Prop 65 Listing of Tris (TDCPP)
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) voted to list chlorinated Tris (TDCPP) under Proposition 65 as a cancer-causing chemical. TDCPP is a commonly used flame retardant in furniture foam and has been used as a replacement for other banned flame retardants.
OEHHA and the CIC received considerable written comment prior to voting to list TDCPP. More than 600 individuals and the NRDC advocated for its listing, despite the their own acknowledgement that the European Union found “limited evidence of carcinogenic effect” when classifying the chemical. In contrast, a coalition of scientists and representatives of the chemical industry argued that the CIC had ignored its own guidance criteria and relied on unsound science to reach its conclusions.
The CIC ultimately chose to list TDCPP on a 5-1 vote. While placement on the Proposition 65 list does not affect the use of the TDCPP in manufacturing or ban the sale of products containing TDCPP, it requires that products be labeled as containing cancer-causing chemicals.
Information from the OEHHA hearing can be found here.
UPDATE on TDCPP
(Chlorinated Tris) will be added to the Prop 65 list on October 28 of this year. Labeling and warning requirements for the chemical will kick in one year from that date on October 28, 2012. According to Susan Luong in OEHHA’s Prop 65 office warnings are required for products sold to consumers and for component parts sold to manufacturers. It is ultimately left up to each business to determine whether or not the transmission or sale of their products will result in significant exposure to the chemical.
According to Ms. Luong, most businesses choose to label their products out of an abundance of caution. Similarly, warning signs at facilities housing or producing products with TDCPP would be required.
Safe harbor limits are sometimes established for chemicals listed under Prop 65. Even when a listed chemical is made a high priority because of high public interest, it usually takes a year to a year and a half for the safe harbor limits to be established.
For a copy of the regulations relating to warning requirements with this update. Included in the regulations are specifics about the wording of signs and when a business must post them. There is also information available online and through the Prop 65 office at (916) 445-6900.
Governor Schwarzenegger failed to adopt the final draft of the Green Chemistry Regulations on time at the end of his term after the draft came under fire from environmentalists as being too narrow in scope. As a result, the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials and the Committee on Health met recently to discuss the development of Green Chemistry Regulations in the Brown Administration.
Though the purpose of the hearing was to provide legislative oversight of the Green Chemistry Regulations, it became merely a discussion of why Green Chemistry was necessary. The Environmental Protection Agency as well as the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment described the efforts they have made to date and made vague assertions about the development of regulations going forward. Both business and environmental advocates expressed displeasure with the draft regulations killed by Schwarzenegger. While the hearing was not very enlightening as to how Green Chemistry will be developed in the coming months, both the administrative agencies and the environmental advocates asserted that the Green Ribbon Science Panel should take on a more significant role in the future. This is interesting as a bill addressing the very same issue has been introduced.
DTSC stated that it would likely be another month before the Green Ribbon Science Panel could be reconvened to begin readdressing Green Chemistry Regulations, and that it could be a number of months more before they are ready to begin moving forward. Regardless, considering the testimony heard recently, as well as Senator Simitian’s legislation (SB 178), it is reasonable to expect that the Green Ribbon Science Panel will be more involved in the development of these regulations in the future.