green ribbon letter

8/9/2019 Green Ribbon Letter

1/5


2/5

Green Ribbon Science Panel Comments to DTSC Page 2

products. Furthermore, this list is not actively updated by US EPA andreflects out of date thinking on the subject.Solution: Remove these restrictions from the process of generating the initiallist of Chemicals of Concern. California should have the ability to take actionon high priority chemicals immediately and without restriction. If, however,existing lists are to be used for an initial CoC list, these lists should at aminimum include all of the EU's chemical lists, not just the EU mutagen lists.c) Timelines: No timeline is specified for the generation of subsequent lists ofChemicals of Concern. While Section 69302.2(e) requires DTSC to "reviewand revise" the Chemicals under Consideration and Chemicals of Concernlists at least every three years, it is not clear whether this section applies tothe generation of new versions of these lists.Solution: Clarify the applicability of Section 69302.2(e) to provide areasonable timeline for the periodic generation of subsequent lists ofChemicals under Consideration and Chemicals of Concern.d) No minimum data requirement: The process for identifying Chemicals ofConcern as currently described prioritizes data-rich chemicals; with nomechanism for requiring a minimum data set the regulatory process wouldvirtually exempt chemicals for which little information exists. DTSC has theauthority to require data to be provided under the draft regulations, but this isnot sufficient. Many chemicals in commerce that are not recognized aschemicals of concern because of missing data will simply remain incommerce. AB 1879 requires DTSC to identify chemicals of concern, which itcannot do without closing data gaps.Solution: DTSC should require a minimum data set for chemicals inconsumer products that pose a potential threat to public health and theenvironment (e.g., are in use in high volume or have a high exposurepotential), for which there is insufficient data to determine whether they havehazard traits that fall under the regulation. Since design of such a data set isnot trivial, DTSC should establish a process for developing a required dataset in a set time period of one to two years.

Concern #2: Section 69301.2. Definition of de minimis: The definition of deminimis set at 0.1 % does not reflect growing scientific literature on the effects oflow dose chemical exposures, aggregate sources of exposure, or the potentialimpacts of contaminants in consumer products.Solution: Do not permit exemption for Chemicals of Concern simply becausetheir concentration in a product is below 0.1 %. At the very minimum, change thedefinition of de minimis so as not to apply to classes of chemicals that are linkedto adverse effects on human health and the environment at low levels, including,


3/5

Green Ribbon Science Panel Comments to DTSC Page 3but not limited to, persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs),carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive toxins (CMRs), and endocrinedisrupting compounds.Concern #3: Section 69305. Alternatives Assessments: The proposedrequirements for alternatives assessments are extensive and, while warranted incases where there are complex trade offs among potential alternatives, areunnecessarily burdensome to manufacturers where there are appropriatealternatives available and needlessly obstructive where a fast track to regulatoryresponse is prudent. Given the large number of widely diverse assessments thatwill be required by the regulation, it is critical that the DTSC have a broaderdiscretion of types of alternatives assessments as envisioned in the tieredapproach proposed by members of the GRSP.Solution: Implement a tiered approach to alternatives assessments such as thatproposed.Concern #4: DTSC Resources: The availability of DTSC resources will impactthe implementation of these regulations at a number of points (e.g., designationof chemicals of concern, determination of products of concern, review ofalternatives assessments, evaluation of petition submissions, dispute resolution,etc.); the issue of providing for adequate resources for implementation must beaddressed.Solution: Provide for the assessment of fees for DTSC review of the data andalternatives assessment submittals required by the draft regulations. If DTSCbelieves that they do not have the statutory authority to assess fees for theimplementation under AB 1879, this concern should be conveyed to theCalifornia legislature.Concern #5: Section 69306.5. Product Sales Prohibition: In the RegulatoryResponse section, the criteria for a Product Sales Prohibition imply a cost-benefitanalysis that does not include externalities and societal burden.Solution: Change the language of this section to clearly include externalizedhuman health and environmental health costs in the cost-benefit calculation.Concern #6: Public Participation: There is no provision for public input orreview in the processes detailed in the regulations beyond the determination ofchemicals or products of concern. Without public oversight of the conduct ofalternatives analyses and implementation of regulatory responses, governmentand industry will not be accountable to the public, providing little reason forconfidence in the decisions being made.Solution: Provide mechanisms for public input and review at appropriate stagesof the alternatives assessments, granting of exemptions from the need to perform


4/5


alternatives assessments for any priority product containing a chemical ofconcern, and determinations of whether to require or enforce a regulatoryresponse.

Ann Blake, Ph.D.Principal, Environmental &Public Health ConsultingDebbie RaphaelDepartment of the EnvironmentCity and County of San FranciscoKelly D. Moran, Ph.D.TDC Environmental, LLCLauren Heine, Ph.D.Science Director, Clean Production ActionRichard Denison, Ph.D.Senior ScientistEnvironmental Defense FundJulia Quint, Ph.D.California Department of Public Health (Retired)Michael Wilson, Ph.D., MPHCenter for Occupational and Environmental HealthSchool of Public Health, University of California, BerkeleyMegan Schwarzman, MD, MPHCenter for Occupational and Environmental HealthSchool of Public Health, University of California, BerkeleyKen Geiser, Ph.D.Professor of Work EnvironmentCo-Director, Lowell Center for Sustainable ProductionUniversity of Massachusetts LowellJoseph H. Guth, Ph.D., J.D.Legal Director, Science &Environmental Health NetworkAssociate Researcher, U.C. Berkeley Center for Green ChemistryCc:John Moffatt, Deputy Legislative SecretaryOffice of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger


5/5


Linda S. AdamsSecretary for Environmental ProtectionCalifornia Environmental Protection AgencyOdette MadriagoChief Deputy DirectorDepartment of Toxic Substances ControlJeff WongCh ief ScientistDepartment of Toxic Substances ControlTrina GonzalezDeputy Director for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Green TechnologyDepartment of Toxic Substances ControlKarl PalmerPollution Prevention Performance ManagerDepartment of Toxic Substances ControlKathy BarwickOffice of Pollution Prevention and Green Technology

green ribbon letter

Documents