inemi Project on Alternative Material Assessment

Transcription

1 inemi Project on Alternative Material Assessment Leo Kenny (Planet Singular) Stephen Tisdale (Intel) Cory Robertson (HP Inc.) End of Project Report August 25, 2015

2 Agenda Project Leader info Background Green Chemistry Concepts Project Overview/Status Update Looking forward Help needed

3 Alternative Materials Assessment: Project Leaders Stephen Tisdale Intel, Manager Industry Standards Bachelor s Degree in Chemistry from Holy Cross College, an MBA in Operations Management from U-Mass and a Masters in Program Management from George Washington University He has worked on a number of environmental initiatives and is involved in various Consortia Projects and Standards Development Committees Holds more than 30 patents covering new material formulations, manufacturing processing and product design Dr. Leo Kenny Planet Singular, Owner (formerly of Intel) Leading role for green chemistry initiative within Intel, external engagement with research consortia, former ITRS ESH Chair Previously, managed one of Intel s two environmental process engineering groups, within Fab Technology Development Diverse research in semiconductor, materials, device, medical, agricultural and biological fields Previous work experience in academia; both large and small companies in different industries and with the US Government PhD in Physical Inorganic Chemistry (Tufts U); BS in Chemistry and BS in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (U Arizona) Cory Robertson HP Inc., Environmental Chemist Background in Analytical Chemistry Leader in the application of Green Chemistry principles to evaluate and select alternative materials for use in HP products. GreenScreen Certified Practitioner BS in Chemistry, Boise State University; Master s in Environmental Policy and Management, University of Denver.

4 Alternative Material Assessment TIG: ECE PROJECT MEMBERS Environmental 4

5 Alternatives Assessment: a phased approach Phase 1 examine existing environmental/toxicology assessment tools or methodologies used for assessing alternatives in industry, NGOs, academia and governmental agencies. Identify applicability to current and future electronic manufacturing and products. Conduct limited benchmark testing utilizing a small set of materials of interest. Develop a gap analysis including pros/cons of each methodology. (Defining criteria for assessment) (Tentative) Phase 2 select methodologies/tools proposed from Phase 1 to screen the materials typically used in electronic products or manufacturing of products. As part of this phase, pilots would be undertaken to apply the methodology to common materials in the electronics industry and feedback lessons learned into the tool development. (Confirming Methodology or developing methodology if none was ID in Phase 1)

6 Background (Leo) 6

7 Alternative Materials Assessment Project Overview Problem There is no uniform methodology within governments, NGOs or industry for examining new or alternative materials for environmental or human health impacts. As a result, chemical restrictions are inconsistent and can negatively impact the product roadmaps of electronics manufacturers. Opportunity Proactively assess and benchmark the tools, not substances, and improve the decision making process for evaluation of new / alternative materials. Develop a clear understanding of tool capabilities and implement a business process / methodology to develop and assess new or alternative materials. Goal Develop a stakeholder aligned methodology / stepwise approach to develop and assess new or alternative materials.

8 Green Chemistry defined * As defined in text by Warner & Anastas (1998) and used by US EPA, ACS etc The design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances; applicable across the life cycle of a chemical product, including its design, manufacture, and use. Application: -Green as the preferred (ideal) end state -Create a sustainable framework/process across the technology life cycle -Maximizing the viability of the materials used and addressing ESH mitigation at the outset of chemical design)

9 Landscape overview contacts: Mark Schaffer Haley Fu

10 Frameworks contacts: Mark Schaffer Haley Fu Methods Tools

11 Framework Description of a specific arrangement of assessments and decisions used to conduct an AA Usually represented as a flowchart or sequential steps Order and decision points may be fixed Examples: IC2, Lowell, CA SCP, BizNGO, DfE Steps

12 Method/Module A documented approach for assessing a substance, material, or process for the purpose of comparative analysis Often an established method that can be used for standalone analysis Represented by a single step/box within framework Examples: life cycle analysis (LCA), risk or exposure assessment, and hazard assessment

13 Tool An approach for assessing a chemical, material and/or process for the purpose of attribute analysis or decision-making within an AA Can be computer programs, paper-based tools, information sources, etc. Examples: GreenScreen, SimaPro

14 Project Task List: Update Task 0: Initial Ideal Case Assessment: DONE Solicited inputs on what our end state should look like (to align on expectations, what the end state looks like) Drive toward a common approach, framework, ensure consistency, focus on key materials that have impending regulatory significance, produce a review reference document for our industries Task 1: Educational Review: review of similar research (IC2, OECD, CA, HESI, etc.) DONE Leveraged team members to provide environmental scan update on current/key activities Agreement that leveling on a common framework, taken from leading initiatives is preferred Current level of capability is not mature, ongoing need for better alignment, standardization Ongoing disconnect between hazard and use needs to be objectively addressed Task 2: Pick a representative set of chemicals of concern for suppliers to electronics industry and the electronics industry itself, considering the following DONE Proposed criteria, including: Production Chemicals Product Chemicals Should include (for effective benchmarking): Control substances Known problematic substances Novel/New substances Resulting materials choices 1. Phthalates ( priority: DEHP>BBP>DBP) 2. TBBP-A 3. NMP for process

