National Aerosol Association

JUNE 2010 NAA Regulatory Update

By Doug Raymond

On June 9, 2010 the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) held a symposium on “Alternatives Analysis I” in Sacramento, California. This symposium is part of the Green Chemistry initiative that is being pushed in California.

The Alternative Analysis is only one section of the Green Chemistry framework. The first two steps are for DTSC to determine the prioritization process for which chemicals of concern will be addressed, then second which products will be addressed. This Symposium was to describe the process for evaluating alternatives to chemicals of concern. There were several speakers, below with their respective topics were the speakers.

·         Clive Davies, U.S. EPA Dfe Program: Conducting U.S. EPA Dfe Alternatives Assessments, Furniture Flame Retardancy Partnership and Flame Retardants in Printed Circuit Boards Partnership
·         Libby Sommer, U.S. EPA Dfe Program: Lessons Learned: Differentiating Chemicals in Alternatives Assessments and Identifying the Availability of Safer Alternatives for Policy Purposes
·         Lauren Heine, Ph.D., Clean Production Action: Green Screen for Safer Chemicals
·         Alex Stone, Sc.D., Washington State Department of Ecology: Perspectives and Practical Experience in Alternatives Assessments
·         Donald J. Versteeg, Ph.D., Proctor & Gamble Co.: Industry Application of Alternatives Analysis

The presentations were good, however without knowing the scope of which chemical of concern and which product will be addressed as explained above, the symposium was somewhat out of order with the process. The main example that was used by several speakers was flame retardant substitution. The number of flame retardant alternatives is not very large compared to alternatives that can be used in consumer products. There is a magnitude of difference.

The first speaker, Clive Davies explained the process well. For example, getting all stakeholders involved, setting up partnerships, doing hazard assessment, testing and deciding the safer substitute. Again, there are only about a dozen substitutes for retardants to choose from. This again is very different than consumer products. Also, most of these compounds are extremely toxic which makes choosing alternatives easier. One aspect of the EPA speakers discussion was on the Design for Environment DFE labeling program. EPA is using their approach to the flame retardants as a model for the DFE program. To accomplish all the work that needs to be done to analysis a consumer product, EPA uses a third party certification, the third party is NSF. The number of products in this program has doubled each year for the last three years.

Remember that DFE currently only allows aerosols with propellants that are inert gases or compressed gases. Currently, the industry is attempting to broaden the use of different types of propellant. In reviewing the slides from Clive and Libby the process should allow the industry to broaden the use of propellants.

The Symposium was well attended and the speaker were well versed in their areas of expertise. But I need to repeat again that until the chemicals of concern and the products to be addressed are released, then it is hard to determine the impact on the industry. For example; several speakers referred to carcinogen or very toxic chemicals. Most consumer products do not have those types of chemicals.

P & G had a presenter that gave some examples of an alternative analysis process. The process used the DFE as a model. P & G stated that several retailers are driving the green initiative.

All of the presentations can be found at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/Alternative-Analysis-1-Symposium.cfm

This initiative if placed into regulation and not properly managed could cause severe disruption to consumer products in California. A draft regulation should be out soon. Stay tuned.

On behalf of the NAA

Doug Raymond

Raymond Regulatory Resources (3R), LLC

440-474-4999

Back to Top