California’s

Safer Consumer Products
Regulations
Debbie Raphael,Director
California Department of
Toxic Substances Control
Japan MOE/Network for Strategic
Response on International
Chemical Management Meetings
Tokyo, Japan, May 2013

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentPrint.aspx?id=11244

Secretary Matthew Rodriquez

California Environmental Protection Agency

Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor of California

Appreciate this opportunity !
Debbie Raphael, Director
California Department of Toxic Substances Control2

Disclaimer
The policy approach of the California Green Chemistry Initiative &Safer Consumer Products Regulations is still evolving throughstakeholder input and constant policy evolution.

Therefore, what you hear today may not represent the final
position, policy or approach of the Administration.

3

Speech Overview: I. California’s Green Chemistry
Initiative – Intent & History
 II. California’s Safer Consumer
Products Regulations (SCPR) Steps in Process Important Changes

 III. Stakeholder Comments
 IV. Comparison of SCPR with REACH& U.S. TSCA
4

Why are we here?

5DTSC

I. California’s Green Chemistry Initiative
Intent & History

6Concern over consumer
products

7

Shouldn’t require a PhD

Information needs to be in themarketplace
8
DTSC

Response from
Chemists:
1. Waste prevention
2. Atom Economy
3. Derivatives
4. Catalysis
5. Chemical Synthesis
6. Solvents and Auxiliaries
7. Degradation
8. Renewable Feed-stocks
9. Energy Efficiency
10. Inherently Safer
9
DTSC

Response from
Policy-makers:

REACH

10
DTSC

TSCA Reform

Canadian
Environmental
Protection Act

Response from NGOs:

11
DTSC

Response from Companies:

12
DTSC
Slide 12

Historical Response of California
Policy-makers:
Laws that focus on only one chemical.

13
DTSC

Green Chemistry Initiative
California Leadership in innovation,use, and manufacture of safer, evermore environmentally benign
chemicals and products.
– Honor original Green Chemistry principles– Producer Responsibility– Create incentives in marketplace withinformation about products

14

California Green Chemistry
Report: Six Recommendations

Expand Pollution
Prevention
Move toward a
Cradle-to-Cradle
EconomyAccelerate the Quest for
Safer Products-> Safer Consumer Product
Regulations

Create On-line Product
Ingredient Network

December 2008

15

Develop a 21st Century Green
Chemistry Workforce-> University of California Berkeley
Curriculum

Create an Online Toxics
Information Clearinghouse-> MOU with U.S. EPA

2007-2013: Green Chemistry to
Safer Consumer Products Regulations

Green
Chemistry
ReportGreen
Chemistry
Options•ScientificSymposiums•Science Advisory
Panel•Green Ribbon
Science Panel•Stakeholder
Forums•Web•Outreach

PolicyThinking2010 Draft
Regulations

2012 Draft
Regulations•Stakeholder
Input•Stakeholder
Input•Statutory Date
•Administration
Policy•Stakeholder
Input•Administration
Support•Expanded Use ofExperts•Scientific Peer
Review

AB 1879/ SB 509

16

Statutory Authority

2013
Safer
Consumer
Products
Regulations

II. California’s Safer Consumer
Products Regulations
Statutory Authority granted by
Assembly Bill 1879

17

Safer Consumer
Products Regulations
will require productmanufacturers to ask:

Is It Necessary?
http://drbevmentalhealth.com/ask -a-question/18

Formaldehyde
19Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
20Brominated Flame Retardants
21
DTSC

Safer Consumer Products Regulations

Mandates the question,
BUT
does not dictate the answer.
22

http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/wp -content/uploads/2011/02/choice.jpg

Who makes the
product or who
controls the
manufacturing
process or has
the capacity to
specify thechemicals in
the product.

The U.S.
Importer:Whoimports the
product into
California.

Three

The
Manufacturer:

Two

One

Responsibility for Compliance

Retailers:
Who sell the
product in
California.
Assemblers:

Who assembles
products containing
Priority Productcomponents

Products…sold, offered for
sale, supplied, distributed,
or manufactured in
23California.

