California refers five chemicals to Prop. 65 Carcinogen Identification Committee.

/in ,

This week, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that five chemicals, including methyl chloride and vinyl acetate will be considered by the Proposition 65 Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) at its November 15, 2016 meeting. The chemicals or chemical groups are:

  • Aspartame
  • Asphalt and Asphalt Emissions Associated with Road Paving and Asphalt and Asphalt Emissions Associated with Roofing
  • Methyl Chloride
  • Type I Pyrethroids
  • Vinyl Acetate

Methyl chloride and vinyl acetate are both common intermediates in polymer production, while the latter is a High Production Volume chemical. Type I Pyrethroids are a group of synthetic insecticides also found in home and garden pest control products. Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener.

The CIC will advise OEHHA on prioritizing the chemicals for possible preparation of hazard identification materials, an intermediate step toward listing a chemical as carcinogenic under Prop. 65. No listing decisions will be made for these chemicals at the November meeting. However, the CIC will consider listing “nitrite in combination with amines or amides” at this meeting.

The five chemicals were chosen based on epidemiologic and animal data screens, followed by a preliminary toxicological evaluation. OEHHA prepared and has made available summaries of the relevant studies identified during the preliminary toxicological evaluation for each of the five chemicals.

The announcement marks the beginning of a public comment period which runs to October 24, 2016.

First Priority Products listing proposed under CA’s Safer Consumer Products program.

/in ,

Today, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) announced that the comment period is now open for the first Priority Product listing regulation under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program. The proposed regulation would establish a Priority Products list containing one item: children’s foam-padded sleeping products containing tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) or tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP). Both substances, which are used as flame retardants, are known to the state of California as carcinogenic and are associated with various other hazard traits, including genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity. TDCPP and TCEP are described in the proposal’s accompanying Technical Report [PDF] as “easily released to indoor and outdoor environments” and “ubiquitous,” having been detected worldwide in homes, offices, and daycare centers, as well as in waterways, wildlife, and human breast milk.

The proposed listing encompasses products designed for children, toddlers, babies, or infants to nap or sleep on that incorporate polyurethane foam mats, pads, or pillows that contain TDCPP or TCEP. This includes, among other products: nap mats, soft-sided portable cribs, play pens, bassinets, co-sleepers, and baby or toddler foam pillows. The listing specifically excludes:

  • mattresses “as defined and covered by the requirements of CPSC 1632/1633”;
  • furniture regulated under California Technical Bulletin 117-2013; and
  • “[a]dd-on child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft that are required to meet federal flammability standards.”

This is the first of three Priority Products that DTSC originally proposed, in draft form, more than two years ago. DTSC will list the other two Priority Products – spray polyurethane foam (SPF) systems containing unreacted diisocyanates and paint/varnish strippers and surface cleaners containing methylene chloride – through separate rulemaking proposals. Based on the Priority Products Work Plan released last year, the agency will identify as many as five additional Priority Products, drawn from the seven product categories ranging from Cleaning Products to Clothing, in 2016 and 2017.

The comment period runs through August 29, 2016. Once finalized, the Priority Products listing triggers the requirement that manufacturers submit a Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report within 180 days after the effective date of the regulation.

The 2015 California Air Resources Board Consumer and Commercial Products Survey

/in

The 2015 California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (“Survey”) reporting period began on July 1, 2016 and must be completed by November 1, 2016. This is the final year of the CARB Survey program and is mandatory for all “responsible parties,” i.e. any company, firm, or establishment listed on a label that manufactured or sold consumer or commercial products in California during the 2015 calendar year. However, the 2015 Survey contains new exemptions for certain product categories that CARB determined have low or no volatile organic compound emissions, including certain adhesives, aerosols, and coatings.

For Responsible Parties who reported in 2013 and 2014, only sales information for 2015 is required, unless a change was made to an existing product or a new product was sold in 2015. For the data reporting instructions, please click this link. Penalties, including significant per day fines, can be assessed for those responsible parties who do not report to CARB.

California releases draft Alternatives Analysis guidance under Safer Consumer Products program.

/in ,

Today, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released the first part of draft guidance on conducting Alternatives Analysis (AA) under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program.

The Draft Stage 1 Alternatives Analysis Guide (AA Guide) covers the first of the two stages of the AA process, which entails an initial screening of alternatives and preliminary analysis. During Stage 1, “the responsible entity identifies the goal, scope, legal, functional, and performance requirements of the Priority Product and the Chemical of Concern, and uses this information to identify an array of alternatives to consider.” At the end of Stage 1, the analysis findings, work plan, and implementation schedule are documented in a Preliminary AA Report which is submitted to DTSC.

