BILL ANALYSIS �
AJR 30
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AJR 30 (Stone)
As Introduced August 6, 2013
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 6-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Alejo, Bloom, Donnelly, | | |
| |Lowenthal, Stone, Ting | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
products.
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.
AJR 30
Page 2
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
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)Allows, under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
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)Allows, under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), which governs solid hazardous waste, state
programs to become certified and to assume primary
responsibility for enforcement of these federal laws.
3)Allows states to enforce federal regulations regarding
consumer safety.
4)Provides, according to the U.S. Constitution, that the powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
5)Prohibits, under the state Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), businesses from
discharging harmful chemicals into sources of drinking water
and requires public warnings to be posted regarding the
AJR 30
Page 3
presence of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or
other reproductive harm.
6)Establishes the state 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.
7)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)Requires, under the California Occupational Carcinogen Control
Act of 1976, employers to report the use of carcinogens to the
California Environmental Protection Agency.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
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 10th 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
AJR 30
Page 4
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
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 this
resolution, 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 (Council) and the Toy Industry
Association (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
AJR 30
Page 5
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: a) when compelling local conditions dictate a state
response, or b) when EPA's assessment and determination are
unreasonably delayed.
Analysis Prepared by : Manuel Hernandez / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0001658