May opt-out by ceasing
to order Priority ProductHow It Works: The Safer Consumer Products Regulations

1. Chemicals

2. Products(Product-Chemical
Combinations)

3. Alternatives
Analysis24• OEHHA hazard traits• Initial list – existing authoritative lists• Additions to the list –Candidate
Chemicals
List• Adverse public health & environmental impacts• Sensitive subpopulations & environmental receptors• Widespread adverse impacts• Structurally / mechanistically similar chemicals• Exposures – biological/environmental monitoring• Exposures – other reliable information• CCs’ adverse impacts• Potential exposures to CCs in product• Adverse waste and end-of-life effects• Available reliable information• Other regulatory programs• Available safer alternatives

Priority
Products
List• Technical guidance• Removal / replacement notification options• Alternative Analysis Threshold notification option• Alternatives analysis process, options & timeframes• Alternatives analysis reports

Alternatives
Selection

4. Regulatory Responses

Step 1: Identify Chemicals
 Initial Candidate Chemicals List within 30
days of Regulations taking effect List drawn from 23 authoritative body lists
 Chemicals Can Be Added or Deleted - >Petition Process25

Step 2: Identify Priority Products
 Initial products -> up to 5 consumer products
 Propose initial products within 180 days ofeffective date. Public input before final.
 For future Priority Products: Workplan within 1
year of effective date
 Manufacturers Notify DTSC within 60 days of final
listing of initial Priority Products
26

Step 3: Alternative Analyses
 First Stage AA: Preliminary AAs are due 180 days
after product is listed.
 Second Stage AA: Final AAs due to DTSC one
year after notice of compliance for Preliminary AA.
Public comment on Final Aas.
 Alternative Process AAs

27

Step 4: Regulatory Response Within 90 Days of Notice of Compliance orDisapproval of Final AA -> DTSC issues Notice of
Proposed Determination
 Range of Responses

28

A Closer Look at the SCPR

from http://www.bard.edu

29How It Works: The Safer Consumer Products Regulations

1. Chemicals

2. Products(Product-Chemical
Combinations)

3. Alternatives
Analysis30• OEHHA hazard traits• Initial list – existing authoritative lists• Additions to the list –Candidate
Chemicals
List• Adverse public health & environmental impacts• Sensitive subpopulations & environmental receptors• Widespread adverse impacts• Structurally / mechanistically similar chemicals• Exposures – biological/environmental monitoring• Exposures – other reliable information• CCs’ adverse impacts• Potential exposures to CCs in product• Adverse waste and end-of-life effects• Available reliable information• Other regulatory programs• Available safer alternatives

Priority
Products
List• Technical guidance• Removal / replacement notification options• Alternative Analysis Threshold notification option• Alternatives analysis process, options & timeframes• Alternatives analysis reports

Alternatives
Selection

4. Regulatory Responses

Step 1:
Identify Chemicals Candidate Chemicals

31

Candidate Chemicals
http://www.planetscience.com/umbraco/imagegen.ashx?image=%2Fmedia%2F122048%2Fthinki
ng+children.jpg&width=600

WHY?

 Sends immediate signals to themarketplace Flexible palette for future action
 Deters regrettable substitutions
 Similar in size to existing industry
lists

32

33

34

35

How It Works: The Safer Consumer Products Regulations

1. Chemicals

2. Products(Product-Chemical
Combinations)

3. Alternatives
Analysis36• OEHHA hazard traits• Initial list – existing authoritative lists• Additions to the list –Candidate
Chemicals
List• Adverse public health & environmental impacts• Sensitive subpopulations & environmental receptors• Widespread adverse impacts• Structurally / mechanistically similar chemicals• Exposures – biological/environmental monitoring• Exposures – other reliable information• CCs’ adverse impacts• Potential exposures to CCs in product• Adverse waste and end-of-life effects• Available reliable information• Other regulatory programs• Available safer alternatives

Priority
Products
List• Technical guidance• Removal / replacement notification options• Alternative Analysis Threshold notification option• Alternatives analysis process, options & timeframes• Alternatives analysis reports