DTSC reports that a draft guide for Stage 2 will be released in the first quarter of 2016. In Stage 2, the responsible entity follows the Work Plan approved in Stage 1 and conducts an in-depth analysis considering impacts such as life cycle and cost. This process culminates in selecting an alternative and making a regulatory response recommendation.

The Draft Stage 1 AA Guide also notes that companies have alternative compliance options to the AA process if an AA or similar comparative analysis has already been completed, or if the company prefers a different AA approach. After demonstrating to DTSC that the alternate approach is “adequate for evaluating the Priority Product and the alternatives” and “sufficiently equivalent to the AA process described in the regulations,” responsible entities may choose instead to conduct an Abridged AA or Alternate Process AA, or use a previously completed AA.

The draft AA Guide discusses in detail the following topics:

  • Product Requirements and Alternatives – including product function and performance, legal requirements, and the role of the Chemical of Concern.
  • Relevant Factors – how to use an iterative process to identify “relevant factors” used throughout the AA process to characterize, evaluate, and compare impacts of the Priority Product and its alternatives.
  • Impact Assessments – approaches, tools, and information sources a responsible entity may use to conduct analyses throughout the AA process.
  • Screening Alternatives – considerations for and approach to screening, assessing tradeoffs, and conducting limited screens.

DTSC will hold two webinars to discuss the Draft Stage 1 Alternatives Analysis Guide, on October 7 and October 21. The comment period on the Guide runs through October 23, 2015.

California’s Safer Consumer Products program finalizes Priority Products Work Plan.

/in , ,

Last week, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released its final 2015-17 Priority Product Work Plan outlining the agency’s policy priorities and product categories to be evaluated over the next three years. The Work Plan implements the Safer Consumer Products program, the part of California’s Green Chemistry Initiative that serves to “accelerate the quest for safer products.” In its final form, the Work Plan retains the same seven product categories as were included in the draft Work Plan released in September, although DTSC made changes like adding example products and clarifying or modifying the scope of certain categories.

Selected changes from the draft to final versions of the Work Plan include:

  • Beauty, Personal Care, and Hygiene Products – Sunscreen added as an example in this category.
  • Building Products – Carpet padding added as an example in this category, and nomenclature-related changes (“engineered wood,” “plywood subfloors,” and “compressed wood flooring products,” are now “Engineered Wood and Laminate Flooring” and “Plywood and OSB Subflooring.” The Work Plan’s list of changes from the Draft Work Plan also includes “insulation” and “wall coverings with flame retardants” as examples included in this category, although they are not actually discussed in the category’s narrative description or table of example products.
  • Household, Office Furniture and Furnishings – Curtains added as an example in this category. DTSC also adds that this category constitutes a subset of the Global Product Classification (GPC) standard segment “Household/Office Furniture/Furnishings,” which is divided into three families: “Fabric/Textile Furnishings,” “Household/Office Furniture,” and “Ornamental Furnishings.”
  • Cleaning Products – Surface cleaners and wax removers added as examples in this category.
  • Clothing – DTSC now states that it “will exclude consideration of protective wear intended exclusively for occupational safety.” In addition, chlorinated paraffins, halogenated compounds, and organophosphates – all flame retardants – were removed from the table of potential candidate chemicals in clothing products.
  • Fishing and Angling Equipment – DTSC has clarified the scope of this category, specifying that the agency is “most concerned about fishing weights and gear that might be consumed by water fowl due to characteristics of size, shape and density,” and thus will not consider large weights used in off-shore salmon fishing.
  • Office Machinery (Consumable Products) – The product example “Specialty paper” is narrowed down to thermal paper, while “Printer inks” is now ink cartridges.

DTSC stresses that the Work Plan is only “the first step in identifying the next set of Priority Products.” The Work Plan does not identify specific Priority Products or Chemicals of Concern, nor does it establish any new compliance requirements. Rather, the Work Plan is intended to help DTSC “move from these broad [product] categories to specific product-chemical combinations that warrant consideration as potential Priority Products.” Moreover, the Plan is meant to provide “a level of predictability to potential manufacturers, importers, retailers, and other stakeholders.”

According to the Work Plan, the number of Priority Products to be identified in 2015 “will likely be as many as three,” the same number as was announced in 2014. DTSC anticipates ramping up to more than five products in 2016 and 2017.

