BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 498
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 498
AUTHOR: Lara
AMENDED: April 2, 2013
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: May 1, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rachel Machi
Wagoner
SUBJECT : HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: GREEN CHEMISTRY
SUMMARY :
Existing federal law, uunder the Toxic Substances Control Act of
1976 (TSCA) :
1) Authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) to require reporting, record-keeping and testing
requirements, and set restrictions relating to chemical
substances and/or mixtures.
2) Requires the submission of health and safety studies which are
known or available to those who manufacture, process, or
distribute in commerce specified chemicals; but does not
require testing.
3) Allows US EPA to gather information from manufacturers and
processors about production/import volumes, chemical uses and
methods of disposal, and the extent to which people and the
environment are exposed.
Existing California law :
1) Requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to
adopt regulations (the Safer Consumer Products regulations)
to:
a) Establish a process to identify and prioritize chemicals
or chemical ingredients in products that may be considered
a "chemical of concern."
SB 498
Page 2
b) Establish a process for evaluating chemicals of concern
in products, and their potential alternatives in order to
determine how best to limit exposure or to reduce the level
of hazard posed by a chemical of concern, as specified.
c) Establish a process that includes an evaluation of the
availability of potential alternatives and potential
hazards posed by alternatives, as well as an evaluation of
critical exposure pathways.
d) Requires that the regulations include life cycle
assessment tools that take into consideration numerous
factors as specified.
e) Provides for the establishment of a Green Ribbon Science
Panel, with expertise that includes fifteen disciplines
(e.g. chemistry, environmental law, nanotechnology,
maternal and child health) to advise on the development and
implementation of the regulations and the Toxic Information
Clearinghouse.
2) Requires DTSC to establish a Toxics Information Clearinghouse
for the collection, maintenance, and distribution of specific
chemical hazard traits and environmental and toxicological
end-point data.
3) Requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
to evaluate and specify the hazard traits and environmental
and toxicological end-points and any other relevant data that
are to be included in the clearinghouse.
4) Defines "consumer product" to mean a product or part of the
product that is used, brought, or leased for use by a person
for any purposes. "Consumer product" does not include any of
the following:
a) A dangerous drug or dangerous device as defined in
Section 4022 of the Business of Professions Code.
SB 498
Page 3
b) Dental restorative materials as defined in subdivision
(b) of Section 1648.20 of the Business and Professions
Code.
c) A device as defined in Section 4023 of the Business of
Professions Code.
d) A food as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 109935.
e) The packaging associated with any of the items specified
in paragraph (a), (b), or (c).
f) A pesticide as defined in Section 12753 of the Food and
Agricultural Code or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide (7 United States Code Sections 136 and
following).
This bill : Exempts motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of less than 14,000 pounds and their component or
replacement parts from the above regulation.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of bill . According to the author Assembly Bill 1879
(Feuer) Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008 exempted four categories
of products under the premise that these products are already
heavily regulated by state and federal regulatory agencies:
food, pharmaceutical drugs, medical devices and pesticides.
According to the author, like products already exempted from
the law, automobiles and their component parts are heavily
regulated by a number of state and federal regulatory
SB 498
Page 4
entities, including the National Highway and Traffic Safety
Administration, the federal EPA, the California Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board. The
author asserts that discussions with DTSC over the years have
not given the auto industry certainty that it will be able to
design, develop, manufacture and assemble parts within the
time constraints given to find an alternative. The author
also states that the European Union is concerned with the
extreme complexity of the proposed alternative assessment
procedure and high administrative burdens related to
implementation. According to the author, the automobile
industry shares these concerns. Three years to turn around an
alternative is unrealistic and could be problematic for the
manufacturers of automobile parts. The author believes that
this could potentially lead to jobs lost in manufacturing
plants.
2) Chemicals in US Commerce . There are currently over 80,000
chemicals approved in United States commerce, with an
additional 3,000 to 6,000 added each year. Each day, a total
of 42 billion pounds of chemical substances are produced or
imported in the U.S. for commercial and industrial uses. An
additional 1,000 new chemicals are introduced into commerce
each year. Approximately one new chemical comes to market
every 2.6 seconds. Global chemical production is projected to
double every 25 years. While the federal government, under
TSCA, does maintain an inventory of chemicals used in the
United States it does not test or approve the safety of a
chemical on the market. The average U.S. consumer comes into
contact with 100 chemicals per day.
3) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) . TSCA was enacted in
1976 to collect health and safety data on and regulate
chemicals in commerce. However, over the last several decades
numerous academic, legal, and scientific bodies have all
concluded that TSCA has not served as an effective vehicle for
the public, industry, or government to assess the hazards of
chemicals in commerce. After decades of implementation, TSCA
has largely failed to provide the necessary information to
SB 498
Page 5
assess the health and environmental effects for tens of
thousands of chemicals in commerce. In 2009 the Government
Accountability Office found US EPA's implementation of TSCA to
be "high-risk" because "US EPA has failed to develop
sufficient chemical assessment information on the toxicity of
many chemicals that may be found in the environment as well as
tens of thousands of chemicals used commercially in the United
States" and concluded by stating that Congress may wish to
amend TSCA and extend the US EPA more explicit authority.
There have been several unsuccessful attempts to amend TSCA by
Congress in recent years.
4) Chemicals and Human Health Impacts . In 2009, the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control conducted the Fourth National Report on
Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals which measured 212
chemicals in the blood and urine of a representative
population of California. This study and other "body burden"
studies quantify known chemicals in human tissues. Many of
these chemicals identified in body burden studies have been
correlated with cancer, decreased male and female fertility,
obesity, and chronic diseases and, in animal models, have been
shown to have causative effects.
Chemicals play a role in chronic disease. For example, among
children, chemical exposures contribute to 100% of lead
poisoning cases, 10-35% of asthmas cases, and at least 2-10% of
some cancers and 5-20% of neurobehavioral disorders. In the
United States, the rate of varying chronic disease is
increasing.
In 2009, the President's Cancer Panel focused their annual
report of environmental contributors to cancer. The reporting
entitled "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do
Now" stated that "the prevailing regulatory approach in the
United States is reactionary rather than precautionary. That
is, instead of taking preventive action when uncertainty exists
about the potential harm a chemical or other environmental
contaminant may cause, a hazard must be incontrovertibly
demonstrated before action to ameliorate it is initiated.
Moreover, instead of requiring industry or other proponents of
specific chemicals, devices, or activities to prove their
SB 498
Page 6
safety, the public bears the burden of proving that a given
environmental exposure is harmful. Only a few hundred of the
more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have
been tested for safety?. Weak laws and regulations, inefficient
enforcement, regulatory complexity, and fragmented authority
allow avoidable exposures to known or suspected cancer-causing
and cancer promoting agents to continue and proliferate in the
workplace and the community?. Existing regulations, and
exposure assessments on which they are based, are outdated in
most cases, and many known or suspected carcinogens are
completely unregulated."
5) Green Chemistry in California . For more than a decade,
California has struggled to fill in the gaps in TSCA chemical
policy. The California State Legislature has considered
nearly a hundred bills proposing chemical bans and broader
chemical policies for California, heard testimony from
"battling scientists" and was interested in developing a
broader, more comprehensive approach to chemical policy.
In 2003, the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and the
Assembly committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
commissioned a report from the University of California to
investigate the current legal and regulatory structure for
chemical substance and report on how a California chemical
policy could address environmental and health concerns about
chemical toxicity, build a long-term capacity to improve the
design and use of chemicals, and understand the implications
of European policy on the California chemical market.
In 2006, the U.C. Berkeley authors presented the commissioned
report, Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for
Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation and made a
connection between weaknesses in federal policy, namely TSCA,
and the health and environmental damage happening in
California. The report broadly summarized their findings into
what they called the "three gaps."
a) Data Gap: There is a lack of information on which
chemicals are safe, which are toxic, and what chemicals
are in products. The lack of access to chemical data
creates an unequal marketplace. California businesses
SB 498
Page 7
cannot choose and make safer products and respond to
consumer demand without ingredient disclosure and safety
testing.
b) Safety Gap: Government agencies do not have the
legal tools or information to prioritize chemical hazards.
Under TSCA only 5 chemicals out of 83,000 have been
banned since 1976. The California Legislature has
frequently addressed this problem by approving individual
chemical bans. Chemical bans come before the Legislature
because there are very few other mechanisms in place at
the federal or state level that can remove harmful
chemicals from the marketplace.
c) Technology Gap: There is an absence of regulatory
incentives, market motivation which stems from the data
gap, and educational emphasis on green chemistry
methodologies and technologies. In order to build a
substantial green chemistry infrastructure, a coincident
investment and commitment must be made to strengthen
industrial and academic research and development.
