Grouping of hazardous substances for risk governance

Transcription

1 Dr. Xenia Trier, European Environment Agency Pre-symposium to the Dioxin conference 2016 Florence August 28th 2016 Grouping of hazardous substances for risk governance

2 Policy framework 7 th EAP In 2050, we live well, within the planet's ecological limits. Our prosperity and healthy environment stem from an innovative, circular economy where nothing is wasted and where natural resources are managed sustainably, and biodiversity is protected, valued and restored in ways that enhance our society's resilience. Our low-carbon growth has long been decoupled from resource use, setting the pace for a global safe and sustainable society.

3 The sustainability challenge Ecological safety zone Within environmental limits Source: UNDP Human Development Report 2013 good life

4 Megatrend increasing dependency on chemicals Global chemical production is increasing: => exposures increase => systemic risks? How does this affect the environmental and human health and resilience? Source: SOER 2010, Global Megatrends (reference to OECD 2008: Environmental Outlook to 2030)

5 Key issues regarding chemicals Environment & health impacts of high volumes of chemicals do we understand the risks? Dilemma: Chemicals deliver products and food central to human well-being - but can also harm health, eco-system services and decrease resilience Chemicals used locally can spread globally Do test methods foresee all types of harm, across systems? Combination effects of multi-exposure and mixture toxicity Early life exposures can cause irreversible harm later in life and generations Vulnerable groups, social and regional in-equalities Spills, fraud and illegal trade of hazardous wastes? Uncertainties Precautionary principle: act upon early warning Risk governance methods are needed Inaction leads to expansion of harm..

6 Thematic vs. horizontal legislation Risk assessment is the scientific basis for decision making in EU Horizontal (e.g. REACH) and thematic legislations (eg biocides, waste) Risk Hazard x Exposure Risk to the human and environmental health Toxicity and effects of single or mixtures chemicals (mixture toxicity). Exposure from a single or several sources (aggregate exposure) Upstream, at production level (e.g. REACH) Downstream, at use/exposure/consumption

7 One substance at a time Might be precise, but inaccurate miss the overall picture Like exploring a new country by only describing its rivers and forests Time consuming and expensive Complex products containing many (low tonnage) substances might have limited testing requirements under REACH Homologue series in detergents, surfactants, polymers, oils Complicated to communicate the exact chemical formula in the production chain and to users Risk of incremental substitution Replacing one hazardous chemical by another (less tested?) and hazardous alternative chemical, e.g. Bisphenols, PFAS, BfRs 7

8 Grouping of chemicals? Existing examples: Dioxins, PAH, PAA, phthalates, PFAS etc. (HBM!) Captures more chemicals at a time If many problems with similar chemicals, then thoroughly risk assess before use Group analysis methods cheaper, simpler? Simple answer to communicate: Compliant or non-compliant, e.g. TOF Easier to communicate through the product chain e.g. in Circular economy: This article does not contain fluorocarbons But which type of grouping, what does similar mean? structure? ex: dioxins (reduce H and E) technical performance/use? ex. BfRs and flame retardants (reduce E) toxicity? ex. Carcinogens, EDCs, immunotoxic compounds (reduce H) phys-chem property? ex. Persistency (PFAS), bioaccum. (reduce E) May 2016: EC: Substance Identity in REACH. Study on substance identity in REACH. Analysis of SID and substance sameness of complex substances. 2016: DK EPA: Category approach for selected brominated flame retardants. Preliminary structural grouping of brominated flame retardants. No

9 What would we like to achieve? Each grouping: pros/cons for risk governance Requirement of much data beforehand (e.g. proven toxicity) vs. precaution (e.g. similar structure) Risk governance across thematic areas (silos), e.g. hazard or exposure Maximise env. and human well-being, and minimise risk A non-toxic environment! Definition? How to set measurable targets and measure progress? Circular economy CE) with minimal loss of resources Achieve same service without use of chemicals? Alternative assessments need for harmonised methodologies; prevent regrettable substitutions Different business models, providing services Innovation of new products with added value (ie non-toxic?), compatible with a CE 9

10 Conclusions Cooperative and interdisiplinary effort needed across silos Grouping of hazardous substances effective way to communicate/track hazardous substances Provides option to deal with combined exposures and mixture toxicity Not straightforward how to group Requires to rethink and define the goal =>set targets Transition to a circular economy: opportunity to redesign systems in a practical, innovative and cost efficient way Well-being in Europe goes beyond material wealth and physical health e.g. psycological well-being and access to ecosystems

11 Thank you Xenia Trier, Ph.D. Project Manager on Chemicals, Environment and Human Health Green economy group Integrated Environmental Assessments programme Kongens Nytorv Copenhagen K, Denmark xenia.trier@eea.europa.eu eea.europa.eu [eionet.europa.eu/]eionet.europa.eu Phone: (+45) / Direct: (+45) Fax: (+45) Sign up to receive EEA products Y