BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1313
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 10, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Jared Huffman, Chair
SB 1313 (Corbett) - As Amended: April 29, 2008
SENATE VOTE : 22-15
SUBJECT : Product safety: perfluorinated compounds.
SUMMARY : Prohibits the manufacture, sale or distribution in
commerce of any food contact substance that contains
perfluorinated compounds in a concentration exceeding 10 parts
per billion (ppb). Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "food contact substance" as a substance that directly
contacts food and is intended for use as a component of
materials used in manufacturing, packaging, transporting or
holding food.
2)Defines "perfluorinated compounds" as perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), or PFOA- and
PFOS-homologues that differ only in the length of the
fluorinated carbons and contain more than five fluorinated
carbon atoms, or chemicals that may degrade in the environment
to PFOA or PFOS, or PFOA- and PFOS-homologues containing more
than five carbon fluorinated atoms.
3)Prohibits, on or after January 1, 2010, the manufacture, sale
or distribution in commerce of any substance intended to
contact food, as defined, that contains perfluorinated
compounds in a concentration exceeding 10 ppb.
4)Requires manufacturers to use a nontoxic alternative when
replacing perfluorochemicals or their precursors. Requires
that the alternative is not a carcinogen or a reproductive
toxicant, as defined.
5)Makes legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW
1)Requires, under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement
Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), the Governor to publish a list
of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity
SB 1313
Page 2
and to annually revise the list.
2)Prohibits the discharge or release of a chemical known to the
state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water, or
onto or into land, from which the chemical may pass into
drinking water.
3)Prohibits the knowing and intentional exposure of people to a
chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning.
4)Under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA),
authorizes US EPA to track industrial chemicals produced or
imported into the United States.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS :
Purpose of the bill : According to the author's office, "Every
consumer expects food packaging to be safe. But packaging with
certain grease-proof coatings can contain perfluorinated
chemicals (PFCs) that are not safe. Studies show these
chemicals can migrate into food directly from the packaging,
especially when heated. The two PFCs of most concern, PFOA and
PFOS, never break down, persisting in the environment
indefinitely. Recent studies have demonstrated the presence of
PFOA and PFOS in more than 98 percent of Americans' blood, and
100 percent of 293 newborns surveyed. PFOA is considered by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board a
likely carcinogen and is considered a chemical that induces
breast tumors in animals. In addition, PFOA and PFOS have been
linked to pregnancy problems that can include developmental
complications. Animal studies also indicate that perfluorinated
chemicals affect the liver, immune system, and hormone levels."
What are perfluorinated compounds ? Perfluorochemicals (PFCs)
are a broad class of manufactured chemicals that have been
produced since the 1950s and are used to make products that
resist oil, stains, heat, water, and grease. These products
include nonstick cookware, oil- and moisture-resistant paper
coatings, stain-resistant carpets and fabrics, nail polishes,
and fire-fighting foam. In addition to many consumer-product
uses, the aerospace, automotive, construction,
chemical-processing, electrical and electronics, semiconductor,
SB 1313
Page 3
and textile industries use these chemicals.
Two chemicals in this class, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8), have raised particular
concern and are byproducts of the manufacturing process. The
chemical process that results in the formation of PFOS and
several other PFCs was discontinued by 2002 in the United
States; however, it remains unregulated. PFOA is currently used
as a processing aid when making fluoropolymers, which impart
marketable properties such as fire resistance and oil, stain,
grease, and water repellency. Fluoropolymers are also used to
provide non-stick surfaces on cookware and waterproof,
breathable membranes for clothing. PFOA may additioanally be
generated by the breakdown of telomers used to impart soil,
stain and grease repellency in carpets, textiles and paper.
Concerns related to PFCs : According to US EPA, the agency began
investigating PFOA because of its environmental persistence, its
presence at low levels both in the environment and in the blood
of the general U.S. population, and because PFOA caused
developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.
Dozens of studies, mostly on laboratory animals, have linked
exposure to PFCs to higher rates of prostate cancer, heart
disease, stroke, diabetes, impaired fetal development, altered
male reproductive hormones, and effects on the liver, thyroid
gland, and immune system. In 2005, the US EPA's Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics Science Advisory Board labeled
PFOA a 'likely' carcinogen in humans.
In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
published the results of two studies of human exposure to 11
PFCs. In both studies, PFOS and PFOA, as well as another PFC,
perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), were detected in
approximately 98% of the population. The CDC concludes that
these findings confirm widespread PFC exposure in the U.S.
population. The CDC also reports that both PFOS and PFOA
accumulate in wildlife such as bald eagles, mink, bears, sea
mammals, and fish.