15 Project Task List: Update continued Task 3a: Develop evaluation criteria for the tools, including: done Logistics of compatibility of the tools Costs of the software How do tools deal with data gaps Verification what level of subjectivity is in the tool/is subjectivity minimized Created a matrix of important tool attributes to be used for the tool evaluation task. Task 3b: Select existing assessment tools that will be studied (GreenScreen, Usetox, EPA-DfE, OECD, etc) done Tools were selected from the OECD Tool Selector list Only selected tools that were relevant to the electronics industry Selected 14 Tools

16 Project Task List continued Project Task List Task 4: Define criteria for evaluation based on where in the life cycle the product / part is (Finished product evaluation may be different than for additive evaluation) done Created a matrix of important tool attributes to be used for the tool evaluation task. Task 5: Benchmark - run evaluations on the representative set of chemicals (from Task 1) and compare results done Team members were assigned tools Evaluated tools using the priority chemicals (phthalates, TBBPA and NMP) Task 6: Document development create a report that parallels the work of UMASS- Lowell but focused on suitability of the tools for the electronics industry done Task 7: Define an ideal case scenario based on findings done Single Tool? Multiple Tools? Framework/methodology?

17 Results (Cory)

18 Framework Start Innovation Required: - No alternatives assessment possible until safer alternatives developed - Document results including all assessment data. 1. Substance of Interest Identification (out of scope of framework) 2. Initial evaluation Gather basic information on substance - chemical identity and function - human health and environmental impacts - exposure pathways 4c. Research 3. Initial evaluation and scoping 3a. Determine stakeholder consultation 3b. Establish governing principles and constraints 3c. Determine relevant hazard criteria and potential exposure pathway 3d. Plan assessment Choose modules and tools Decide how to manage data gaps 4. Potential alternatives and Initial Screen 4a. Identify potential alternatives 4b. Conduct initial screen 5. Assess Alternatives No alternatives/innovation required 5a. Assess Physiochemical Properties 5b. Assess chemical Hazards and Identify Relative Hazards and Data Gaps Alternatives not safer Alternatives safer (lower overall negative impact) 5c. Assess Exposure Potential of Alternatives (optional) 5d. Consider life cycle issues (optional) 5e. Consider performance (optional) 5f. Consider cost and availability (optional) 5g. Consider social impacts (optional) Acceptable alternatives 5h. Rank Alternatives (if necessary) Alternatives have unacceptable trade-offs 5i. Implement Alternatives and complete final report Done!

19 Framework

20 Choose modules and tools Decide how to manage data gaps 4. Potential alternatives and Initial Screen 4a. Identify potential alternatives 4b. Conduct initial screen Framework 5. Assess Alternatives No alternatives/innovation required 5a. Assess Physiochemical Properties 5b. Assess chemical Hazards and Identify Relative Hazards and Data Gaps Alternatives not safer Alternatives safer (lower overall negative impact) 5c. Assess Exposure Potential of Alternatives (optional) 5d. Consider life cycle issues (optional) 5e. Consider performance (optional) 5f. Consider cost and availability (optional) 5g. Consider social impacts (optional) Acceptable alternatives 5h. Rank Alternatives (if necessary) Alternatives have unacceptable trade-offs 5i. Implement Alternatives and complete final report Done!

21 Tool Evaluation Matrix

22 Tool Descriptions Oncologic OncoLogic is a desktop computer program that evaluates the likelihood that a chemical may cause cancer. OncoLogic has been peer reviewed, runs on a Windows PC, and is being released by EPA at no cost, to be available to any researcher or organization wishing to evaluate cancer potential of chemicals. P2OASYS Pollution Prevention Options Assessment System (P2OASys) tool is developed by TURI for a comprehensive and systematic hazard evaluation of chemicals, processes and products. Before using the tool, users must populate the hazard data into a macro-enable Excel spreadsheet for the current technology and the alternatives under consideration. The tool uses embedded formula to automatically calculate the respective aggregated scores for comparison. Paris III The Program for Assisting the Replacement of Industrial Solvents (PARIS) III tool is a windows-based software tool developed by the US EPA to assist in solvent substitution and solvent design for reduced solvent environmental impact. The tool uses an internal database of chemical and physical properties as well as prediction routines to estimate values of solvent properties and thus create a solvent formulation to match user-defined tolerances. The tool key outputs are environmental impact scores for the original solvent formulation and ranking of alternative solvents with lower environmental impact.