Alternatives
Selection

4. Regulatory Responses

http://www.microbiology.columbia.edu/wolfprize/i
mages/selection.jpg

Step 2:
Identify Priority
Products with Chemicalsof Concern
37

Safer Consumer Products Regulations

What products?
http://www.businessinsider.com/when-to-buy-genericvs-brand-name-goods-at-the-grocery-store-201110?op=1

38

Prioritization Factors
for Priority Products
http://www.nsta.org/s
ciencematters/images/
index_13.jpg

Adverse Impacts and Exposures: Potential Hazards posed by chemicals in the
products
 Potential Exposure with special focus on: Sensitive Subpopulations
 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats Endangered and Threatened Species
 Impaired Environments - designated by
California
39

Prioritization Factors
for Priority Products(continued)
 Adverse Waste and End-of-Life Effects
 Availability of Information
 Other Regulatory Programs
 Safer Alternative availability andfeasibility
40

Initial Priority Products List
 ~230 Candidate Chemicals
 No more than 5 products with
Chemicals of Concern
 Proposed list – 180 days

41

Priority Products Work Plan
 3-year work plans
 Forecast product categories to beevaluated during the next 3-year
cycle
 Public workshops prior to adoptionof each work plan42

Chemicals & Products

Petition Process Anyone may petition DTSC to add
and/or remove a chemical,
chemical list, or product High priority for petitions byfederal and California regulatory
programs
43

How It Works: The Safer Consumer Products Regulations

1. Chemicals

2. Products(Product-Chemical
Combinations)

3.
Alternatives
Analysis44• OEHHA hazard traits• Initial list – existing authoritative lists• Additions to the list –Candidate
Chemicals
List• Adverse public health & environmental impacts• Sensitive subpopulations & environmental receptors• Widespread adverse impacts• Structurally / mechanistically similar chemicals• Exposures – biological/environmental monitoring• Exposures – other reliable information• CCs’ adverse impacts• Potential exposures to CCs in product• Adverse waste and end-of-life effects• Available reliable information• Other regulatory programs• Available safer alternatives

Priority
Products
List• Technical guidance• Removal / replacement notification options• Alternative Analysis Threshold notification option• Alternatives analysis process, options & timeframes• Alternatives analysis reports

Alternatives
Selection

4. Regulatory Responses

Step 3:
Alternative Analyses Phased process – notification,
preliminary report, final report Flexibility – format & timing Notification options in lieu of AA– chemical removal, productremoval, product-chemical
replacement, and alternatives
analysis threshold exemption
45

Alternative Analyses Must
Consider “A-M” Criteria
 A. Productfunction/performance
B. Useful life
C. Materials/Resource
consumption
D. Water conservation
E. Water quality impacts
F. Air emissions
G. Prod., use, transp.
energy inputs
46

H. Energy efficiency
I. Greenhouse gas
emissions
J. Waste and end-of-life
disposal
K. Public health impacts:
sensitive sub-populations
L. Environmental impacts
M. Economic impacts

First Stage of Alternatives Analyses
Step 1 – ID
Product
Rqmts• Function, performance, & legal• Function of Candidate Chemical• Is CC necessary?
• Is replacement chemical necessary?

Step 2 – ID
Alternatives• Meet product requirements• Reduce / eliminate CC• Reduce / eliminate exposure• Look at existing alternatives

Step 3 –Screening
Alternative
Chemicals

Step 2 should ID chemical
substitutions AND otheralternatives.
47• Info on adverse impacts• Compare alternatives• Eliminate replacement chems withgreater adverse impacts

Step 4 –Next Steps• Preliminary
AA report• Work plan for 2nd
AA Stage

Second Stage of Alternatives Analyses
Step 1 – ID
Relevant
Comparison
Factors• In conjunction with exposure
pathways & lifecycle
segments• Quantitative / qualitative
analysis• Available information

Step 2 –Compare Priority
Product &Alternatives• Quantitative / qualitative
analysis• Relevant factors•exposure pathways•life cycle segments• Available information

Step 3 –Alternatives
Selection
Decision48• Final AA
Report• Reason &justification
for decision

