GreenEarth expects little impact
from Canadian proposal
from Canadian proposal
A Canadian government proposal to regulate the siloxane D5 is unlikely to affect drycleaners using GreenEarth solvent, GreenEarth officials said.
D5, the primary ingredient in GreenEarth, was among three types of siloxanes
under examination by Environment Canada and Health Canada. The final
assessments were released by the government in late January.
“The final assessments conclude that siloxanes are not a concern for human
health, based on the amount of these substances that an individual would be
exposed to through the use of various products, including personal care
products,” the government document said.
However, the government said it is concerned that both D4 and D5 “are entering the environment in relatively large quantities, stay in the
environment a long time, and may harm fish and aquatic organisms.”
Forthcoming regulations could restrict the amount of D5 used in personal care
products and control its release into wastewater. The other siloxane under
examination, D6, does not react in the environment the same was as D4 and D5,
the government said, and will not be regulated.
The impact of these regulations on drycleaners using GreenEarth should be
minimal, according to GreenEarth President Tim Maxwell, because the solvent is
used in closed loop machines and does not drain into municipal water systems.
“We are very pleased with the measured approach Canada has been taking,” Maxwell said. “The science on chemical substances is constantly evolving and it is important
that regulatory decisions remain science-driven. We feel very good about what
the future holds for our Canadian affiliates.”
The use of D5 in drycleaning is small compared to its other uses; drycleaning
use was briefly noted in the screening assessment and risk management proposal,
but no regulatory proposals were directed specifically at drycleaning.
The predominant use of D5 is in manufacturing silicone polymers and in blending
and formulating consumer products, including hair and skin care products,
antiperspirants and deodorants. D5 is also used in industrial processes as a
defoamer, a surfactant in certain pesticide products; in lubricants, cleaning
products, sealants, adhesives, waxes, polishes and coatings.
Because of its presence in so many products, it can be released to the
environment from many different sources and stays in the environment for a long
time, the Canadian government said. This could be harmful to the environment or
its biological diversity, including harm to animals or plants that live in the
water.
Further comments and discussion between Canadian officials and stakeholders will
take place before a regulatory proposal is published no later than January,
2011. Final regulations are expected no later than July 2012.
The Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council (SEHSC), a trade
association for silicone chemical producers and importers, said that future
discussions with Canada will factor in soon-to-be completed scientific studies
examining how the materials behave in the environment.
“We fully expect these studies to demonstrate that D4 and D5 are safe for the
environment and that action is not needed, SEHSC said. “More than 130 studies show these cyclic siloxanes are safe for human health and
the environment in all intended uses.”
The Canadian findings are consistent with those of the California Air Resources
Board, which reviewed D5 and announced last year that it saw “no need to regulate its use in drycleaning.”
CARB said its use as a drycleaning solvent “will not pose an adverse health risk to the public living near businesses.” However, CARB, like the Canadian government, noted a concern for D5’s persistence in the environment as well as in animal and human tissues.
CARB also noted a concern stemming from a study that indcated high exposure to
D5 as a cause of uterine tumors in rats.
GreenEarth and SEHC have argued that the tumors were due to a mechanism not
applicable to humans. While California officials did not disagree, they said
there was insufficient data to determine if the rat data is irrelevant to human
risk.
The U.S. EPA has been silent on the subject of D5 regulation in recent years. In
a “fact sheet” on D5 in drycleaning published in 2005, EPA said it would be evaluating various
studies and was “interested in receiving data on human exposure to D5, including drycleaning
applications.” After evaluation and consultation of that data, EPA said it would determine “whether it is appropriate to conduct a risk assessment for D5.”