Federal action on PFOA : In 2004, the US EPA took administrative
action against DuPont for violations consisting of multiple
failures to report information to US EPA about substantial risk
of injury to human health or the environment from a chemical
during a period beginning in June of 1981 through March of 2001.
Companies are required by TSCA to report such information
SB 1313
Page 4
immediately.
In 1981, the company observed PFOA in blood samples taken from
pregnant workers at its Washington Works facility in West
Virginia and at least one woman had transferred the chemical to
her fetus. DuPont detected the chemical in public water
supplies near the facility as early as the mid-1980s. By 1991,
DuPont had information that the chemical was in water supplies
at a greater level than the company's exposure guidelines
indicated would be without any effect to members of the
community. In 1997, DuPont failed to provide US EPA with all
toxicological information the company had regarding PFOA,
despite a US EPA request for such information. An attorney
working on a class action suit on behalf of citizens in Ohio and
West Virginia brought this information to the US EPA in 2001.
In 2005, US EPA settled with DuPont for the largest civil
administrative penalty US EPA has ever obtained under any
federal environmental statute. The settlement involves DuPont's
violations related to PFOA and requires DuPont to pay $10.25
million in civil penalties and perform Supplemental
Environmental Projects worth $6.25 million.
US EPA PFOA Stewardship Program : Beginning in 2003, the US EPA
negotiated with multiple parties to produce missing information
on PFOA through enforceable consent agreements, memoranda of
understanding and voluntary commitments. According to the
agency's website, it is still gathering and analyzing this data.
In January 2006, the US EPA and eight prominent companies in the
industry created the 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program. Under
the program, the companies (3M/Dyneon, Arkema, Inc., AGC
Chemicals/Asahi Glass, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Clariant
Corporation, Daikin, E.I. duPont de Nemours and Company, and
Solvay Solexis) committed voluntarily to reduce emissions and
product content of PFOA and related chemicals on a global basis
by 95 percent by 2010, and to work toward eliminating emissions
and product content of these chemicals by 2015.
In October 2007, thyree companies reported they had already
achieved greater that 98 percent reductions in emissions of PFOA
in the United States and all participating companies reported
being on target to achieve the reduction goals of the program.
In 2007, DuPont announced its plans to eliminate their need to
SB 1313
Page 5
make, buy or use PFOA by 2015.
The CDC reports that levels of PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS in people
seem to have decreased from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 by about 25%,
but contends that it needs more data to characterize a possible
trend.
Is the PFOA Stewardship Program enough ? An investigation by the
Environmental Working Group (EWG) finds no evidence that the
replacement chemicals proposed by the participants in the
Stewardship Program are safer than PFOA and related chemicals.
According to the report, like PFOA, the new compounds are PFCs,
persist in the environment and cross the placenta to babies
before birth. The report reveals that there are almost no data
publicly available on the health risks of the replacement
chemicals. In fact, the report suggests that since January
2007, chemical manufacturers reported to the US EPA studies on
19 PFOA replacement chemicals that showed "substantial risk" to
human health or the environment. However, under regulations
protecting "confidential business information," in most cases
neither the chemical nor the manufacturer were identified.
PFOS no longer common in consumer products : Around 2000, the US
EPA's preliminary risk assessments on PFOS indicated potentially
unacceptable margins of exposure for the workers at 3M
Corporation, and possibly for the general population. 3M
manufactures Scotchguard and other industrial and consumer
products. Following a series of discussions with US EPA, and
based on concerns about the widespread presence and longer-term
risks presented by PFOS, 3M decided to phase-out
perfluorooctanyl chemistry worldwide that year. 3M expressed
interest in collaborative efforts with US EPA as they develop
safer substitutes. PFOS is thought to be phased-out in the
United States.
Appropriate PFOA levels in food contact substances: According
to the US EPA, the average background level of PFOA in
individuals residing in the United States is estimated to be
approximately 5 ppb, therefore the proponents of this bill
contend that a 10 ppb standard is a clearly detectable level
above the true environmental background. They point to a study
published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry in
2007 by the American Chemical Society that detects levels as low
as 0.5 to 6 ppb in food. The proponents also point to the fact
SB 1313
Page 6
that C6 PFCs should be prohibited because C6 has already been
found in adult and cord blood, while C5 has not.