Guidance for
Alternative Analyses

49

Alternatives Analyses Guidance:
California Approach Develop our own guidance.
 California collaborating with other States on
additional guidance50California is Working
with Other States IC2 Alternatives Analyses Guidance: U.S.
States are collaborating to develop
Alternatives Assessment Guidance States Involved: California, Connecticut,
Minnesota, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
York, Oregon
51

California SCP and IC2AA Approaches Aim to:
1. Reduce risk by replacing toxic chemicals in
products with inherently safer alternatives.
2.Prevent uninformed substitutions.
3.Define information requirements for credible
alternatives assessment.
4.Continually improve product safety forhuman health and the environment.
52

How California SCP and IC2AA Approaches are Similar(continued)

Guidance is intended to be:
1. Flexible and transparent to meet the needs of awide range of users
2. Help users determine which
AA components they needin their AA.
53

IC2 AA Guidance isInforming California
 IC2 Alternatives Assessment Guidance isBeing Revised Based on Public Comment

 California is Learning from Participating in

the process.

 Individual IC2 AA Modules may be suitablefor California AA Guidance

54

IC2 is Revising Draft AA
Guidance
 IC2 Guidance is being revised.
 California AA Guidance is not yet
drafted, awaiting the final regulations.

55

How It Works: The Safer Consumer Products Regulations

1. Chemicals

2. Products(Product-Chemical
Combinations)

3. Alternatives
Analysis56• OEHHA hazard traits• Initial list – existing authoritative lists• Additions to the list –• Adverse public health & environmental impacts• Sensitive subpopulations & environmental receptors• Widespread adverse impacts• Structurally / mechanistically similar chemicals• Exposures – biological/environmental monitoring• Exposures – other reliable information• CCs’ adverse impacts• Potential exposures to CCs in product• Adverse waste and end-of-life effects• Available reliable information• Other regulatory programs• Available safer alternatives

Candidate
Chemicals
List

Priority
Products
List• Technical guidance• Removal / replacement notification options• Alternative Analysis Threshold notification option• Alternatives analysis process, options & timeframes• Alternatives analysis reports

Alternatives
Selection

4. Regulatory Responses

Step 4:
Regulatory Response57Regulatory Response Additional information to DTSC
 Additional information to consumers
 Use restrictions
 Sales prohibitions
 Additional safety measures / controls
 End-of-life product stewardship Research funding
58

Important Changes
In
California’s
Safer Consumer Products
Regulations
59

Exemptions
Upfront exemption restored for
products regulated by other lawsthat provide equivalent or greater
protections

60

Lower Priority Products
These are no longer automatic
exemptions: Product is manufactured, stored, ortransported in California solely for use
outside of California
 Product is used in California solely forthe manufacture of statutorilyexempted products
61Chemical – Identification
 List of chemicals now called
Candidate Chemicals list.
 A Candidate Chemical that is the basis
for listing a product as a Priority
Product is a Chemical of Concern
with respect to that product.

62

Candidate Chemicals List
Includes two additional lists – Respiratory sensitizers.
 Clean Water Act section 303(c)and section 303(d) California
pollutant chemicals.
63

“Potential”
 “Ability” replaced by “Potential”.
 “Potential” – “the phenomenon
described is reasonably
foreseeable based on reliable
information”.

64Eliminated Certified Assessors
Requirement for Alternatives
Analyses to be performed bycertified assessors has been
eliminated.

65

AAs – Increased Stakeholder
Participation
Public review and comment process
added for Preliminary AA Reports.

66

Notifications instead of AA
 Chemical removal.
 Product removal.
 Product-chemical replacement.
Intent notification followed by
Confirmation notification within 90
days.
67

Alternatives Analysis Threshold (AAT)
Exemption Notification
 Default AAT = PQL.
 Default applies only if COC is acontaminant.
 AAT for intentionally-added chemical – or ahigher AAT for a contaminant – maybe set
during Priority Product listing process.
68AAs – Economic Impacts• Compare public health & environmental
costs, and costs to environmental
protection agencies and nonprofits.
• If Priority Product is retained based oninternal cost impacts – AA must
compare internal cost impacts.

