Designers, our latest salary survey is ready for your participation. Log on and help us get the best data possible!
Category Archives: Green Thoughts
ECHA Submits New CLP Report
Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation (CLP overview here) update: the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) submitted its study on communication of information on the safe use of chemicals to the general public. Submissions go to the European Commission (EC).
This CLP study provides insights on how to further improve hazard communication to EU citizens. Here are highlights and key points of the :
- Awareness among the general public of the new international hazard labels which appear on the packaging of chemical substances is mostly low but consumers rarely purchase these chemicals, the labels are relatively new and awareness will surely grow. However, work is needed at national, industry and EU level both to raise awareness and, crucially, understanding of what the labels mean.
- The perception of hazards varies among countries as well as between specific sub-groups of the general public. Awareness-raising activities therefore need to address national hazard perception patterns as well as the differing approaches to hazards exhibited by specific audiences such as families, single households, workers, school children, etc.
- Most people make their choices on the safe use and storage of household chemical products on the basis of their acquaintance with the product as well as other emotional drivers which rely more on experience than on information found on the package. Awareness-raising activities therefore also need to take into account these emotional and experienced-based drivers.
- Further analysis of the impact of the hazard labels on EU citizens’ behavior and understanding could be useful after 2015 – the date by which new labels must have replaced the old ones on all chemical mixtures like paint and glues for example.
CLP and product packaging
The CLP report by ECHA specifies that industry should be encouraged to bring product appearance and packaging more in line with the hazard information on labels, making use of behavioral drivers to amplify the label’s message, thereby promoting the appropriate safety behavior in consumers. Interestingly, this comes in conjunction with MEPs in Europe voting “no” to relaxing food labelling opportunity for food manufacturers: On Feb. 2 MEPs voted to ditch a European Commission plan for giving food producers new choices to promote products as having less fat, sugar or salt.
Changes to the CLP labels themselves are not recommended in the report. The study concluded there’s more benfit to allowing the public to get used to the new labelling system – now in use globally – steadily improving the overall understanding of hazards posed by chemicals and encouraging safer use of chemicals, household chemicals in particular.
Follow up According to CLP Regulation Article 34, the European Commission will, on the basis of the study, submit a report to the European Parliament and the European Council in order to, if justified, present a legislative proposal to amend the Regulation.
Salaries in Environmental Risk Management and Related Fields
The median annual salary for a Certified Industrial Hygienist in the USA is $72,356, according to good sources.* It’s $76,000 per year according to other good sources.** And some sources, like www.Indeed.com, said it’s $100,000/year.
Given that Environmental Risk Manager is a hot term for — well — someone responsible for a large part of the EHS responsibilities, we researched that title. Notably, we discovered that Risk Management salaries in general are skyrocketing – as this graphic shows. But more specific to us, we discovered that the average salary for an Environmental Risk Manager is around $75,000/year ($80,000/year in Chicago).
Then we wondered how this figure was arrived at, and some interesting components came up. The following graphic is interesting on three levels: One, because of the salary numbers. Two, because of the parts deemed associated with an Environmental Risk Manager. And three, because key terms can bolster a bio or CV, anyone freshening up a resume might notice the words “process” and “engineer” are worth some money.
Another salary breakdown: an Environmental Standard Risk Management Development Manager Salary in Chicago, IL averages $90,000/year. An obscure title, good, because we can look at its parts and get a lot of data. Do note that the midwest tends to be the lowest geographical segment according to pay scale surveys that break down this kind of thing.
Analysis: the salary gap A background in EHS has probably given any professional a perspective on Risk Management. You might consider re-orienting your bio in that direction for 2012. That phrase on your CV may put you in a different category where more hiring is happening and the salaries are comparable.
It’s important to emphasize the word “environment,” but always with a “risk management” appendage, to show potential employers that you care about environment, health and safety but you wear shoes, not sandals (but not combat boots either)!
Of course, you can’t call yourself an “engineer” if you aren’t one, but remember that a process can be “engineered.” Also someone has to “engineer” a quality or compliance program. Just saying.
Another key word for a higher salary we noticed is “strategy.” If you can “strategize” and “create and drive programs,” you may be wordsmithing your way into a higher tax bracket. Use these words in 2012!