The Work Plan covers January 2015 through December 2017, and will be updated in 2017 with the next Work Plan, covering 2018 through 2010. However, DTSC could be required to revise this Work Plan before its expiration in the case of two scenarios: if instructed to take action on a particular chemical, product, or product-chemical combination by legislative mandate or executive order; or if the agency grants a petition to add a product-chemical combination to the Priority Products list.

DTSC encourages stakeholders to stay engaged with the Safer Consumer Products program through its “newly enhanced information management system,” CalSAFER. The system facilitates reading or writing comments on proposed regulations, filing petitions, and submitting other documents to DTSC.

Stakeholders respond to competing TSCA reform proposals.

/in , , ,

Since the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee’s legislative hearing last week on modernizing the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), critiques, endorsements, and other reactions have continued to roll in from all corners of the TSCA reform universe. Yesterday, Chemical Watch reported that the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers and the Consumer Electronics Association came out in support of S. 697, the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” introduced by Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and David Vitter (R-LA). Both industry groups lauded the bipartisan bill for creating a single regulatory scheme that would be consistent across the U.S., which they prefer to the approach put forward in the competing proposal from Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). According to Chemical Watch, the electronics companies Dell and Hewlett-Packard are taking a wait-and-see approach to the proposed bills, while the Retail Industry Leaders Association, whose members include Walmart, Target, and Nike, is still reviewing the legislation with its member companies.

Companies for Safer Chemicals, a coalition coordinated by the American Sustainable Business Council and representing manufacturers including Seventh Generation and Naturepedic, expressed early support for the Boxer-Markey bill, calling S. 697 “insufficient” and faulting its slower timeline for chemical safety assessments. The coalition has also submitted a letter to the EPW Committee suggesting certain improvements to be made to the Udall-Vitter bill, including delayed preemption of state action, loosening Confidential Business Information (CBI) protections to increase transparency through supply chains, a “more robust review schedule,” fully funding TSCA through an uncapped fee system, and making it easier for EPA to restrict articles containing hazardous chemicals.

Earlier this week, Chemical Watch highlighted letters from the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) [PDF] and several state Attorneys General [PDF], both opposing the Udall-Vitter bill. The state officials object to the legislation’s elimination of co-enforcement and overbroad preemption provision, which they say would prevent state action to regulate dangerous chemicals. CalEPA Secretary Matthew Rodriguez further argued that S. 697 would impede the full implementation of California’s landmark green chemistry law, the Safer Consumer Products program.

Lawmakers and stakeholders are discussing the possibilities for negotiating amendments to the Udall-Vitter bill that could attract additional support from Democrats and the Obama administration.

A related debate has been playing out among legal experts over the Udall-Vitter bill’s safety standard of “unreasonable risk.” A group of former senior EPA legal officials who served in the last four administrations sent a letter to the Senate EPW Committee backing the bill, saying that the “unreasonable risk” standard “as included in S. 697 is not to be interpreted as it has under the existing TSCA.” That letter was in response to a March 16 letter [PDF] from public interest attorneys and environmental law professors, which called the safety standard in S. 697 “deeply problematic.”

California may add BPA to Prop. 65 list.

/in ,

On Friday, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical found in common consumer products like food packaging and paper receipts, will be considered for possible listing under the state’s Proposition 65 program, which requires businesses to provide warnings for exposures to listed chemicals. The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC), an advisory panel that helps OEHHA compile the list of chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity, will meet on May 7, 2015 to “consider whether BPA has been clearly shown by scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles to cause female reproductive toxicity.”

In April 2013, BPA was added to the Prop. 65 list as a reproductive toxicant for development endpoints via the Prop. 65 “authoritative bodies” mechanism, based on the National Toxicology Project’s findings that BPA caused reproductive toxicity at high doses. However, California delisted BPA the next week, in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Chemistry Council, and simultaneously withdrew that attempt to list the chemical.

DARTIC will now be revisiting BPA per a 2009 request from the committee to reconsider the chemical “if additional epidemiological or other specific types of data on reproductive and developmental toxicity became available.” Substantial relevant data has become available since 2009, including a significant 2014 review of studies published from 2007-2013 concluding that BPA is a reproductive toxicant.

OEHHA has compiled hazard identification materials on BPA and female reproductive toxicity for the consideration of both DARTIC and the public. The agency is accepting comments on the hazard identification materials through April 6, 2015. These comments will be forwarded to DARTIC members before the May 7 meeting, and also posted online. Instructions for submitting comments are in the meeting notice.