69Regulatory Responses (RRs)
Revision / Elimination of Unbounded
RRs
 Limited to COCs and replacement CCs.
 Limited to situations specified in regulations.
 New AAs will not be required.
 Limited opportunity for DTSC to require information to fill
data gaps.
 Limits on criteria & time frames for revising RRs.
70

Manufacture, Assemble,
Assembler “Manufacture” definition excludes“assemble” activities – “bring together
components to create a consumer product”.
 “Assembler” – someone who assembles a
product containing a component that is a
Priority Product.

71

Reliable Information Definition
Expanded to provide appropriate
criteria for determining thereliability of non-scientificinformation.

72

Trade Secret Protections• Federal disclosure prohibitions &nondisclosure agreements
accommodated.
• Chemical identity masking allowed
while patent application is pending.

73

How It Works: The Safer Consumer Products Regulations

1. Chemicals

2. Products(Product-Chemical
Combinations)

3. Alternatives
Analysis74• OEHHA hazard traits• Initial list – existing authoritative lists• Additions to the list –Candidate
Chemicals
List• Adverse public health & environmental impacts• Sensitive subpopulations & environmental receptors• Widespread adverse impacts• Structurally / mechanistically similar chemicals• Exposures – biological/environmental monitoring• Exposures – other reliable information• CCs’ adverse impacts• Potential exposures to CCs in product• Adverse waste and end-of-life effects• Available reliable information• Other regulatory programs• Available safer alternatives

Priority
Products
List• Technical guidance• Removal / replacement notification options• Alternative Analysis Threshold notification option• Alternatives analysis process, options & timeframes• Alternatives analysis reports

Alternatives
Selection

4. Regulatory Responses

Remember the Goal of California’s
Safer Consumer Products Regulations
Creation of safer
alternatives that
protects public health& the environment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/when-to-buygeneric-vs-brand-name-goods-at-the-grocery-store2011-10?op=1

75

Products are reformulated orredesigned.

Practical+

Meaningful+

Legally Defensible
76Voices of
Our Stakeholders
http://karalyunets.blogspot.com/2011/02/blog -post.html

77

III. Comments from Japanon
California’s Safer Consumer
Products Regulations

78

Comment Summary• Concern over identification of priority product and the chemical ofconcern when product is covered under the Technical Barriers to Trade(TBT) notification.
• The difficulty in verifying the scientific evidence for risk tradeoff under thealternative analysis (AA). The AA will be time consuming with a large
uncertainty regarding the benefit and cost analysis.
• The (1) validity and rationality of the draft regulation and (2) the benefit
associated with the reduction of risk and expected cost of the regulation
could not be evaluated without knowing designated subject product(s) andchemical(s) upfront.
• The regulation should take into consideration the impact on international
stream of commerce and on the influence to the international community.
• California should conduct a regulatory impact assessment under
Executive Order of the United States 12991.
79

III A.
Japanese High Technology Companies
Japan Electronics and Information
Technology Industries Association
Communications and Information
Network Association of Japan
Japan Business Machine andInformation System Industries
Association
Japan Electrical Manufacturers'
Association
80General Comments

fromJapanese High Technology
Companies

81

General Comment Group #1

The Draft Safer Consumer Products regulation
regulates all consumer products & requires an
Alternate Analysis.
There are no similar regulations around theworld.
We share concerns of ACC, European Union andJapanese Government that the draft regulation
appears inconsistent with TBT agreement
represents an unreasonable trade barrier.

82

General Comment Group #2

The Alternative Analysis (AA) will requireconsideration of risk tradeoffs among available
alternatives.
There will be difficulty with the verification ofscientific data about safety and therefore
uncertainty on the alternative.
The AA will be time consuming and aburden to perform with uncertain benefits.

83

General Comment Group #3

Since the draft regulation do not designate
subject product(s) and chemical(s), thebenefits such as reduction of risk and theassociated costs cannot be evaluated.
At this point, potential result, validity andrationality of the draft regulation can not be
evaluated.

