It looks like Governor Jerry Brown is taking on Prop 65 in an effort to make California more business friendly, and put a limit on frivolous “shake-down” lawsuits. For decades, manufacturers from all over the globe have had the unpleasant problem of having to pay legal fees to the bounty-hunting plaintiff’s attorneys just to avoid the defensive costs of litigation even when the lawsuit has no merit. Thanks to the excess of one such bounty-hunting plaintiff’s attorney recently skewered in a Sacramento Bee op-ed, Assemblyman Gatto has introduced a bill (AB 227) that looks like it will now get serious traction.
Read More
|
The European Union (EU) has adopted an amendment to Annex XIV of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical (REACH) substances regulation. Annex XIV, represents the Authorization List of the REACH program, and the amendment was published on April 18, 2013. The amendment will add trichloroethylene, chromium trioxide, acids generated from chromium trioxide and their oligomers, sodium dichromate, potassium dichromate, ammonium dichromate, potassium chromate and sodium chromate to the authorization list. The elevation of these chemicals under REACH could translate to an elevated interest in these chemicals under California's Safer Consumer Product regulations.
Read More
|
Last Friday, companies filed a lawsuit to prevent California EPA from putting bisphenol A (BPA) on the state’s Proposition 65 list. The Prop 65 list is for chemicals that are potentially dangerous to human health. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) opposes an Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposal that would include BPA on the list as a reproductive toxin. ACC believes OEHHA is trying to find a way to bypass a previous finding by scientific experts that reviewed the same evidence and concluded BPA should not be on the Prop 65 list. How could the agency ignore the advice of its own scientific panel and choose to do something different? And if the agency is going to do such a thing, how can companies trust decisions they have made previously or will make in the future? That is exactly what ACC wants the answers to and they are hopeful that this suit will answer them and thwart OEHHA’s attempt to list BPA on the Prop 65 list.
Read More
|
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has issued a 30-day notice to submit comments on proposed revisions to its Safer Consumer Products Regulation. The changes establish the process for identifying and prioritizing consumer products and their chemicals of concern, evaluating alternatives and imposing regulatory responses. As mentioned in our advisory, the revised text will be open for public comment until February 28, 2013. A summary of the significant changes to the regulations can be found here. At first glance, some positive changes in this latest draft include elimination of the requirement to employ certified assessors to perform the regulatory work, introduction of the distinction between contaminants and intentionally-added chemicals found in consumer products, and establishment of a PQL (practical quantitation limit) as the analytical chemistry threshold for determining whether compliance obligations are triggered.
Read More
|
The California Office of Environment Health Hazard Assessment announced they have added two chemicals known to cause cancer to the Prop 65 list. Alpha-methylstyrene (CAS No. 98-83-9) and 1,3-dinitropyrene (CAS No. 75321-20-9) have been added to the list effective November 2, 2012. The listing was carried out via a mechanism in the Labor Code based up on IARC 2B listing.
Read More
|
The California Court of Appeals of the Third Appellate District held on Wednesday chemicals that fall under Proposition 65’s coverage must be known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”) prohibits businesses form discharging chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into drinking water and requires businesses to warn the public if they knowingly and intentionally expose individuals to such chemicals.
Read More
|
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC) has announced a 30 day extension for the comment period on their proposed Safer Consumer Product regulations. The proposed regulations were released in late July and we blogged about them here. The new deadline for submitting comments is 5 p.m. on October 11, 2012. The public hearing on September 10, 2012 will take place as scheduled.
Read More
|
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC) released proposed regulations, which “establish performance goals for the collection and recycling of used thermostats containing toxic mercury,” according to a DTSC press release. In 2006 California banned the sale of new mercury-added thermostats, but there are still millions of them in use. These regulations would require manufactures to collect and recycle over 65,000 mercury containing thermostats in 2013. Recycling goals would increase until 2017, when the state would have a goal of 75% collection and recycling rate, which would be an estimated 147,000 thermostats. As part of the proposed regulations, manufacturers who formerly sold mercury thermostats would be required to meet the recycling goals of the Thermostat Recycling Corporation(TRC), either through participation or joining a similar program.
Read More
|
Today, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA) announced it has added four chemicals to the Proposition 65 list. The four chemicals added to the list are: benzophenone (CAS No. 119-61-9), coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide diethanolamine) (CAS No. 68603-42-9), diethanolamine (CAS No. 111-42-2), and 2-methylimidazole (CAS No. 693-98-1). The effective date of the addition of these chemicals to the list is today, June 22, 2012. These chemicals are known carcinogens and are included in a number of products including nail polish, bath and body wash, shampoo, lipstick, facial cleanser, bubble bath, epoxy and some agrochemicals.
|
California Governor Jerry Brown has ordered state agencies to review and revise flammability standards for “upholstered furniture sold in the state,” according to the governor’s website. Brown told the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation(BEARHFTI) that they must begin to review the 40 year old standards and revise them in order to reduce toxic flame retardants. He said, “Toxic flame retardants are found in everything from high chairs to couches and a growing body of evidence suggests that these chemicals harm human health and the environment. We must find better ways to meet fire safety standards by reducing and eliminating—wherever possible—dangerous chemicals.” Once the process begins workshops will be held and the revisions will be open to a public comment period.
|
Today, the California OEHHA’s Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) reviewed 39 chemicals and classes of chemicals to determine their priority for potential listing. Of the 39 chemicals reviewed, the CIC put only 7 of them on the high priority list. This means they are the leading candidates for possible listing under Prop 65 within the next two years. Makers of those chemicals should expect to be subject to data call-ins in the next 3 to 6 months.
The seven selected chemicals and classes of chemicals are:
Acetaminophen
Butyl Benzyl Phlalate
CI Disperse Yellow 3
Coumarin
Dibenzantthracenes (and Dibenz (a,c) anthracene)
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and its salts and esters
N-Methyl-N-Nitroso-1-Alkylamines
For agenda and comments on today’s meeting, see http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic092311.html
|
At yesterday’s meeting, the California OEHHA’s Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) decided to not to list fluoride as a carcinogen, and declined to put bisphenol A on the high priority list for consideration as a carcinogen under Prop 65. The CIC did decide to put TDCPP, a flame retardant used in foam furniture, on the list. Manufacturers will have 12 months from the date of the posting of the notice to be issued in the next week to place Prop 65 labels on their products containing TDCPP.
|
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) introduced a proposed rulemaking today that is complimentary to the California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC) work on green chemistry. The proposed rulemaking would add Chapter 54, “Green Chemistry Hazard Traits,” to the California Code of Regulations. The chapter focuses on a “framework for organizing information on chemical hazards for use by the Department in implementing Health and Safety Code section 25251 et seq.
Read More
|
The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Cal/EPA or OEHHA) has found that acrylamide, a chemical that is naturally formed in some foods when cooked at high temperatures (e.g., potatoes, asparagus), found in certain consumer products (e.g., cosmetics, glues and paper) and used in waste water treatment for drinking water meet the criteria for Proposition 65 listing as a reproductive toxicant. Acrylamide was previously listed as a carcinogen in 1990.
Read More
|