In 2007, the California Environmental Protection Agency
launched California's Green Chemistry Initiative within
DTSC. The California Green Chemistry Initiative Final
Report released in December 2008 included the following six
policy recommendations for implementing this comprehensive
program in order to foster a new era in the design of a new
consumer products economy - inventing, manufacturing and
using toxic-free, sustainable products.
a) Expand Pollution Prevention and product
stewardship programs to more business sectors to focus
on prevention rather than simple source reduction or
waste controls.
b) Develop Green Chemistry Workforce Education and
Training, Research and Development and Technology
Transfer through new and existing educational program
and public/private partnerships.
c) Create an Online Product Ingredient Network to
disclose chemical ingredients for products sold in
SB 498
Page 8
California, while protecting trade secrets.
d) Create an Online Toxics Clearinghouse, an online
database providing data on chemical, toxicity and hazard
traits to the market place and public.
e) Accelerate the Quest for Safer Products, creating
a systematic, science-based process to evaluate
chemicals of concern and identify safer alternatives to
ensure product safety.
f) Move Toward a Cradle-to-Cradle Economy to
leverage market forces to produce products that are
"benign-by-design" in part by establishing a California
Green Products Registry to develop green metrics and
tools for a range of consumer products and encourage
their use by businesses.
In 2008, Assembly Bill 1879 (Feuer) Chapter 559, Statutes of
2008 and Senate Bill 509 (Simitian) Chapter 560, Statutes of
2008 were signed by the Governor to implement together two key
pieces of the Green Chemistry Initiative for California: 1)
requiring DTSC to adopt regulations for the identification and
prioritization and evaluation of chemicals or chemical
ingredients in products that may be considered a "chemical of
concern" and their potential alternatives; and 2) requiring
DTSC and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
to establish a Toxics Information Clearinghouse for the
collection, maintenance, and distribution of specific chemical
hazard traits and environmental and toxicological end-point
data and evaluate and specify the hazard traits and
environmental and toxicological end-points and any other
relevant data that are to be included in the clearinghouse.
6) Safer Consumer Products Regulations . AB 1879 mandates DTSC
adopt the Safer Consumer Products regulations by January 1,
2011. The regulations have been a work in progress for
several years. DTSC issued its first proposed regulations in
June 2010, followed by several sets of revisions that drew
criticism from both industry and consumer advocates. DTSC
withdrew those proposed regulations in August, 2011. On July
27, 2012, DTSC issued a substantially revised version of the
regulations with changes aimed at addressing much of the
SB 498
Page 9
criticism. Following public comment to the July 2012 draft,
DTSC made additional revisions, issuing revised regulations on
January 29, 2013, made additional changes and released the
most recent version on April 10, 2013. DTSC expects to have
the final regulations adopted later this year.
The following summarizes the key elements of the regulations:
a) IDENTIFY - Immediate Establishment of List of ~1,200
"Candidate Chemicals" Upon Effective Date of the
Regulations. The regulations include 23 separate Chemicals
Lists. Chemicals on these lists display a hazard trait
and/or have confirmed exposure through biomonitoring or
other means. Upon adoption of the regulations these
approximately 1,200 Chemicals become "Candidate Chemicals"
by "operation of law."
b) PRIORITIZE - DTSC Further Identifies and Prioritizes
Product-Chemical Pairings to List Priority Products. The
regulations require DTSC to further evaluate chemicals that
are Candidate Chemicals and pair them with a consumer
product containing one of more of these Candidate Chemicals
to name Priority Products. Thus, a Priority Product is a
product-chemical combination that consists of one or more
Candidate Chemicals in a Consumer Product. Once the
product-chemical combination is identified by DTSC as a
Priority Product, the chemical that led to its listing as a
Priority Product is now known as a Chemical of Concern.
c) ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS - The Responsible Entity for a
Priority Product Conducts an Alternatives Analysis of Its
Priority Product to See If It Can be Made with a Safer
Alternative. The regulations require that once a Priority
Product is listed by DTSC, the "responsible entity" for
that product (i.e. manufacturer or importer) must conduct
an Alternatives Analysis (AA). The AA is an evaluation of
the Chemical of Concern in the Priority Product and
comparison/evaluation of possible alternatives to the
Chemical of Concern in the Priority Product. There are
built in, numerous "off ramps" in the regulations that
allow a responsible entity to comply by performing less
SB 498
Page 10
than a full-blown Alternatives Analysis if other means of
complying with the regulations are satisfied. The
responsible entity must report to DTSC the results of its
AA.
d) REGULATORY RESPONSE - Upon Receipt of the Alternatives
Analysis Reports, DTSC May Impose One or More Regulatory
Response on The Priority Product or Any Selected
Alternative. The regulations specify seven specific
regulatory responses that DTSC may impose, depending upon
the results of the AA and the alternative selected, if any.