84Specific Issue
Comments
fromJapanese HighTechnology
Companies
85

Specific Comments#1 Considering the international stream ofcommerce, the validity and rationality of the draft
regulation should be verified, harmonized andshared with stakeholders not only inside but
also outside of the state of California.
#2a Subject product(s) and chemical(s) should beclearly stated in the draft regulation.
#2b A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) under
Executive Order of the United States 12991 should
be done.

86Specific Comment#3 Occupational healthshould not be consideredwithin the definition of “Publichealth.”#4 The supply chain
should be allowed
sufficient time toeliminate inventory in areasonable manner.

87Specific Comments#5 DTSC is responsible fordesignating Candidate Chemicals.
Scientific data supports suchdesignation will vary and havedifferent interpretation by different
stakeholders. DTSC needs to listen
to all stakeholders and consider
all evidence.
#6 DTSC should consider the
existence of and harmonize withother regulations such as EU
REACH. It is burdensome for theindustry to follow each of theregulations worldwide.
88Specific Comment#7 In Article 2 Section
69502.2, some of thechemicals are not explicitly
hazardous, and some do nothave enough information to
make such determination.
#8 California’s regulations
should try to harmonize thescope or the chemicals in
the list with federal laws
and international agreements.
89Specific Comment#9 We want guidance on how to conduct
an impact assessment on public health andenvironment etc. in the AA. We expect
such assessment to be difficult and results
to vary among assessors.
#10 We want DTSC to consider
establishing a body like EU SIEF for AA
activity either at Priority Product or
Chemicals of Concern level.

90Specific Comment#11 Referring to the AA…in our
industry, the selection of apotential alternative chemical
will involve long time
between research anddevelopment time to actual
start of mass-production.
#12 Referring to “trade
secret,” information about
who is a part of the supply
chain is confidential businessinformation. From any point in
the supply chain, the names of
those further upstream or thedownstream beyond the direct
supplier or the customer is notknown and therefore cannot beprovided.
91Specific Comment#13 Many companies selling
consumer products in California
are headquartered outside ofCalifornia. Due to distance andlanguage problems the 45 days
is too short to comment andshould be longer, such as 60
days.
#14 We are concerned with thepossible confusion for consumers
created by (c)(2) (A). It is notpractical for all labels on the
product package to bechanged over a night. We
suggest that website or POP(point of purchase) information
should also be selected.
92Specific Comment#15 The regulations imply that eachcompany has not only fund but
establish and maintain amanagement system throughout the
products life-cycle. We believe
such system is the responsibilityof the government. We proposethat EU WEEE method be studied.

93#16 The focus of trade secrecy
appears to be upon technical,
intellectual property and design
issues. We consider operational
information regarding supply chain
or R&D strategies as confidential
business information and should be
included in the definition of “trade
secret.”III B.
Comments from Japanese Chemical Companies
Japan Chemical Industry Association

94

Chemical of Concern/Candidate
Chemical List
JCIA continues to be concerned with thenumber of chemicals to be included on the
Candidate Chemical list. The initial list is muchlarger than comparable regulatory lists.
JCIA wants DTSC to provide disclaimer that a
Candidate Chemical is NOT a determinationthat a chemical is of concern in a any
particular product.
JCIA wants DTSC to develop a rigorous
prioritization transparent process sostakeholders can understand DTSC’s
expectations.
95

Alternative Analysis (AA)JCIA is concerned with the burdenof having to perform a potentiallycomplex AA within the statedtimeframe.

Responsibility forCompliance with theRegulations
JCIA is concerned with theapparent lack of the options forregulatory requirements to be
fulfilled by a consortium, tradeassociation, or other entity acting
on behalf of the manufacturer,
importer, or retailer.
96

Revised Definition of Alternative
Assessment Threshold (AAT)JCIA does not support DTSC’s approachto the AAT. This is not scientifically justified
and could set thresholds lower thannecessary for human health protection.

