Toxics in Packaging: Its Still an Issue Sharon A. Yergeau NH Dept. of Environmental Services...

Toxics in Packaging: It’s Still an Issue

Sharon A. Yergeau

NH Dept. of Environmental Services

December 2007

2© Copyright Northeast Recycling Council, Inc., 2007

Presentation Outline

Toxics in Packaging Legislation The Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse TPCH Compliance Screening Project Why Are We Detecting Toxics Today? Next Steps


Toxics in Packaging Legislation

Model Toxics in Packaging Legislation

approved by CONEG in 1990 Adopted by 19 US States, most

recently California in 2003

Basis for EU Packaging Directive


States with Legislation


Quick Overview of the ModelToxics in Packaging Legislation

Prohibits intentional introduction of any amount of lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and mercury

Limits incidental presence of these metals to 100 ppm (0.01%) - total concentration of 4 heavy metals

Applies to packaging & individual packaging components Such as inks, coatings, labels, internal braces References ASTM D-996

• Applies to packaging, components & packaged products sold or distributed in states with legislation


How Do the Laws Work?

Creates supply chain responsibility Affected companies self-certify

Based on analytic tests or supplier certification Certificate of Compliance furnished upon request Most laws provide state authority to levy substantial

monetary penalties Allowance for some exemptions


Exemptions - Vary by State

Prior to effective date Comply with federal health & safety Recycled materials No feasible alternative (function - not advertising!) Reused & regulated Controlled distribution & reuse Glass & ceramic with vitrified label


Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse

Supports & Coordinates Implementation of Model

Minimizes administrative burden for states & industry

Centralized location for info. & processing requests

Promotes consistency and uniformity among states

Venue for ongoing review of Model Legislation

Enforcement is at the discretion of individual states.


TPCH Members

Eleven Member States California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,

Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington

Industry Members American Plastics Council, Society of Glass and

Ceramic Decorators, Steel Recycling Institute, Paper Recycling Coalition


Compliance Screening Project

First comprehensive screening October 2005 – February 2006

Screened over 350 packages (over 550 components) using a portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer

Tested variety of packaging materials, product categories, and component types


Product Categories

Shopping bags Mailing/Shipping Textiles Food & Beverage Toys & Games Electrical & Electronic Personal & Healthcare Hardware Apparel Entertainment

Cleaning Products Home Furnishings Pet Supplies Office Supplies Sporting Goods Novelty Fast Food Strapping Deli/Produce Bags


Compliance Screening Test Results

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Packages Components

<LOD- 25ppm

25-100 ppm

>100 ppm

16%23%


Screening Result Failures (>100ppm)

Cadmium & lead most frequently detected, some mercury

Ranged mostly from 250 – 800 ppm Up to 9000 ppm detected

Prevalent packaging materials/types Imported, clear flexible PVC bags/pouches Inks & colorants on shopping and mailing bags


Flexible PVC Bags/Pouches

61% of samples tested of this material exceeded

100 ppm for lead and/or cadmium Mostly imports Suspect UV stabilizers All blister/clamshell packaging below LOD for all metals

Toys Textiles Cosmetic Pet Supply


Inks & Colorants on Shopping Bags

Inks & colorants on shopping and mailing bags Likely imports based on

discussions with suppliers, since not always labeled with country of origin

Suspect oil-based inks


TPCH Action

Notified 52 manufacturers or distributors that package failed screening test

• Requested certificate of compliance with documentation OR submittal of plan to bring package into compliance & discontinue distribution and sale of package Only 15% of companies verified test results 8 of 52 acknowledge non-compliance

• Responses demonstrated lack of awareness and understanding of Toxics in Packaging requirements.


TPCH Action

Referred recalcitrant cases to states for follow-up action

Additional testing and comparison of XRF vs. laboratory test methods in conjunction with CA DTSC XRF results validated using several XRF

instruments Suspect incomplete digestion of sample resulting in

detection of soluble metals NOT total metal concentration


Traditional Test Methods

EPA SW-846 Method 3050BAcid Digestion of sediments, sludges,

soils EPA SW-846 Method 3051

Microwave alternative to Method 3050B


More Appropriate Methods

EPA SW-846 Method 3052Microwave digestion of siliceous and organically based matrices

Ashing of sample prior to analysis Methods to dissolve the matrix

Metals need to be liberated from the matrix to be measured.


Preliminary Comparison Results

Sample # Elements XRF

Screening 3050B / ICP 3051/ICP

Microwave

3052/ ICP Microwave vendor A

3052/ ICP Microwave vendor B

Cadmium ND ND ND NA ND

Lead 1,300 138 779 NA 1,101 1

Chromium 420 30 198 NA 264

Cadmium ND ND ND NA ND

Lead 650 74 544 NA 561 2

Chromium ND 18 135 NA 142

Cadmium ND ND ND ND ND

Lead 257 154 187 332 305 3

Chromium ND 37 55 143 81


Why Are We Detecting Toxics in Packaging 15 Years Later?

Changes in packaging technology Entry of new suppliers/manufacturers Shift in geographic location of manufacturing Fallen off “radar screen” US state legislation misunderstood (European

Directive does not prohibit intentional introduction.)


Example - Changes in Technology

“Innovative” marketing feature….blinking lights powered by electronic circuitry….with lead solder.


States Taking Action

CT issued the first Notices of Violation under Toxics in Packaging statutes in 2005. Manufacturer Retail pharmacies

State Attorney Generals are using statutes to reduce exposure to lead from lunch boxes. Fines levied


TPCH Next Steps

Provide outreach to packaging supply chain about state toxics in packaging requirements.

Develop best management practices for supply chain management and testing in cooperation with industry.

Follow up compliance screening project using XRF in Winter 2008.

Recruit additional state members.


Actions Companies Can Take

Incorporate requirements in purchasing specifications & contracts.

Contact suppliers directly to see if they’re aware of and meet requirements.

Require Certificates of Compliance from all suppliers of packaging or packaging components with supporting documentation (including test methods).

Develop QA/QC Systems to verify compliance & spot check incoming packaging materials and components since “some companies will tell you whatever you want to hear.”


Certification Testing

Test method at company discretion Varies by packaging material XRF analysis is acceptable

Elemental quantitative analysis Not leachability test

Sum of concentration of 4 metals (<100 ppm) Each packaging component must comply

***NO INTENTIONAL INTRODUCTION IS THE FIRST RULE.***


For Additional Information

Visit our website www.toxicsinpackaging.org

Or contactPatty Dillon, TPCH Program Manager(802) [email protected]

Toxics in Packaging: Its Still an Issue Sharon A. Yergeau NH Dept. of Environmental Services...

Documents

Transcript of Toxics in Packaging: Its Still an Issue Sharon A. Yergeau NH Dept. of Environmental Services...