In addition to the possibility that no regulatory response
may be required, the regulatory responses include:
supplemental information requirements; product information
for consumers; use restrictions on chemicals and products;
product sales prohibition; engineered safety measures or
administrative controls; end-of-life management
requirements; and advancement of Green Chemistry and Green
Engineering through the funding of grants.
7) Revisions to address the automobile manufacturing industry
concerns . In response to comments received from the auto
manufacturing industry, to accommodate the concerns raised by
industry, DTSC made a series of revisions:
a) For an assembled product, DTSC will list a component or
components, not an entire product.
b) Limited listing for a "complex durable good" (which
includes automobiles) to no more than 10 components per
product every 3 years.
SB 498
Page 11
c) Changed the definition of "product" to exclude "historic
products" (i.e., cars and other products that ceased to be
manufactured prior to the date the product type is listed
as a Priority Product).
d) Assemblers (which include many automobile manufacturers)
have been excluded from the definition of manufacturer, and
thus they no longer have primary responsibility for
compliance with the regulations. Definition of "assembler"
was revised to include those who assemble components to
repair or maintain a previously sold product (in addition
to those who assemble components to create a new product).
e) Authorized DTSC to allow a manufacturer up to 3 years to
complete an Alternatives Analysis (AA) (instead of the one
year plus a one-year extension); if the manufacturer
demonstrates that this amount of time is needed to comply
with regulatory safety and/or performance testing
requirements for multiple alternatives prior to choosing
which alternative to pursue.
f) Clarified that the AA due dates apply to the submission
of the AA Reports, not implementation of an AA decision.
g) When imposing a regulatory response, DTSC will have the
flexibility to consider whether or not the regulatory
response should be applied to either of the following:
o Priority Products ordered by a retailer prior
to the effective date of the Priority Product listing,
and still for sale as of the date of the final
regulatory response determination notice.
o Priority Products manufactured after the
SB 498
Page 12
effective date of the Priority Product listing, but
before the date of the final regulatory response
determination notice.
a) Added language to explicitly state that nothing in the
regulations authorizes DTSC to supersede the requirements
of another California state or federal regulatory program.
b) Issued a Revised Initial Statement of Reasons (Revised
ISOR) to remove catalytic converters as an example of a
component that could be identified as a Priority Product
(as opposed to an entire automobile). The automobile
industry noted the change, and expressed support for it.
c) For both the Alternatives Analysis and Regulatory
Responses, the scope of evaluation and compliance is
limited to the Chemical of Concern that led to the product
being listed as a Priority Product and any newly introduced
alternative chemicals.
d) Restricted when DTSC may require additional information
beyond that already provided in the Alternatives Analysis
Report as one of the Regulatory Responses.
e) Eliminated the provisions allowing DTSC to impose
Regulatory Responses to situations other than those
specifically set out in the regulations and the provision
requiring the manufacturer to periodically revisit the
effectiveness of the Regulatory Response(s) imposed.
SB 498
Page 13
f) Provided that if a Chemical of Concern is removed, but
not replaced with another chemical, no further evaluation
of the Priority Product is required.
1) Additional revisions . There were other revisions requested by
industry stakeholders in general which were endorsed by the
automobile manufacturers. The most substantial of these
changes are:
a) The initial list of chemicals is now called "Candidate
Chemicals" list rather than "Chemicals of Concern." The
significance of this change is that the list of
approximately 1,200 chemicals do not become "Chemicals of
Concern" unless and until they are part of a
product-chemical pairing listed by DTSC as a "Priority
Product."
b) Language has been added to confirm and clarify that the
Priority Products list will be adopted as a rulemaking
subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.
c) An upfront applicability exemption has been added for
products regulated under other laws and regulatory regimes
that provide equivalent or greater protections with respect
to the same public health and environmental concerns
addressed by these regulations.
SB 498
Page 14
2) Arguments in support . According to the UAW, four years ago,
the UAW negotiated with President Obama to reform the nation's
fuel economy law. The support states that under this historic
achievement, fleets must average 54.5 MPG by model year 2025.
