PE CoffeeHaus Blog

Lynn L. Bergeson is managing director of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., a Washington, D.C., law firm focusing on conventional and engineered nanoscale chemical, pesticide, and other specialty chemical product approval and regulation, environmental health and safety law, chemical product litigation, and associated business issues, and President of The Acta Group L.L.C. and The Acta Group EU Ltd. with offices in Washington, D.C., and Manchester, U.K.

California Releases Proposed Regulations for Safer Consumer Products

October 11, 2010
/ Print / Reprints /
ShareMore
/ Text Size+
California proposes tough product rules that would determine if a product containing certain chemicals can be sold within the state. All manufacturers need to know how this will impact doing business in that state and perhaps in the United States in the future.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) has released its proposed regulations for safer consumer product alternatives. Under the proposed regulations, the CDTSC would create a list of chemicals that it deems toxic and believes could harm people or the environment. The CDTSC would prioritize products containing those chemicals based upon such factors as the volume in commerce, the extent of public exposure, and how the product is eventually disposed. Manufacturers of those products would be required to perform an “alternatives assessment” to determine if a viable safer alternative is available. The CDTSC will hold a public hearing on Nov. 1, 2010, and comments on the proposed regulations are due Nov. 1, 2010, as well. The CDTSC intends to complete the formal process to adopt the proposed regulations by the end of 2010. Click here to read additional information.

The CDTSC released a draft proposed regulation on June 23, 2010, and received comments from more than 90 stakeholders, legislators and the public. According to the CDTSC, the comments contained “widespread support for pursuing the basic principles of the Green Chemistry Initiative,” and focused on a few remaining issues. In considering comments and potential changes to the June 23, 2010, draft regulations, the CDTSC stated that it had consulted scientists, alternative assessment professionals, and life cycle analyses practitioners in academia, industry, and private consulting firms. The proposed regulations, which the CDTSC has submitted to California’s Office of Administrative Law, include changes made as a result of that consultation. According to the CDTSC, the changes:

  • Address criticism that the initial scope of chemicals list was too narrow. The CDTSC has “significantly broadened” the proposed scope by expanding the lists of authoritative bodies that could be consulted for establishing the chemicals of priority list;
  • Respond to concerns that the previous draft regulation’s lack of deadlines could cause unintended delays. Proposed deadlines are now included for both chemicals and products lists along with specific timelines for various regulatory steps;
  • Additionally, the CDTSC has added a tiered process for alternative assessments intended to reduce the time for identifying safer alternatives and provide more specific performance targets to move manufacturers through the regulatory process;
  • Address comments regarding the complexity of the process. The CDTSC has simplified the process and clarified what information would be required and how it would be submitted; and
  • Respond to requests to have public comments on regulatory actions. The CDTSC now proposes to allow public comment on any regulatory responses that are triggered by a CDTSC ruling or determination.
      The proposed regulations are intended to: (1) establish a process to identify and prioritize those chemicals or chemical ingredients in consumer products that may be considered to be a chemical of concern; (2) establish a process for evaluating chemicals of concern in consumer products, and their potential alternatives, to determine how best to limit exposure or to reduce the level of hazard posed by priority chemicals; and (3) specify the range of regulatory responses that the CDTSC may take following the completion of the alternatives analysis.

      The proposed regulations include the following timelines:

      • The proposed initial list of Chemicals under Consideration shall be issued for public review and comment no later than June 1, 2011;
      • The final initial list of Chemicals under Consideration shall be issued no later than March 1, 2012;
      • The proposed initial list of Priority Chemicals shall be issued for public review and comment no later than July 1, 2012;
      • The proposed initial list of Products under Consideration shall be issued for public review and comment no later than March 1, 2013;
      • The proposed initial list of Priority Products shall be issued for public review and comment no later than Sept. 1, 2013; and
      • The final initial list of Priority Products shall be issued no later than Dec. 1, 2013.
      In preparing the initial list of Priority Chemicals, the proposed regulations state that the CDTSC shall consider only chemicals that are one or more of the following:

      • Chemicals that are carcinogens or reproductive toxins, or both;
      • Chemicals that are listed as having mutagenic properties in the European Union Category 1A or 1B under Annex VI, part 3 of the Regulation; or
      • Chemicals that have been determined by the United States EPA to be persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals.
      • You must login or register in order to post a comment.

        Multimedia

        Videos

        Image Galleries

        WEFTEC 2006

        WEFTEC®, the Water Environment Federation’s Annual Technical Exhibition and Conference, is the biggest meeting of its kind in North America and offers thousands of water quality professionals from around the world the best water quality education and training available today.

        Podcasts

        This podcast addresses solutions to problems that can affect bioremediation in acidic aquifers, such as:

        • Impacts of pH on reductive dechlorination rates
        • Different bases to raise aquifer pH

        Speaker- Dr. Stephen Richardson, P.E., Technical Lead for Research and Development, EOS Remediation

        More Podcasts

        THE MAGAZINE

        Pollution Engineering

        May 2013 PE cover 100px

        2013 May

        Check out the latest edition of Pollution Engineering Magazine today!
        Table Of Contents Subscribe

        EPA emissions legislation

        Industry & states petitioned the Supreme Court to review EPA’s GHG emissions for power plants and cars. Do you think the court will deny the petition?
        View Results Poll Archive

        THE POLLUTION ENGINNERING STORE

        M:\General Shared\__AEC Store Katie Z\AEC Store\Images\PE\toward-zero-discharge.gif
        Urban and Highway Stormwater Pollution: Concepts and Engineering

        Presents the practical work of leading experts working with highly impacted areas across the world.

        More Products

        Editor's Choice Awards

        2013 PE Editors ChoicePollution Engineering magazine will be choosing the top, most innovative products and presenting companies that are chosen with an Editor's Choice Awards. The announcement will be published in the July 2013 issue. Visit the editor's choice awards page today!

        PE Digital Editions

        1112PE_Cover.jpgView Pollution Engineering's popular digital editions with interactive features. To receive each digital issue as soon as it’s available and delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe now!

        STAY CONNECTED

        FacebookTwitterYoutubeLinkedIn