California released its draft regulation to implement the Green Chemicals Initiative June 23, 2010. Find it here:

It's stunning in its reach (makes EU's REACH look like a walk in the park).  Pretty much everything is a "consumer product" despite the name of "Safer Consumer Product Alternatives" - if someone uses it in California it's covered (Except: drugs, pesticides, food and dental restorative.  Must be a dentist in the state legislature).  And the chemicals that are to be "Under Consideration" (CUC) could potentially include anything and everything that could go to California that has any toxicity - including releasing non-ionizing radiation (like cell phones and microwaves).

But the initial focus will be on Prop 65 carcinogens and reproductive toxins that are persistent and bioaccumulate present in products at >0.1%.  These will become "Chemicals of Concern" - COC.  The products containing them will be "Priority Products."  Given the hurdles to conduct life cycle assessments by 2 different certified Alternate Assessment professionals (one has to be an accredited 3rd party) and the unlimited information that can be demanded by DTSC, followed by restrictions in use and mandatory take-back programs for old products - companies should find something else now before the rule goes into effect or quit selling in California.

There is a long set of criteria to conduct prioritization of chemicals and products but, regardless,  DTSC is going to be overwhelmed. California is beyond broke and not likely to have the staff to process all this stuff,. So the lists may be a shorter to start with.  On the other hand, when has an agency not demanded a lot of reporting from companies and just let it pile up?  All they have to do is post the lists on their website and scan in the info being sent by companies and stand back and let the blacklisting do its thing.

I support the emphasis on life cycle thinking and looking at the potential impacts of the safer alternatives vs the not-so-safe products.  And they do acknowledge technical and market feasibility.  But it is the scale of effort that is mind-boggling.

You almost wonder if it would be easier for California to issue the short list of what can be used to make products for California.  Not sure what that might be though.  Certainly not water, given the drought conditions of the state and you need water to grow all those bio-based chemicals, so not sure they are possible either.  It's not clear from the rule is the life cycle impacts include resource use and emissions that occur outside the state - but as California is championing GHG reduction, surely they are concerned with global impacts.

Saddest piece was this definition: "Make available for use in California” means that a person sells, offers for sale, distributes, leases, offers to lease, supplies, or otherwise transfers control over the disposition of a consumer product directly to a California consumer; or to another person without maintaining sufficient control over the distribution, sale, lease, supply, or other transfer of the consumer product by that person to prevent the use of the consumer product by a California consumer." No more Christmas presents to my brother and sister, just to be safe. :(

Leave a reply