Finally, one suggestion is to scan the above salary lists and also job descriptions online, like this CIH job post from PepsiCo, and see what other phrases are being used. Use them. Then talk your way into a higher salary in 2012.
Happy New Year, everybody.
Guest blogger K.M. Hurley is the Director of Corporate Communications at Actio Corporation.
References
* http://www1.salary.com/Industrial-Hygienist-Salary.html
** http://ohshub.com/average-salaries-industrial-hygienist-certified-safety-professional-ehs-manager/
List of Lists: State by State Chemicals of Concern
The eternal quest for the constantly updated, fact-checked and inter-regional management of chemical data in today’s industry (without paying for it) has just taken a small step forward. New England’s Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association or NEWMOA has produced a Chemicals of Concern List-of-Lists, if you will. It’s live, accurate, and includes data from three states: Washington, Minnesota and Maine — three of the hardest working states on the issue of chemical contamination, particularly as it affects, or potentially affects, children’s health. (Sources say NEWMOA plans to add California chemicals of concern later this year.)
Meanwhile, the current NEWMOA list of lists is here.
Have a look, and share this blog post with colleagues. Get the message out.
The Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan interstate association whose membership consists of the hazardous waste, solid waste, waste site cleanup, and pollution prevention program directors for the environmental agencies in New England states plus a few, like New York and New Jersey.
NEWMOA’s Mercury Reduction Program, for instance, provides useful information and resources regarding mercury reduction in industry, schools and at home.
Free chemical lists. In the past, managing lists of lists has proven so complex and time consuming that only private companies have been able to stay with it over time. Such companies sell chemical lists and compliance management capabilities for tens of thousands of dollars in annual subscription rates. Some nonprofits like NEWMOA are wrangling chemical regulatory lists so the public can use them — for free. Kudos. Not an easy job due to the constantly-changing nature of the beast(s).
Washington Chemicals of Concern. To implement the Children’s Safe Products Act (CSPA), Washington Ecology developed a High Priority Chemicals list consisting of chemicals identified by a state agency, federal agency, or accredited research university, or other scientific evidence deemed authoritative by the department on the basis of credible scientific evidence as known to do one or more of six criteria outlined in CSPA (70.240.010 (6)).
Washington Ecology, in consultation with the WA Department of Health, then developed a refined list of High Priority Chemicals that manufacturers must report on under the CSPA. This list, the Reporting List of Chemicals of High Concern to Children, includes chemicals that are toxic and have either been found in children’s products or have been documented to be present in human tissue (blood, breast milk, etc.). Of course, the mere presence of these chemicals in children’s products doesn’t necessarily indicate risk of harm; but Washington figured the potential danger to children is worth using these instances as a start point.
Maine Chemicals of Concern. As directed by Maine law, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in concurrence with the Department of Health and Human Services, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published a list of Maine Chemicals of Concern. A chemical may be included on the list if it has been identified by an authoritative governmental entity on the basis of credible scientific evidence as being known as a carcinogen, a reproductive or developmental toxicant or an endocrine disruptor; persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic; or very persistent and very bioaccumulative.
In June 2011, the law setting forth criteria for the designation of chemicals of high concern was amended by passage of LD 1129. The list of Chemicals of High Concern will be published July 2012.
Minnesota Chemicals of Concern. The Minnesota Chemicals of High Concern list contains a variety of chemicals such as pesticides, dyes, solvents, plasticizers, flame retardants, and many others. Each chemical has at least one hazard characteristic that causes it to qualify for the list, such as being neurotoxic, immunotoxic, or being persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.
California Chemicals of Concern. More on California Prop 65 Chemicals List is available, scroll down page at link for a viewable and downloadable PDF document to have on hand for your records.
REACH Is Rolling: 20 New SVHCs With 1 Endocrine Disruptor
There are four key takeaways from today’s REACH news that 20 new chemicals have been added to the Candidate List for a total of 73:
- Companies need to notify ECHA of uses around 20 new chemicals, deadline: June 2012
- Endocrine disruptor chemicals are making the List, thus are now targets for restriction (so look out BPA and the like)
- Chemicals can be put directly on the REACH Candidate List without a comment period (so be ready!)
