BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1313
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2007-2008 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1313
AUTHOR: Corbett
AMENDED: March 28, 2008
FISCAL: No HEARING DATE: April 7, 2008
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Caroll
Mortensen
SUBJECT : PRODUCT SAFETY: PERFLUOROCHEMICALS
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1)Requires, under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly known as Proposition 65),
the Governor to revise and publish a list of chemicals that
have been scientifically proven to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity each year.
2)Prohibits any person in the course of doing business in
California from knowingly exposing any individual to a
chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning,
nor can such chemicals be discharged into the drinking
water.
3)Prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution in
products containing certain chemicals found to raise health
risks, including polybrominated diphenyl ethers and
phthalates.
This bill :
1)Defines perfluorinated compounds, food contact substances,
hazard traits and related terms for purposes of the new
chapter.
2)Prohibits, on or after January 1, 2010, the manufacture,
sale, or distribution in commerce of any food contact
SB 1313
Page 2
substance that contains perfluorinated compounds, in any
concentration exceeding 10 parts per billion (ppb).
3)Prohibits manufacturers from replacing perfluorinated
compounds with carcinogens rated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) as A, B, or C
carcinogens, or substances listed as known or likely
carcinogens, known to be human carcinogens, likely to be
human carcinogens, or suggestive of being human carcinogens,
as described in the "List of Chemicals Evaluated for
Carcinogenic Potential," or known to the state to cause
cancer as listed in the California Safe Drinking Water Act
(Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 116270) of Part 12).
4)Prohibits manufacturers from replacing perfluorochemicals
with reproductive toxicants that cause birth defects,
reproductive harm, or developmental harm as identified by
the US EPA or listed in the California Safe Drinking Water
Act (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 116270) of Part 12).
5)States that manufacturers shall use alternatives that
demonstrate the fewest hazard traits when replacing
perfluorinated in accordance with this bill's provisions.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of Bill . According to the author, every consumer
expects the packaging surrounding the food they buy to be
safe. SB 1313 protects Californians from harmful chemicals
by prohibiting the use of food packaging materials that
contain some of the most toxic and persistent
perfluorochemicals chemicals. These chemicals are very
persistent in the environment and are being found at very
low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the
general U.S. population. Studies indicated that PFOA, one
commom pefluorochemical, can cause developmental and other
adverse effects in laboratory animals. Data marking its
availablity and ability to migrate from packaging to food,
especially when heated, is growing.
2)What are Perfluorochemicals? Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) are
a family of manmade chemicals used for decades to make
SB 1313
Page 3
products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease and water.
Common uses include nonstick cookware, stain-resistant
carpets and fabrics, food packaging, as components of
fire-fighting foam, and other industrial applications.
PFOS and PFOA are PFCs that have been subject to studies and
testing for years. PFOS was volunatrily phased out in the
early 2000's by the principal worldwide manufacturer and US
EPA took regulatory action under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) to limit any future manufacture or
importation of related chemicals specifically included in
that phaseout.
PFOA is sometimes called "C8." (PFOA is an eight-carbon chain
length chemical. Chemicals similar in structure to PFOA but
with nine or more carbons in the chain are higher homologues
of PFOA). Companies use PFOA to make fluoropolymers,
substances with properties that have thousands of
manufacturing and industrial applications. Fluoropolymers
impart properties, including fire resistance and oil, stain,
grease, and water repellency. They provide non-stick
surfaces on cookware and waterproof, breathable membranes
for clothing. They are also used in hundreds of other
applications in almost all industry segments, including the
aerospace, automotive, building/construction, chemical
processing, electrical and electronics, semiconductor, and
textile industries.
Fluorotelomers, like fluoropolymers, are substances used as
surfactants and as surface treatment chemicals in many
products, including fire fighting foams; personal care and
cleaning products; and oil, stain, grease, and water
repellent coatings on carpet, textiles, leather, and paper
(such as paper used in food packaging). While PFOA is not
used to make fluorotelomers, it does appear in those
products as a byproduct of manufacturering.
3)What are the concerns related to PFOA? According to the US
EPA, PFOA is very persistent in the environment and is being
found at low levels both in the environment and in the blood
of the general population. Studies indicated that PFOA can
SB 1313
Page 4
cause developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory
animals. PFOA also is very persistant and is not readily
removed by the body. All these factors prompted the US EPA
to investigate whether PFOA might pose a risk to human
health and the environment at the levels currently being
found, or at levels that might be reached in the future as
more PFOA continues to be released into the environment.
