PLASTICS AND ENVIRONMENT
EPA identifies substitutes for decaBDE flame retardants / US phase-out from 2013
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Washington, DC; www.epa.gov) has released a draft report on alternatives to decaBDE-based (decabrom) flame retardants for use in polymers. The 812-page document, compiled with participation from the public as well as industry, is intended to aid US manufacturers of plastic products in replacing the flame retardant chemical, which will be phased out up to December 2013 – see Plasteurope.com of 23.12.2009. The agency will seek comment on the alternative chemicals from industry and the public up to the end of September.
EPA said it will continue to work with industry to investigate alternative chemical and non-chemical flame retardants. The use of decabrom already has been restricted by the European Union (EU) in electrical and electronic equipment and has also been restricted in the US states of Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
In releasing the report, the agency stressed that it needs “updated authority” under the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to “more effectively assess and regulate potentially harmful chemicals like flame retardants.” The statement can be identified as a hint to foes of more competence for EPA in the US Congress.
Three flame retardants are among the 18 chemicals contained in the “TSCA work plan” released by the EPA in June of this year, which it intends to review and use to develop risk assessments in 2013 and 2014. In April, the agency proposed requiring manufacturers, importers and processors of PBDE-based flame retardants to submit information before initiating any new applications. Comments on the plan were accepted up to 31 July. In 2009, “action plans” for PBDEs (including pentaBDE and octaBDE) as well as HBCD in flame retardants were developed by the EPA. The latter is already restricted in the EU – see Plasteurope.com of 16.07.2012.
The alternatives to decabrom will be “used increasingly” as the flame retardant chemical is phased out, said EPA, noting at the same time that the alternatives “are associated with trade-offs.” Some that are more protective of human health “may be more persistent in the environment.” Some alternatives are considered less bio-accumulative, based on computer-generated estimations.
The report contains extensive tables assessing the properties of flame retardant chemicals considered to be “potentially functional, viable alternatives for use in the identified polyolefins, styrenics, engineering thermoplastics, thermosets, elastomers or waterborne emulsions and coatings.” It also contains a summary of the polymers in which the retardants are most often used and flame-retardant plastic products.
EPA said it will continue to work with industry to investigate alternative chemical and non-chemical flame retardants. The use of decabrom already has been restricted by the European Union (EU) in electrical and electronic equipment and has also been restricted in the US states of Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
In releasing the report, the agency stressed that it needs “updated authority” under the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to “more effectively assess and regulate potentially harmful chemicals like flame retardants.” The statement can be identified as a hint to foes of more competence for EPA in the US Congress.
Three flame retardants are among the 18 chemicals contained in the “TSCA work plan” released by the EPA in June of this year, which it intends to review and use to develop risk assessments in 2013 and 2014. In April, the agency proposed requiring manufacturers, importers and processors of PBDE-based flame retardants to submit information before initiating any new applications. Comments on the plan were accepted up to 31 July. In 2009, “action plans” for PBDEs (including pentaBDE and octaBDE) as well as HBCD in flame retardants were developed by the EPA. The latter is already restricted in the EU – see Plasteurope.com of 16.07.2012.
The alternatives to decabrom will be “used increasingly” as the flame retardant chemical is phased out, said EPA, noting at the same time that the alternatives “are associated with trade-offs.” Some that are more protective of human health “may be more persistent in the environment.” Some alternatives are considered less bio-accumulative, based on computer-generated estimations.
The report contains extensive tables assessing the properties of flame retardant chemicals considered to be “potentially functional, viable alternatives for use in the identified polyolefins, styrenics, engineering thermoplastics, thermosets, elastomers or waterborne emulsions and coatings.” It also contains a summary of the polymers in which the retardants are most often used and flame-retardant plastic products.
06.08.2012 Plasteurope.com [222995-0]
Published on 06.08.2012