- Companies need to be ready for the likelihood of SIN listers being restricted soon and without much warning.
Endocrine disruption. Today, officially, 4-tert-octylphenol was added to the REACH Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) Candidate List. 4-tert-octylphenol was added to the Candidate List along with 19 other chemicals (listed below) for a total of 20 new substances of very high concern, octylphenol has a unique significance because it is the first Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC) to be added to the REACH SVHC list.
The inclusion of 4-tert-octylphenol on the Candidate List opens the doors for the increased regulation of other EDCs. A number of other chemicals can be classified as EDCs including:
- Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds
- Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
- DDT and other pesticides
- Bisphenol A and other plasticizers
The endocrine system includes glands and hormones which regulate vital functions including growth, sexual development and behavior, metabolism, and reproduction. According to some, such as the National Institute on Environmental Health Sciences, EDCs are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse effects — developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune system — in both humans and wildlife. (View a comprehensive list of chemicals linked to endocrine disruption here.)
Companies can help ensure they’re prepared for any changes to the SVHC list by collecting supplier data on chemical ingredients as part of their quality assurance systems.
SVHC List REACHes 73. With 73 chemicals now listed, companies may have new legal obligations resulting from the inclusion of substances in the Candidate List. The obligations may apply to the listed substances on their own, in mixtures or in articles. For starters:
Producers and importers of articles have six months from today to notify ECHA by 19 June 2012 if both of the following conditions apply:
- the substance is present in those articles in quantities totaling over one tonne per producer or importer per year and
- the substance is present in those articles above a concentration of 0.1 % weight by weight
There are exemptions from the notification obligation if the substance is already registered for the use or when exposure can be excluded.
Among the recent 20 additions, 12 substances have been included in the Candidate List following the unanimous agreement of the Member State Committee, while the other eight did not receive comments challenging the identification as SVHC during public consultation, but were added to the list directly.
The 20 new chemicals on the REACH Candidate List are:
- Zirconia Aluminosilicate Refractory Ceramic Fibres
- Calcium arsenate
- Bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether
- Aluminosilicate Refractory Ceramic Fibres
- Potassium hydroxyoctaoxodizincatedichromate
- Lead dipicrate
- N,N-dimethylacetamide
- Arsenic acid
- 2-Methoxyaniline; o-Anisidine
- Trilead diarsenate
- 1,2-dichloroethane
- Pentazinc chromate octahydroxide
- 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol
- Formaldehyde, oligomeric reaction products with aniline
- Bis(2-methoxyethyl) phthalate
- Lead diazide, Lead azide
- Lead styphnate
- 2,2′-dichloro-4,4′-methylenedianiline
- Phenolphthalein
- Dichromium tris(chromate)
Companies can refer to the ECHA website for potential legal obligations resulting from the inclusion of substances in the Candidate List. If handling REACH is becoming too onerous, consider a REACH software solution or contact one of the many consultants on the subject. Consider joining an online forum of experts such as this LinkedIn Group — and communicating with colleagues about best practices in solving REACH. A little planning and foresight goes a long way, especially as REACH gets bigger and bigger. A pandemic, as someone we all know called it.
This article was co-authored by Pat King, who holds a bachelor’s in environmental science from Saint Laurence University.
The New RoHS
In RoHS news, the real news is that the RoHS2 is really just RoHS. We still hear people talking about “RoHS2” and “RoHS Recast” — and there is simply no such thing: there is just RoHS. Yes, there were significant updates to the EU Directive that Restricts Hazardous Substances. That process occurred over the past year. Amendments to RoHS have been incorporated into RoHS itself. So the terms “RoHS recast” and “RoHS2” have no meaning.
RoHS right now. Over the past year, the ban on heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals in electrical and electronic equipment has been extended to a much wider range of products. The changes apply to electronic products such as thermostats, medical devices and control panels.
European Member States have until the end of 2012 to transpose the new rules. This means most will wait until the last minute (and beyond), but some will not, and to an American mind the order and timing will seem somewhat random. Since there is no orderly way to hedge your bets here, getting to RoHS compliance in Q1 2012 or (Q2 at the latest) is the path of least risk.
