Chemical Analysts Say EPA Rules Call for Look at Alternatives

The swelling number of rules restricting commercial uses of chemicals that the EPA plans to issue should spur greater interest in technical analyses that select safe alternatives and help companies get ahead of future regulations, according to chemical policy analysts.

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued two of 10 rules anticipated within the next year or so. More rules are expected in future years as the agency complies with Congress’ requirement that it start routinely examining the risks of chemicals industries have long depended on and regulate those with too much potential to harm people or the environment.

Those rules are expected to ban some and limit other uses of the chemicals, based on the EPA’s first two regulations that covered chrysotile asbestos and methylene chloride. Yet, commercial and industrial companies still will need the function long provided by the solvents, flame retardants, and other chemicals the EPA will regulate.

Regulations offer the potential to drive greater efforts to identify new, less hazardous ways to make materials, said Lauren Heine, director of safer materials and data integrity at ChemForward. That nonprofit organization works with companies including Apple Inc., Google LLC, The Honest Company Inc., and Sephora USA Inc., which already have been working to eliminate chemicals of concern from their products and operations.

Some kind of forum on selecting alternatives is needed, and the EPA should offer guidance, said Rebecca L. Reindel, occupational safety and health director for the AFL-CIO.

“What we don’t want is regrettable substitution,” she said referring to situations in which a chemical substituted for a hazardous substance is later found to be of equal or greater concern. The “whack a mole” substitution approach puts people at significant risk, Reindel said.

‘Future Proofing’ Operations

Leading electronics, personal care products, and other companies are working to get ahead of regulations, or “future proofing” their businesses by identifying chemicals that provide needed functions, but have low hazard rankings, said Stacy Glass, ChemForward’s cofounder and executive director. The chemical evaluation system ChemForward uses incorporates an international system of classifying chemicals and verification by independent toxicologists.

Google directed suppliers to ChemForward’s system when it updated in February procedures and requirements its suppliers must meet. The company’s standard operating procedure includes requiring hazard ratings for any solvent, flame retardant, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) used at or above specified concentration levels in its products “regardless of whether the chemical is regulated or not.”

The updated procedures built upon a 2021 initiative in which Google, Apple, and some of their suppliers teamed up to separately fund analyses of flame retardants that could substitute for hazardous ones used in electronics, Glass said. The information from those analyses was then combined into a shared repository they can use to make business decisions, she said.

Alternative analyses, however, can consider criteria beyond hazards to help companies make informed decisions about existing uses of chemicals, new production methods, or the use of alternative chemicals that substitute for ones raising health, environmental, or other concerns.

Criteria Beyond Hazards

Criteria beyond hazards can be part of an alternative assessment, said Karyn Schmidt, a senior director with the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical producers.

Additional factors include whether a chemical is needed for national security protection, whether there are concerns about where it’s sourced from, the performance and cost of alternatives, and consumer acceptance, Schmidt said. The methylene chloride rule and other coming rules could stimulate a discussion of how to carry out alternative analyses and provide information to the EPA early on as it evaluates chemicals risks and regulates them, she said.

The EPA is evaluating the risks of more than 20 more chemicals. If it decides any of those chemicals pose unreasonable health or environmental risks, the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments require it to regulate the substance.

Federal agencies will have a role to play in discussions about alternative analyses, because they’ve been working on these for decades, Schmidt said.

California, Washington, and Massachusetts also are among the states that have laws and regulations requiring alternative analyses.

And some interested partners have suggested creating a center of excellence or interagency team that could systematically evaluate—not just chemical alternatives but also new ways of producing products without chemicals, Schmidt said. For example, abrasion can be done chemically or physically, she said.