The risk assessment is still in draft form. However, the
work done throught the US EPA's Science Advisory Board did
seem to prompt US EPA to take other action in the form of
the PFOA Stewardship Program described below.
In California, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) has, under Propisition 65, been
petitioned twice on PFOA. Once for carcinogencity in 2006
and once for reproductive toxicity in 2007. Both petitions
were denied by OEHHA. OEHHA does recognize PFOA's
widespread public exposure and its persistance, however as
part of the screening process for consideration under
Proposition 65. A lawsuit has been filed against OEHHA on
this issue and is pending.
4)US EPA's 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program . In 2006, US EPA
initiated the PFOA Stewardship Program, in which the eight
major companies in the industry committed voluntarily to
reduce facility emissions and product content of PFOA and
related chemicals on a global basis by 95 percent no later
than 2010, and to work toward eliminating emissions and
product content of these chemicals by 2015. By March 1,
2006, EPA received commitment letters from the eight invited
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). These companies committed to achieve, no later
than 2010, a 95% reduction, measured from a year 2000
baseline, in both: facility emissions to all media of PFOA,
precursor chemicals that can break down to PFOA, and related
higher homologue chemicals, and product content levels of
PFOA, precursor chemicals that can break down to PFOA, and
related higher homologue chemicals; and work toward the
elimination of PFOA, PFOA precursors, and related higher
SB 1313
Page 5
homologue chemicals from emissions and products by five
years thereafter, or no later than 2015.
These efforts appear to be making progress as the US EPA
reported in February 2008 that significant reductions in the
release of PFOA have occurred. They reported that an 25%
reduction in the occurance of PFOA in human blood samples
taken in 2003-2004 compared to those taken in 1999-2000.
5)Homologues: The shorter the better? Most of the body of
research related to PFCs have been working with PFOA and the
C8 and longer carbon chains. These are known to be
persistant and have been repeatedly demonstrated to be
present in human and animal tissue and the environment. In
the work to move away from PFOA, the replacement chemicals
could include those of similar compostion, but with shorter
carbon chains (C6 or below). Studies are under way by
industry and others, many as a result of the US EPA's
stewardship program and the particpating companies, to
replace PFOA and related compounds. Early indicators are
that shorter carbon chains behave differently than the C8
and longer. This bill prohibits carbon chains of longer
than 5 which is a more protective level than the levels to
be achieved by the US EPA voluntary phase-out. However, it
represents a point of discussion as the bill moves through
the process, on moving to a standard that helps to remove
questions of persistence in humans and the enviroment.
6)Green Chemistry and Hazard Traits . The term 'green
chemistry' is being used more and more frequently and
represents a move toward a different way to look at chemical
policy. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
is heading up the "Green Chemistry Initiative". They
describe Green Chemistry as a strategy to reduce the use of
toxic substances so that they do not harm the public or
contaminate the environment. Green Chemistry is a way to
make goods and engineering processes using less toxic
materials, less energy, and less waste. DTSC is progressing
on this task and is due to release recommendations this
SB 1313
Page 6
summer. It is an ambitious undertaking and, to date is
showing promise in changing chemical policy in California.
However, currently, statute and regulation to adequately
address products and chemicals of concern, such as PFCs,
administratively is lacking.
Hazard traits, as defined in this bill, are a tool that can be
used to help identify risks in replacement chemicals and
help determine if they are more desirable than the chemical
it is replacing. Many of the most progressive chemical
manufacturers are adopting this more far reaching methods to
ensure the products they develop are safe. This is a new
way to look at the chemical development and represents a
point of discussion as to how to best define it (including
the use of the term "fewest") as the bill moves through the
process.
7)Referral to Rules Committee . Should this measure be
approved by this committee, the do pass motion must include
the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Committee on
Rules for further review.
SOURCE : Senator Corbett
SUPPORT : American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
California Labor Federation
California Nurses Association
Clean Water Action
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Making our Milk Safe
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
United Steelworkers Union
OPPOSITION : Chemistry Industry Council of California
SB 1313
Page 7
DuPont