97

Voice of Other
Stakeholders
Example - Article 2:
 1200 chemicals – too large,need a subset of chemicals

http://karalyunets.blogspot.com/2011/02/blog -post.html

 Prioritization criteria: Weight of evidence approach CoC – should be used only for the highest priority
subset, the larger 1200 chemicals should becalled Chemicals under Consideration
 Adding chemicals – should be from Authoritative
organizations only! Definition of reliable
information is too loose.
98IV. Comparison of
California’s Safer
Consumer Products
Regulations
with REACH and TSCA

99

Comparison of California, REACH & EPA TSCA
California
SCPR

REACH

U.S. EPA
TSCA

U.S. EPA
Workplan

Scope

1200
Chemicals

30,000chemicals

82,000Chemicalson TSCA
Inventory

83 Workplan
Chemicals

Priority

3-5
consumerproducts
initially

Chemicals >1 million
tons

1.RiskAssessments
2.Increasing
Information
3.Safer
Products

Conduct
initialassessments
on 23
chemicals

Chemicalor Product
SafetyFocus

BothChemical
SafetyChemical
SafetyChemical
Safety.
Some
Product
Safety100

How is CA’s SCPR different from
REACH?
California SCP Product Focus,
based on chemicalhazard and exposure Scope: To identify
and accelerate theproduction of safer
consumer products
 To expand business
opportunities for
product makers.
101

Europe’s REACH
 Chemical Focus, not
Products
 Scope: Earlier andbetter identification of
the intrinsic
properties of chemical
substances.
 To enhancecompetitiveness of EU
chemical industry

How is CA’s SCPR different from TSCA?
EPA’s TSCA
 Chemical Focus withmost chemicals“grandfathered in”
 Aim: To require
reporting, recordkeeping and testing
requirements, andrestrictions relating tochemical substances
and/or mixtures
102

EPA’s Wkplan/DfE
 TSCA Workplans
have a chemical
focus – 83
chemicals
 2012: 7 chemicals
 2013: 23 flame
retardants

 Aim of DfE (Designfor Environment )focus on chemicals
and products

Key Differences
California’s SCPR vs. REACH & TSCA

 Wide Range - Number of Chemicals
 California focusing on 230 chemicals out of
1200 initially
 REACH addresses 30,000 chemicals
 EPA TSCA addresses 82,000
 EPA Workplan Chemicals: 83 with first 7
underway103

Comparison of SCPR, REACH & EPA TSCA (cont’d)California
SCPR

REACH

U.S. EPA
TSCA

Alternative
and/or Risk
Assessments

Yes, AAs for
products.

No for bothYes, Risk
Assessments

Both AA’s
and RA’s

Who
ProvidesData

Business

Business

EPA collects
available
info. Limited
testingauthority.

EPA collects
available
info. Limited
testingauthority.

Yes.

Yes.

Limited.
Info Portalsoon.

Limited.
Info Portalsoon.

Various

Various

LimitedLimitedInfo for
Consumers

Regulatory
Actions
104

U.S. EPA
WorkplanComparison of SCPR, REACH & EPA TSCA (cont’d)California

REACH

Enforcement
Authority

Yes, various

Yes. Role of
EU MemberStatesLimitedLimitedConfidential
Business
Information(CBI)

California
reviews.

Fewer CBI
protections
than U.S.

Broader CBIthough trend
is increasingtransparency& review of
CBI claims.

Broader CBIthough trend
is increasingtransparency& review of
CBI claims.

Data
Sharing
By
Companies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

ChangesComingRegs takeeffect 2013

New changes
coming.

Seek reform
of
TSCA.

More
workplanchemicals.

105

U.S. EPA
TSCA

U.S. EPA
WorkplanJapanese Insights & Lessons
 Japan is one of our largest trading partners. How can
we work with Japanese Government to ensure goodcommunication, coordination and collaboration?
 What lessons can California learn from Japan?
 Why is it challenging to meet the California’s Safer
Consumer Products Regulations timeframes?
 Opportunity for international cooperation andpartnerships?
 Other thoughts?

106

We look forward to working together
to protect public health and theenvironment !

107

Thank You
Japan MOE and to all ofyou in the audience!

108