According to the UAW, the members of the UAW are making the
safest, cleanest and most fuel efficient vehicles in the
world. According to the UAW, the American automotive industry
is roaring back and leading the effort to pull our economy out
of the Great Recession. The UAW is proud to be a vital part
of this renaissance. According to the UAW, application of
Green Chemistry to the design and production of vehicles will
impede progress towards achieving the national standard by
2025. The UAW asserts that consumer safety and clean air may
be jeopardized and efforts to achieve fuel economy may be
disrupted.
3) Arguments in opposition . The opponents argue that the Safer
Consumer Products regulations provide for the only program in
California that has the authority to regulate the use of
chemicals in cars. Excluding automobiles from this important
program excludes a source of pollution and toxic exposure from
regulatory review. The average driver spends over an hour a
day in an automobile. Consumers deserve the same protection
from toxic chemicals in their cars as they will receive in
their homes or workplaces. The opponents believe that while
auto emissions are regulated by the California Air Resources
Board, the actual materials that are used to manufacture an
automobile are not regulated. Toxic chemicals such as
phthalates, lead, copper and flame retardants are all used to
manufacture cars. The opponents cite that many of the
chemicals in the signature "new car smell" can be harmful to
human health, and toxic flame retardants can leach out of car
seats every time a person sits down. Additionally, some of the
heavy metals used in automobiles can pose an environmental
hazard at the end of the car's life leaving the state with the
job of ensuring these chemicals do not end up in our soil or
waterways. It is for these reasons that the Legislature
rejected the automotive industry's request for an exemption
from this program when the authorizing legislation was
approved in 2008. The opponents state that while the
legislation was passed in 2008, regulations fully implementing
the program have not yet been adopted. It would be premature
SB 498
Page 15
for any industry to seek an exemption to a program that is not
even established. Moreover, during the implementation
process, DTSC has made several concessions at the request of
the automotive industry including limiting the number of
chemicals that will be prioritized per product in a given
regulatory cycle and limiting the definition of manufacturer
to exclude "assemblers" which effectively excludes car
manufacturers. It is for these reasons that the opponents
believe that it is critical that the program be allowed to
move forward without alteration so that it can begin to do the
important work the Legislature intended for it to do five
years ago.
4) Should automobile manufacturers be exempted from the Safer
Consumer Products Regulations ? AB 1879 (Feuer), considered
and provided specified exemptions as listed above. When
considering AB 1879 the automobile industry asked to be
granted a similar exemption and the Legislature declined.
Since enactment of AB 1879, the automobile manufacturing
industry has continued to request an exemption from this
process. They have been denied because there are components
of automobiles that may warrant consideration under the Safer
Consumer Products regulations. Furthermore, if analysis
policies like those created by AB 1879 and SB 509 had been
part of TSCA in 1976, there may have been greater protection
of public health and the environment from potential harm
caused by vehicle components.
Asbestos in brake pads and linings, clutch facings, and
gaskets . For many decades, asbestos has been used by the
automotive industry in brake pads and linings, clutch facings,
and gaskets. Millions of these products still remain on
vehicles currently in use today, which poses a risk of
asbestos exposure to current and former auto mechanics across
the country.
SB 498
Page 16
Although the health hazards of asbestos became public
knowledge in 1977, asbestos dust continues to be a hazard in
automobile components today. It was not until the 1990's that
asbestos-free brake pads were introduced into commerce.
Millions of cars and trucks still have asbestos-containing
brakes and clutches, which were routinely used in older
vehicles. Domestic automakers state that asbestos materials
are no longer used in friction products, however, foreign
manufacturers of after-market brake pads are under no federal
economic or regulatory requirement to cease using asbestos
materials. Although the use of asbestos and asbestos products
has dramatically decreased in recent years, its use is not
banned for historic uses in the United States and imported
auto parts continue to contain asbestos materials. SB 346
(Kehoe), Chapter 307, Statutes of 2010 restricts asbestos and
other toxic materials in automobile brake pads as of January
1, 2014, in California.
Persons occupationally exposed to asbestos have developed
several types of life-threatening diseases, including
asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. It is estimated
that more than six million mechanics have been exposed to
asbestos in brakes since 1940, and those exposures are now
resulting in about 580 excess asbestos-related cancer deaths a
year.
Had there been an analysis similar to that required by the
Safer Consumer Products regulations, an alternative to
asbestos containing automobile components could have been
found and used sooner.