The RoHS Directive will continue to ban lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and the flame retardants Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE). The previous RoHS Directive covered several categories of electrical and electronic equipment including household appliances, IT and consumer equipment, but RoHS has now been extended to all electronic equipment, cables and spare parts. Exemptions can still be granted in cases where no satisfactory alternative is available.
Updates to RoHS.
- A gradual extension of the rules to all electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), cables and spare parts, with a view to full compliance by 2019
- A review of the list of banned substances by July 2014, and periodically thereafter
- Clearer and more transparent rules for granting exemptions from the substance ban
- Improved coherence with the REACH Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
- Clarification of important definitions
- CE marking denoting compliance with European norms reserved for electronic products that also respect RoHS requirements
In view of the significant extension of the scope, the new Directive introduces transition periods of up to 8 years for the new products affected by the rules.
Photovoltaic panels are exempted from the new Directive in an effort to help the EU reach its objectives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Also included in the new RoHS is a mechanism to make it easier for the Commission to monitor compliance.
RoHS2 background. The revision was launched in 2008. Agreement between the European Parliament and the Council was reached in 2010 and the Directive was adopted in June 2011. Member States have 18 months to transpose the Directive. Until then, RoHS I continues to apply.
Detailed information can be found in the directive here. See also the Europa.eu site on waste and RoHS.
RoHS is a directive, not a regulation: A directive is about results, not process. With RoHS for example, the required result is the restricted use of certain toxic metals in electronics manufacturing & in related disposal and waste. A regulation, on the other hand, delineates how to get the result, a good example being the REACH regulation, which contains a detailed process for substance registration, use, and data sharing.
This blog is hesitant to recommend specific consultants for RoHS compliance. However, some software for RoHS compliance such as Material Disclosure from Actio Corp., is worth looking at for RoHS compliance.
Canadian Chemical Regulations: An View From Above
Quality professionals focus on Europe, the US and even China — as with China REACH and China RoHS for example — when we speak of chemical regulations. Sometimes we overlook Canada when we say “global.”
This is a mistake. Many supply chains go through Canada, and Canadian substance-level regulations are not shrinking violets at the regulatory compliance dance.
One really good way to stay on top of Canadian environmental law is to read the annual Blake’s Guide to Environmental Law in Canada. The document is an effective introduction to the principal laws and regulations in Canada and the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario, concerning environmental protection and conservation.
Specific advice should be sought in connection with particular matters or transactions — questions can be routed to the authors of this blog or to the environmental lawyers listed in the guide.
Key subjects include:
- Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA)
- Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)
- Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 (TDGA)
- Hazardous Products Act (HPA) and Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA)
- Pest Control Products Act, 2002 (PCPA)
- Fisheries Act
- Canada Shipping Act
- Marine Liability Act
- Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA)
- Oceans Act
- Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act
- Species at Risk Act (SARA)
- Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA)
- Canada National Parks Act
- Criminal Law
- Energy Efficiency Act
The Canadian law firm Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP has issued Blake’s Guide to Environmental Law in Canada.
The guide also provides an overview of environmental law in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia.
Canadian law and toxic substances. CEPA, the Canadian EPA, provides the federal government with “cradle to grave” regulatory authority over substances considered toxic. CEPA provides for assessment of “new” substances not included on the Domestic Substances List, a national inventory of chemical and biotechnical substances.
It’s required that an importer or manufacturer must notify the federal government of a new substance before manufacture or importation can take place in Canada. Consequently, businesses must build in a sufficient lead-time for the introduction of new chemicals or biotechnology products into the Canadian marketplace. In certain circumstances, manufacturers and importers must also report new activities involving approved new substances so they can be re-evaluated.
All existing substances included on the Domestic Substances List are in the process of being
assessed by Environment Canada for bioaccumulation, persistence and inherent toxicity
(BPIT). Currently, Environment Canada is in the process of collecting information and
conducting risk assessments with respect to a series of “Batches” as part of the “Challenge to Industry” program.
Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a substance is “toxic” if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that;
- have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity
- constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends or
- constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health
Substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and result primarily from human activity
must be placed on the Virtual Elimination List. Listed toxic substances include:
- PCBs
- CFCs
- chlorinated solvents
You can contact us or contact the Blakes, a law firm that regularly produces reports and special publications on Canadian legal developments. For further information about these reports and publications, please visit blakes.com.
TSCA Update: New Chemical Reporting for 2012
Last week the US Environmental Protection Agency held a training session to further explain the amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), scheduled for 3 hours this afternoon. For those who couldn’t make it, here’s the distilled version:
For starters, there is a section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule change in name, to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The new name is more precise, we appreciate that. “Inventory” is a softer word than “chemical” but it has also far too broad an implication in the industrial world.
EPA is promulgating several amendments to the IUR / CDR rule, taking into consideration comments received on the proposed rule. The amendments were proposed in the Federal Register issue of August 13, 2010.
In short, the way Production Volumes are reported will change:
*
Who is affected? Businesses are affected by this action if they manufacture (including manufacture as a byproduct or import) for commercial purposes chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory and produced in volumes of 25,000 lb or more during the principal reporting year (i.e., calendar year 2011).
Potentially affected entities likely include but are not limited to:
- Chemical substance manufacturers and importers (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325 and 324110; e.g., chemical substance manufacturing and processing and petroleum refineries)
- Chemical substance users and processors who may manufacture a byproduct chemical substance (NAICS codes 22, 322, 331, and 3344; e.g., utilities, paper manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, and semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing)
In short: manufacturers — including importers — of TSCA Inventory-listed chemical substances with a 2011 production volume of 25,000 lb or greater at a site, unless otherwise exempted.
The 2012 submission period is Feb. 1 to June 30, 2012. You need to know:
- Reporting is site-specific
- Reporting standard is “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” for all data
- CBI – upfront substantiation required for:
- Site and chemical identity claims
- Processing and use information claims [new requirement]
Manufacturing-related data includes:
- Chemical identity
- CAS RN and chemical name
- Accession number and generic chemical name for CBI substances
- Production volume (PV)
- Number of workers that are reasonably likely to be exposed (in ranges)
- Maximum concentration
- Indication of whether a manufactured chemical substance is being recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed or reused
- Physical form and percent production volume in the form
- Processing and use-related data are required for production volumes of 100,000 lb. or more, at a site, unless otherwise exempted
Online web based software can help with the new reporting requirements. EPA has offered up a web based portal of similar nature.
*chart courtesy EPA CDR training info
REACH Database: Over 5000 Substances Registered
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced Wednesday that ECHA’s Dissemination Database contains now 4413 records. In total, 5181 substances have been registered as of Nov. 3, 2011, says the agency.
There are now 3908 substances published on the list of registered publishable substances.
On ECHA’s dissemination portal, you can download information or search for substances; an excellent resource for folks looking more deeply into REACH compliance.
The next big REACH deadline is May, 2013, but ECHA is asking companies to start preparing now.
En route to the 2013 deadline, there are two key deadlines for 2012:
1. Late preregistration deadline prior to the 2013 registration deadline, for first time manufacturers and importers;
2. Downstream users should notify suppliers of uses by May 31, 2012 at the latest.
Proper Etiquette: California Prop 65
California’s chemical law known as Proposition 65 requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. The Prop 65 list was first published in 1987.
The list was updated on Oct. 28. The latest chemical added is tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP).
Businesses have one year to organize warning and labeling systems if manufacturing or selling products in California that contain this chemical. What does a label look like?
Here is a sample label under Prop 65.
(That particular label makes you think, doesn’t it? It made me think..!)
At the end of this post is a current list of chemicals on the Prop 65 list. Scroll down to that section if desired, and download the list in PDF form, to keep for your records.
What is Prop 65? California Prop 65 is actually the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.” It manifests as a list of chemicals known to the state of California to cause either cancer or reproductive toxicity. The list:
- must be updated at least once a year
- products and facilities containing these chemicals are asked to clearly post warnings indicating the presence of these chemicals
- must be published for all to see
The Prop 65 list currently includes approximately 800 chemicals.
