BILL ANALYSIS �
AJR 30
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 13, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
AJR 30 (Stone) - As Introduced: August 6, 2013
SUBJECT : Federal Chemical Safety Improvement Act
SUMMARY : Memorializes the Congress and the President of the
United States to respect the rights of states to protect the
health of their citizens, and to not enact the federal Chemical
Safety Improvement Act (S. 1009) in its current form containing
provisions that preempt a state's authority to protect the
public from toxic chemicals. Specifically, this bill :
1)Declares that California has historically acted in advance of
the federal government to protect its citizens, including
vulnerable subpopulations such as children and pregnant women,
against the harms of exposure to toxic substances in consumer
products through strong environmental laws and regulations,
which have also driven innovation in the development of safer
procucts.
2)Declares that California voters overwhelmingly approved
Proposition 65, which added the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986, to decrease California's exposure to
toxic substances known to cause cancer, birth defects, or
other reproductive harm by requiring labeling of consumer
products containing these substances.
3)Declares that the Legislature enacted the Green Chemistry
Program in 2008 to identify and prioritize chemicals of
concern and evaluate safer alternatives to toxic chemicals
through a science-based approach.
4)Declares that the State Air Resources Board adopted
regulations beginning in 1991 and continuing as recently as
2013 to reduce the volatile organic compounds emissions from
consumer products that produce ozone and particulate matter
that exacerbates respiratory diseases such as asthma.
5)Declares that the current version of the federal Chemical
Safety Improvement Act, S. 1009, has broad preemption
provisions that prevent states from acting to address
potential risks of toxic substances and from exercising state
AJR 30
Page 2
enforcement powers that put at risk several California
programs that protect public health, including those listed
above, among others.
6)Memorializes the Congress and the President of the United
States to respect the rights of states to protect the health
of their citizens, including children and pregnant women, and
to not enact the federal Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S.
1009) in its current form containing provisions that preempt a
state's authority to protect the public, including from toxic
chemicals.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Federal law, titled the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
allows states to apply a higher degree of protection than set
by a federal rule, so long as state requirements do not make
it impossible to also comply with the federal law or unduly
burden interstate commerce.
2)Federal law, titled the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), which governs solid hazardous waste, allows state
programs to become certified and to assume primary
responsibility for enforcement of these federal laws.
3)Federal law allows states to enforce federal regulations
regarding consumer safety.
4)The U.S. Constitution provides that the powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people.
5)State law, titled the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) prohibits businesses
from discharging harmful chemicals into sources of drinking
water and requires public warnings to be posted regarding the
presence of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or
other reproductive harm.
6)State law establishes the Safer Consumer Products Program
(Green Chemistry Program) to decrease California's exposure to
toxic substances by identifying and prioritizing chemicals of
concern and evaluating safer alternatives to toxic chemicals
through a science-based approach.
AJR 30
Page 3
7)State law authorizes the California Air Resources Board to
adopt regulations to reduce the volatile organic compounds
emissions from consumer products that produce ozone and
particulate matter associated with respiratory diseases.
8)State law, the California Occupational Carcinogen Control Act
of 1976, requires employers to report the use of carcinogens
to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
FISCAL EFFECT : Minor costs to copy and send copies of the
resolution.
COMMENTS :
1)Need . The author states this resolution is needed because the
current version of the federal Chemical Safety Improvement Act
(S. 1009) has broad preemption provisions that would prevent
California and other states from establishing new laws or
continuing to enforce current laws and regulations that
protect the public from toxic chemicals.
2)Background . This resolution is author sponsored. The author
states that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
provides the states the powers to protect the health and
safety of its citizens. He notes that California has taken
advantage of these powers and become a leader in securing the
health and safety of its citizens, including vulnerable
subpopulations such as children and pregnant women, by
implementing and enforcing strong environmental laws and
regulations that reduce exposure to toxic chemicals.
3)Arguments in Support . California Attorney General Kamala
Harris states that although the federal Toxic Substances
Control Act is in need of reform, S. 1009 in its current form
would harm California's ability to protect our environment and
the health and welfare of our citizens. The Attorney General
states that the preemption language in the federal proposal
jeopardizes many California laws including Proposition 65
which protects California citizens and drinking water sources
from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other
reproductive harms. Under the authority of Proposition 65,
the Attorney General has required manufactures and
distributors of vinyl "jump houses" for children to lower the
levels of lead when these levels were found to be significant,
required manufactures of wooden playground structures to stop
AJR 30
Page 4
using wood treated with chromated copper arsenic which had
exposed children to high levels of arsenic, and required
manufactures of certain candies to reduce the high levels of
lead.
The Attorney General also states that S. 1009 would prohibit
states from enforcing state laws regulating chemical
substances determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to be "high priority" even before federal regulations
become effective, and, thus, create a period of months or
potentially years when the chemical substances remain
unregulated.
4)Arguments in Opposition . The American Chemistry Council and
the Toy Industry Association state that in regard to AJR 30
they have an "oppose unless amended" position. According to
this Council and Association, the federal Chemical Safety
Improvement Act (CSIA) represents the most comprehensive,
bi-partisan effort in decades to amend the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) in order to improve the safety of American
consumers and ensure that risks from chemical substances are
adequately understood and managed. The Council and
Association state that the CSIA's preemption provisions are
narrow in scope and only apply in situations when the U.S EPA
has made a decision about a specific chemical and specific
uses. They state that the CSIA does not create a blanket
preemption of state regulatory programs like Proposition 65 or
the Safer Consumer Products regulation.
The American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association
state that the CSIA contains language that specifically grants
authority to the states to retain the ability to enact laws
regarding water quality, air quality, or waste treatment and
disposal. This Council and Association also state the CSIA
would not preempt any state regulations that require
monitoring or information gathering and reporting and it does
not preempt any program authorized by federal law.
Additionally, the Council and Association state that the CSIA
allows states to apply for a waiver in two cases: 1) when
compelling local conditions dictate a state response, or 2)
when EPA's assessment and determination are unreasonably
delayed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AJR 30
Page 5
Support
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy
Center for Environmental Health
Breast Cancer Fund
Sierra Club California
Opposition
American Chemistry Council
Toy Industry Association
Analysis Prepared by : Manuel Hernandez / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965