Chemical specific vs. comprehensive chemical policy: The
Legislature has considered legislation to establish protective
standards for specific toxics in specific products. At the same
time, attempts at creating a more comprehensive chemical policy
program have failed passage in the Legislature. Until the State
establishes effective, comprehensive chemical policy and
delegates clear regulatory and enforcement authority with
sufficient resources, chemical-specific bills will continue to
be a viable alternative.
The California Green Chemistry Initiative: In 2007, DTSC
launched the California Green Chemistry Initiative, with goals
including developing a consistent means for evaluating risk,
reducing exposure, encouraging less-toxic industrial processes,
and identifying safer, non-chemical alternatives. While the
initiative is showing promise in establishing a comprehensive
approach to chemical policy in California, current statute and
regulation does not address concerns related to PFCs.
Support: The United Steelworkers (USW) argue, "USW has tested
the blood of our DuPont [worker-] members and retirees in New
Jersey and discovered exposure levels hundreds of times higher
than the general public. We've also tested public drinking
water as well as rivers, lakes and streams in New York, New
Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia near DuPont plants
and other manufacturing facilities that use these chemicals.
We've consistently detected the chemicals. We believe that it
is our duty to protect the health and safety of the workers our
union represents. But this issue goes far beyond just our
members. We can't depend on the companies to regulate
themselves through voluntary stewardship programs. SB1313 will
help drive home that important message of accountability to
corporate polluters and have a positive impact on the health of
California's citizens."
The Environmental Working Group, sponsors of the bill, argues
SB 1313
Page 7
that, "Although the EPA is pushing for a voluntary phase-out of
some PFCs by 2015, this is inadequate. Californians have the
right to assume their food packaging is safe, and the fact that
some food companies have eliminated PFCs in packaging is proof
that it can be done now. Further, while we commend the
Schwarzenegger Administration for looking to a holistic approach
to reforming state chemical policy, until that reform is in
place California must still protect its citizens from harmful
chemicals. SB 1313 also encourages chemical producers to come to
the table and work out a safe and coherent chemical policy for
California."
Opposition: DuPont argues, "SB 1313 interferes with and
undermines work already being accomplished to secure more
sustainable alternatives. Those alternatives are the product of
precisely the kind of forward-thinking industry initiative that
California is seeking to stimulate through both legislation and
the Green Chemistry Initiative. SB 1313 is arbitrary and raises
more questions than it answers."
The Telomer Research Program argues that, "SB 1313 discourages
the use of effective alternative products that have demonstrated
a more favorable environmental profile than PFOA. Regulatory
agencies have focused their concern on certain fluorochemicals
that persist in human blood, including the "C8" chemicals (PFOA
and PFOS) and certain "C6" chemicals ("C6 sulfonates"). In
support of the Stewardship goals, the industry has developed a
new generation of effective non-sulfonated C6 products ("C6
telomers") that do not have the properties associated with these
chemicals. Both EPA and FDA have approved products utilizing C6
telomers, determining that the primary chemical likely to result
in the environment from degradation of C6 telomers has a much
lower bio-persistence and toxicity profile than PFOA and related
higher homologues. SB 1313 restricts C-6 telomers, treating
these chemicals as equivalent to PFOA, PFOS and the C6
sulfonates. The net effect of SB 1313 is to stifle current
efforts by the fluorochemical industry and its customers to move
away from the potential sources of PFOA to products that work
effectively and provide a more favorable environmental profile."
Double referred : This bill has been double-referred to the
Assembly Committee on Health.
Amendments to be taken in the Assembly Health Committee:
SB 1313
Page 8
1) Technical amendment: Appropriately reference the "Safe
Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act."
2) The author has indicated that she is will continue to work on
lanague relating to "non-toxic alternative" in the Assembly
Health Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support:
Environmental Working Group (Sponsor)
AFSCME
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California League of Conservation Voters
California Nurses Association
Californians Against Waste
Cereplast, Inc.
Children's Advocacy Institute
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air
Environment California
Healthy Children Organizing Project
MOMS (Making Our Milk Safe)
Natural Products Association West
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Planned Parenthood Fresno
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
Planned Parenthood San Jose
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
United Steelworkers
Woman's Foundation of California
Worksafe
Zero Breast Cancer
Opposition:
American Chemistry Council
American Forest & Paper Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufactures & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
SB 1313
Page 9
Chemical Industry Council of California
Ciba Corporation
Consumer Specialty Association
DuPont
Grocery Manufactures Association
Hercules, Inc.
Industrial Environmental Association
Paper Shipping Sack Manufacturers Association
Pet Food Institute
Recycled Paperboard Technical Association
Society of the Plastics Industry
Telomer Research Program
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965