Now, included on the Prop 65 list are things we sometimes think of as benign, such as alcohol and aspirin. Alcohol makes the list because it obviously can be toxic in sufficient amounts. Aspirin makes the list because it has been shown to cause reproductive harm in fetuses if ingested by women in advanced stages of pregnancy.
So not all 800 chemicals on the Prop 65 list should be avoided at all costs (and in some cases they might save your life, as with aspirin to thin the blood, or, arguably, alcohol to get through holidays with the in-laws). The important thing is that even if a chemical is safe for you, it might not be safe for others; some chemicals, eerily, do not seem to harm women at all but mess with the male developmental system in undesirable ways.
And, while a chemical may be safe for some uses, it may be toxic in certain doses, or in other uses, or for another gender. The Prop 65 list seeks to publish the identity of every chemical that can be a danger.
Requirements for business under Prop 65. All chemicals on the Prop 65 list require businesses to act in some way, typically by posting a warning in the workplace, or by affixing a label on a product that contains, say, a globally-regulated toxin such as cadmium (which is also on the list).
Again, to see an ironic sample Prop 65 label, click here: toxic breast cancer ribbon. There you will see one of the great ironies of modern culture, and also the reason I look forward to coming to work in the morning. The link goes to the image of a Fight Breast Cancer pink ribbon that you pin on your shirt, the packaging bears a warning that the ribbon itself contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer.
For those that don’t know, besides being a practicing CIH and Professional Chemical Engineer, I cofounded a company 15 years ago that provides manufacturers with software for tracking chemical ingredients from suppliers. This type of software, the hope is, will maybe one day eradicate the need for such “ironic” labels on a Fight Cancer ribbon, because greener, non-toxic alternatives have been identified and used.
Warnings and labels under Prop 65. Businesses are required to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to a listed chemical. This warning can be given by a variety of means, such as by labeling a consumer product, posting signs at the workplace, distributing notices at a rental housing complex, or publishing notices in a newspaper. Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 12 months to comply with warning requirements.
Proposition 65 also prohibits companies that do business within California from knowingly discharging listed chemicals into sources of drinking water. Once a chemical is listed, businesses have 20 months to comply with the discharge prohibition.
Exemptions. Businesses with fewer than 10 employees and government agencies are exempt from Proposition 65’s warning requirements and prohibition on discharges into drinking water sources. Businesses are also exempt from the warning requirement and discharge prohibition if the exposures they cause are so low as to create no significant risk of cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Risk thresholds. For chemicals that are listed as causing cancer, the “no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, a person exposed to the chemical at the “no significant risk level” for 70 years would not have more than a “one in 100,000” chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.
CA Prop 65 “safe harbor numbers.” OEHHA develops numerical guidance levels, known as “safe harbor numbers,” for determining whether a warning is necessary or whether discharges of a chemical into drinking water sources are prohibited.
However, a business may choose to provide a warning simply based on its knowledge, or assumption, about the presence of a listed chemical without attempting to evaluate the levels of exposure.
Businesses do not file reports with OEHHA regarding what warnings they have issued and why, on that basis, or because of that, OEHHA is not able to provide further information about any particular warning, which is unfortunate. Instead, contact the business issuing the warning.
Enforcement and penalties. The California Attorney General’s Office enforces Proposition 65. Also, any district attorney or city attorney (for cities whose population exceeds 750,000) may enforce Proposition 65. So can an individual acting in “public interest” may enforce Proposition 65 by filing a lawsuit against a business alleged to be in violation.
Lawsuits have been filed by the Attorney General’s Office, district attorneys, consumer advocacy groups, and private citizens and law firms. For enforcement information, contact the California Attorney General’s Office at (510) 622-2160 or visit http://ag.ca.gov/prop65/
Penalties for violating Proposition 65 go up to $2,500 per violation per day if businesses fail to provide notices.
For more information on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals, contact OEHHA’s Proposition 65 program at (916) 445-6900, or visit oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html.
Download the list of chemicals on California’s Prop 65 list, no registration required. Be advised there are 23 pages of this list; below is a snapshot of just the first page. This list was updated Oct. 28. It’s a good document to download and keep for your records.