Mercury and copper in automobile components . In recent years,
the California Legislature has enacted several measures to
specifically address environmental harm caused by automotive
SB 498
Page 17
components. Mercury switches and copper in brake pads are
two examples of automotive components that have been
legislatively banned in recent years. These two issues are
examples of where the Safer Consumer Products regulations
could have appropriately applied to the automotive industry.
SB 633 (Sher), Chapter 656, Statutes of 2001, among other
things prohibits the sale of a vehicle, after January 1, 2005,
containing a mercury-containing vehicle light switch and
requires any mercury-containing vehicle light switch, as
defined, that is removed from a vehicle to be subject to the
regulations adopted by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control regarding the management of universal waste and other
applicable regulations, and requires DTSC to take specified
actions with regard to the safe removal and disposal of those
switches. At the time this bill was enacted, an estimated 130
to 180 tons of mercury were present in the hood and trunk
switches of automobiles in use or at automotive recycling
yards throughout the United States. This mercury often can
enter the environment, and ultimately the state's waterways,
directly through vaporization or spillage when broken during
use, transportation, or disposal.
The Brake Pad Partnership is a collaborative group of brake
manufacturers, environmentalists, stormwater management
entities, and regulators that originally came together to
understand the impact on the environment of brake pad wear
debris. Before the Partnership committed to investing
significant state and private resources in technical studies,
the Brake Manufacturers Council (BMC) and its members
(primarily manufacturers of original equipment friction
materials) agreed to introduce reformulated products if the
technical studies indicated that copper in brake pads was
contributing significantly to water quality impairment. The
State Water Resources Control Board and Caltrans together
contributed close to $1 million towards paying for the
subsequent research into the issue. In late 2007 the
Partnership completed a series of interlinked laboratory,
environmental monitoring, and environmental modeling studies
that indicated that brake pads are a substantial contributor
to copper in runoff to the San Francisco Bay. As the
technical studies' results emerged, the Partnership shifted
its focus to determining an appropriate mechanism for reducing
SB 498
Page 18
copper in brakes in California.
Debris from friction materials containing copper are generated
and released to the surrounding environment in the course of
normal brake system operation. Tens of thousands of pounds of
copper and other substances released from brake friction
materials enter California's streams, rivers, and marine
environment every year, contaminating urban watersheds across
California.
Dissolved copper is toxic to phytoplankton (the base of the
aquatic food chain). It also impairs salmon's ability to
avoid predators and deters them from returning to their home
streams to spawn. Scientific studies have shown that a major
source of copper in highly urbanized watersheds is material
worn off vehicle brake pads. It is estimated that about
one-half of the copper found in run-off is attributed to brake
pads.
SB 346 (Kehoe), Chapter 307, Statutes of 2010 restricts the
use of copper, cadmium, chromium (VI)-salts, lead and its
compounds and mercury and its compounds and asbestos in
automobile brake pads.
Indoor air quality of automobiles . There continues to be
concern about adverse health and environmental impacts
associated with chemicals used in automobile components. For
example, according to a report issued by the Ecology Center in
February 2012, "Several studies have investigated the
concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), brominated
flame retardants (BFRs) and hydrocarbons in car interiors.
Many of these levels exceeding indoor and outdoor air quality
standards. These compounds are present in the interior
fabrics and materials of the car (coatings, trims, leather,
etc)?The average person spends about 5.5% of their time in
automobiles during the work commute, recreation or other
travel activities which makes it an important microenvironment
for exposure to pollutant. The importance of this
microenvironment has noted by the World Health Organization
which has recognized interior air pollution of vehicles are a
major threat to human health."
SB 498
Page 19
12) The Purpose of the Safer Consumer Products Regulations .
After nearly a
decade of considering almost 100 bills relating to chemical
bans and regulation, the Legislature enacted AB 1879 and SB
509 to institute a balanced scientific process for the
consideration of an appropriate regulatory response for the
state to take on specific chemicals of concern in consumer
products rather than the yearly legislative consideration of
bills to ban individual chemicals. Exempting specific
products, such as automobiles, directly conflicts with the
purpose of this law: to allow the regulatory and scientific
process to determine whether a chemical in a consumer product
should be evaluated and potentially regulated to protect
public health and the environment.
SOURCE : The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
SUPPORT : California Chamber of Commerce
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Region 5 (UAW)
Specialty Equipment Market Association
OPPOSITION : Breast Cancer Fund
California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative
Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
Clean Water Action
CHANGE Coalition
Environment California
Planning & Conservation League
Sierra Club California
SB 498
Page 20