The May 7 meeting will begin at 10:00am in the Coastal Hearing Room of the Cal/EPA Headquarters building, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, and will also be webcast. If DARTIC require more time for deliberations, the meeting will be continued on May 21 at the same location.

California extends comments period on Safer Consumer Products draft Work Plan.

/in ,

Yesterday, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) made a series of announcements related to the Safer Consumer Products program. DTSC is extending the comments period for the Safer Consumer Products draft Priority Products Work Plan, and will now accept comments on the draft Plan until October 21.

DTSC also announced that its Candidate Chemicals database and downloadable list have been updated. The update reflects changes made in authoritative lists, such as the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) carcinogens monographs.

In addition, DTSC invites the public to attend the next meeting of the Green Ribbon Science Panel. The Panel will convene on October 20-21 in Sacramento to “discuss and advise DTSC on evaluating Product Categories identified” in the draft Work Plan as well as alternative analysis topics. DTSC has posted the meeting’s agenda [PDF] and supporting documents including discussion topics for the draft Plan [PDF] and an Alternatives Analysis Guidance Document Synopsis [PDF].

CA, MD, and NY enact laws against flame retardant chemicals; federal legislation proposed.

/in ,

California, Maryland, and New York are the latest states with new laws regulating flame retardant chemicals in products.

On September 30, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill requiring manufacturers to disclose on labels whether furniture contains flame retardant chemicals. The requirement goes into effect on January 1, 2015.

Maryland’s HB 229, which bans child care products containing flame retardant chemicals, went into effect on October 1. Products intended for children under the age of three, like crib mattresses, car seats, and toys containing more than 0.01% by mass of tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP) or tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP), may no longer be imported, sold, or offered for sale in Maryland.

In September, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law that would also ban TDCPP-containing child care products.

Meanwhile on the federal level, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced a bill in the Senate that would ban the sale, manufacture, distribution, and import of children’s products and upholstered furniture containing the ten “most noxious” flame retardant chemicals, including TDCPP and TCEP. The legislation also directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to study the health effects of other flame retardants and then extend the ban to any chemicals identified via this review that may cause substantial personal injury or illness.

CA's Safer Consumer Products Draft Work Plan: Clothing, cosmetics, and cleaning products all under consideration.

/in ,

Today, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released its draft Safer Consumer Products Priority Products Work Plan [PDF], identifying the following seven product categories to be evaluated under the program over the next three years:

  • Beauty, Personal Care, and Hygiene Products – including soaps, deodorants, lotions, cosmetics, and nail care products);
  • Building Products and Household, Office Furniture and Furnishings – limited to paints, adhesives, sealants, and flooring; and furniture/furnishings treated with flame retardants and/or stain resistant chemicals;
  • Cleaning Products – including air fresheners, floor cleaners, detergents, and window cleaners;
  • Clothing – including “fiber and textile materials worn on the body with the primary function of covering the body and/or providing protection against the elements”;
  • Fishing and Angling Equipment – such as fishing weights and gear; and
  • Office Machinery (Consumable Products) – such as printer inks, specialty paper, and toner cartridges.

Potential candidate chemicals across all the categories include many familiar chemicals that have come under various levels of regulatory scrutiny in recent years, including: phthalates and triclosan in beauty/personal care and cleaning products and clothing; brominated or chlorinated organic compounds and organophosphates, perfluorinated compounds, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in building products; and bisphenols and VOCs in consumable products for office machinery.

The draft Work Plan also explains the processes used to select the listed product categories, which employed seven different screening approaches – Hazard Trait and Endpoint; Route of Exposure; Chemical Prioritization; Evidence of Exposure; Sensitive Subpopulation, Functional Use; and Existing Research/Nomination Process. Based on information generated from the screening approaches, DTSC prioritized product categories with certain attributes, such as categories with chemicals observed in biomonitoring or indoor air quality studies, or categories that include product-chemical combinations that impact sensitive subpopulations. DTSC explains that the draft Plan is intended “to provide a level of predictability” to manufacturers, consumers, and other stakeholders.

Also today, DTSC announced the dates for the rescheduled public workshops to discuss the draft Work Plan. The first workshop will be held on September 25 at the Cal/EPA Headquarters in Sacramento; the second will be on September 29 at the DTSC Cypress Regional Office in Cypress. More details on the workshops, including agendas, are available here.

Comments from the public are being accepted on the draft Plan through October 13.