23 Categorization of Tools Table 1. Comprehensive Hazard-Based Summary Tools P2OASYS GreenScreen 61 criteria in 11 hazard categories 18 Health and Environmental Endpoints Table 2. Screening Tools for Preliminary Evaluation Column Model Kemiprio GreenScreen List Translator Paris III GreenWERCS QCAT Isustain Scivera Lens Table 3. Tools by Assessor Skill Level Novice Moderate Expert GreenScreen List Translator Column Model GreenScreen GreenWERCS Paris III Isustain Kemiprio QCAT Oncologic Scivera Lens P2OASYS

24 Status/Conclusions Provides Electronics Industry with common framework for performing AA The framework was derived from the National Academies Report Standardization and common language will help the industry in the new green chemistry era Provides an evaluation of 14 tools that can be used within the framework Groups the tools into categories useful to electronics manufacturers No single tool is the answer Drive industry alignment around focused methodology

25 Wrap Up and Questions (Mark)

26 Report Development A comprehensive and detailed report on the work of the team will be publicly available on the inemi website in early September.

27 More Discussion Opportunities Emerging Green Presentation, Portland, Oregon, September 22-24, 2015 And tomorrow, we begin Phase 2 SOW Development. If you are interested, please contact Mark (marks@inemi.org) 1. Run a chemical through the framework and look at how that works, results. 2. Industry alignment around existing tools 3. Select methodologies/tools proposed from Phase 1 to screen the materials typically used in electronic products or manufacturing of products. As part of this phase, pilots would be undertaken to apply the methodology to common materials in the electronics industry and feedback lessons learned into the tool development. (Confirming Methodology or developing methodology if none was ID in Phase 1)

28 Mark Schaffer

29 Backup

30 IS / IS NOT Analysis (Phase 1)

31 Green Chemistry Principles Prevention It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has been created. Atom Economy Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize incorporation of all materials used in the process into the final product. Less Hazardous Chemical Syntheses Wherever practicable, synthetic methods should be designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment. Designing Safer Chemicals Chemical products should be designed to affect their desired function while minimizing their toxicity. Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous when used. Design for Energy Efficiency Energy requirements of chemical processes should be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. If possible, synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure.

32 Green Chemistry Principles continued Use of Renewable Feedstocks A raw material or feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting whenever technically and economically practicable. Reduce Derivatives Unnecessary derivatization (use of blocking groups, protection/de-protection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be minimized or avoided if possible, as such steps require additional reagents and can generate waste. Catalysis Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents. Design for Degradation Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their function they break down into innocuous degradation products and do not persist in the environment. Real-time analysis for Pollution Prevention Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-time, in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances. Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires

33 Integrating Green Chemistry across the supply chain Integrating Sustainable/Green Chemistry Methodology = An ongoing, proactive engagement across the process/product life cycle

34 Proposed inemi/ic2 Hybrid structure Preliminary steps for problem scoping Technical AA Safer considered first (haz, exp) Other context-dependent second Integration of information across multiple domains, ranking alternatives allowed

35 Modules that need tools defined Hazard Exposure Life cycle Performance Economic Social Ranking IC2 = default

36 Desired Features of Assessment Approach Logic of the assessment method and quality of the results exemplified by: Use of objective and scientific criteria Physically meaningful thresholds, indicative of actual substance behavior Results that can stand up to peer review (including regulators, academics, and NGOs) Reproducible method, such that different assessors should come to similar conclusions about a substance Transparency in both the method and the data Balanced consideration of the potential impact to both human health and the environment Alignment with criteria used by regulators and other stakeholders, in order to reduce multiple substitutions Ease of use Results that are intuitive to use, and applicable in different cultures and job functions Assessments that can be completed quickly enough to keep pace with the speed of product development cycles Affordable implementation

37 Descriptors, criteria Assessment Matrix Methodologies, tools

38 Task 3: example descriptors & criteria for tool evaluation Source Tool name Creator Type (framework, methodology, tool) Web link (s) cost? "Initial date developed(revision #)" number of module types tool application Ease of use Software platform software compatibility publicly available source code access? ability of weighting of the criteria (prioritize by use) quality control of databases environmental health physical safety physical properties handle formulations or mixtures? flexible/scalable (integrating new regulations) Meets Env packaging and WEEE requirements? Ease of reporting capability (access data in the system, diagnostic tool for accuracy?) Upload capability from suppliers, based on industry standard reporting specs? E-reporting capabilities based on industry standard or regulatory agency specs? Can the tool address nano-material related properties and concerns? Does the tool have predictive capability? (employ QSAR or QNAR, combinational chemistry capability) Does the tool drive materials re-design? Expertise, training required for use of this tool? What is the next key milestone for the tool? What is the adoption history of the tool (who uses it today?) What is the health of the entity that created the tool? exposure/usage capability