

18 18 Significant New Use Rules for FRs Chlorinated paraffins Final SNUR for SCCPs December 2014 Final SNUR for vlccps February 2016 Requires manufacturers (including importers) and processors to notify EPA before starting or resuming new uses Requested data for risk assessments for MCCPs and LCCPs December 2015

19 19 Significant New Use Rules for FRs HBCD Final SNUR September 2015 Anyone manufacturing or importing HBCD for use in consumer textiles must notify the EPA Exemption for motor vehicles

20 20 TSCA State Preemption TSCA can preempt (i.e., overrule) State Laws passed after April 22, 2016 State laws remain in place if EPA takes no action State laws are preempted : If EPA determines chemical is safe If EPA takes action to address chemical risks State laws are paused during EPA risk evaluation of high priority chemicals States can file for exemptions

21 21 State Regulation of FRs Existing Legislation District of Columbia Alaska Hawaii Passed legislation regulating PBDEs Passed legislation regulating PBDEs and Chlorinated Phosphate Esters Source: Saferstates.com

22 22 State Regulation of FRs Proposed Legislation District of Columbia Alaska Source: Saferstates.com Hawaii Proposed legislation regulating selected FRs Proposed legislation banning all FRs in selected proucts Other proposed regulation

23 23 California Safer Consumer Products Program to reduce toxic chemicals in consumer products Priority Product manufacturers must perform an Alternatives Analysis on the product to determine how to limit or reduce the level of exposure State must identify and implement regulatory responses

24 24 California Safer Consumer Products Priority chemicals PBDEs HBCD TBBPA TBPH TBB BTBPE DBDPE Proposed Regulation Priority Product: Children's Foam-Padded Sleeping Products with TDCPP or TCEP

25 25 Regulation by CPSC 2008: Proposed flammability standard for residential upholstered furniture The Commission agrees that insufficient data are available to be reasonably sure that other FRs would not present health risks if used in upholstered furniture. The Commission plans to monitor the progress of ongoing studies on FR chemicals and to consider the results of these studies as the regulatory process continues. Staff scheduled to brief Commissioners on California s TB in September 2016 Staff scheduled to brief Commissioners on final rule in September 2017

26 26 Regulation by CPSC 2015: Petition for Rulemaking to Protect Against Consumer Products Containing Additive Organohalogen Flame Retardants NGOs petitioned CPSC to protect consumers and children from health hazards related to flame retardants used in children s products, furniture, mattresses, and the casings surrounding electronics October 19, 2015 deadline for submitting comments September 2016 staff to brief Commissioners on petition

27 27 Summary & Conclusions New TSCA gives EPA more power to regulate flame retardants Which FRs may be banned or restricted is unknown FRs currently in TSCA work plans may be likely targets of EPA risk assessments EPA will issue more guidance in the fall of 2016 State bans may also be preempted if EPA finds certain FRs do not pose unacceptable risk CPSC proposed rules and petition are under review

28 28 What can you do? Review whether you need flame retardants in your product Review which flame retardants are used Wait until December 2016 when EPA will publish list of 10 work plan chemicals List may include flame retardants Pay EPA to evaluate a FR Monitor technical literature

29 29 Questions? Kristin Robrock (510)