CMTA, and many others, oppose SB 797 (Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills) to ban the use of Bisphenol-A (BPA)-containing products like bottles, cups or canned foods. The scientific community and regulatory agencies from around the world, however, have concluded BPA is safe as used.

In January, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a statement regarding the use of BPA in food contact applications, including baby bottles, cups and infant formula cans.  When asked if the FDA thought BPA was unsafe, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein of the FDA responded “If we thought it was unsafe, we would be taking strong regulatory action."

Ten other international regulatory bodies have assessed the science on BPA and have determined it is safe for use in food contact applications: the European Food Safety Authority, European Union, Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, French Food Safety Authority, Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Health Canada, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science & Technology.

Earlier this year, the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced that it will continue reviewing the safety of BPA and has appropriated $30 million in new research funding, with conclusions expected within 18-24 months. Key research in FDA’s labs is also underway with initial results expected to be published within weeks.

California’s Department of Toxics Substances Control is also on track for a summer release of final regulations implementing the state’s “Green Chemistry” Program.  This program will create a process by which the state will identify potential chemicals of concern in consumer products, evaluate those chemicals, and implement an appropriate regulatory response – including an outright ban – if necessary.  This program was created by the Legislature so that scientific expertise can inform regulatory decision-making regarding chemicals in consumer products. SB 797 bypasses this process.

Alternatives to BPA-based canned food liners are not readily available. While some products utilize an alternative epoxy coating, this use is very limited.  There are more than 15,000 unique epoxy coating specifications in North America alone.

Unlike BPA, what has been proven harmful are the food borne pathogens that develop from improperly canned foods. Epoxy resin has enabled the high temperature sterilization that eliminates the dangers of food poisoning from microbial contaminants.  These are the risks to food safety that must be considered.

SB 797 is set to be heard on the Senate floor for concurrence in amendments made in the Assembly.

Environmental Excellence Awards Applications are now being accepted in conjunction with the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, Industrial Environmental Association, and Chemical Industry Council of California conference scheduled for October 21-22 in San Diego.

The environmental awards program is open to businesses, federal, state, and local government, service industries, public works projects and non-governmental organizations. Achievements can apply to any aspect of an entity’s operation that promotes going beyond compliance and can demonstrate multi-year results.

Awards will be presented in the following categories:

• Recycling and Waste Reduction


• Technology Innovation


• Water Conservation


• Greenhouse Gas/Air Quality Emission Reductions


• Green Chemistry Leadership


• Energy Efficiency/Green Buildings


• Corporate Sustainability

Recipients will be honored during the Awards Ceremony scheduled for Thursday, October 21, at the conference luncheon, receive a plaque and be recognized in a video production.

For more details on award guidelines and application, go to:  www.cmta.net/pdfs/2010_EQ_Awards_App.doc

Please note that the application deadline is Friday, September 10, 2010.

To register for the conf., go to:  http://www.cmta.net/conference.php?event_id=604

Cal EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has released its pre-regulatory draft regulations for implementation of SB 509 (Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto), the Toxic Clearinghouse portion of the Green Chemistry law signed in 2008.  Here is a link to that language:  www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/green/pdf/081110prereghazard.pdf

OEHHA’s document, titled “Green Chemistry Hazard Traits, End Points, and Other Relevant Data”

• identifies and defines the hazard traits;


• lists general categories of endpoints and other relevant data for each toxicological and environmental hazard trait;


• provides general methods for determining whether or not a chemical has a toxicological hazard trait; and


• provides specific methods for determining whether or not a chemical has carcinogenicity, developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity hazard traits

An informal comment period commenced on August 10th and ends on September 13th, 2010. All submissions should be directed to:

Fran Kammerer


Staff Counsel

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95812


Or via e-mail to fkammerer@oehha.ca.gov

In addition, OEHHA will hold a workshop on Monday, August 23rd, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Klamath Room at the Cal/EPA Headquarters Building, 1001 I Street in Sacramento, second floor. This workshop will not be webcast.

To address stakeholder requests, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is postponing consideration of regulatory amendments for truck and bus, off-road, tractor-trailer GHG, and drayage trucks until November. They will schedule workshops in August and/or September to discuss the emissions inventory and proposed amendments.

You may recall that CARB held workshops in June and July on this subject during which stakeholders requested additional time to review and comment on the following:

• Details of planned emissions inventory updates for trucks and off-road vehicles;


• Specific draft regulatory language;


• CARB’s revised report on fine particulate matter (PM2.5) mortality estimates, a draft of which will be released later this summer; and


• Proposed changes to the drayage truck regulation.

While CARB staff is proposing to amend several elements of the truck and bus and off-road regulations, many provisions are in effect and not being considered for amendment.  These include:

• Off-road reporting and labeling requirements;


• Off-road idling limits and sales disclosure requirements; and


• Requirements to report vehicles utilizing the agricultural vehicle provisions and some two engine street sweepers under the truck and bus regulation.

However, due to the pending amendments to the truck and bus and off-road regulations, several requirements have been postponed:

• On February 11, 2010, ARB issued a delay of the off-road regulation's retrofit and turnover requirements pending further notice;


• The truck and bus regulation reporting originally required by March 31, 2010, has been delayed until early 2011; and


• The truck and bus retrofit and turnover requirements (scheduled to begin January 1, 2011) will also be extended.

For more information, please see http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truckstop/truckstop.htm

In November 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SBx7 7 (Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento), which mandated the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to adopt regulations for water use conservation. The manufacturing industry’s use of process water will be impacted.

Process water is defined as:

" water used for producing a product or product content or water used for research and development, including but not limited to, continuous manufacturing processes, water used for testing and maintaining equipment used in producing a product or product content and water used in combined heat and power facilities used in producing a product or product content."

Water used in restrooms, landscaping, air conditioning, heating, kitchen and laundry are excluded.

DWR is setting up two separate workgroups:

1. Urban Water Users to set targets and develop urbanized water district process water regulations, and


2. Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Task Force to establish “Best Management Practices” for process water and look at water use efficiency improvements in the industrial sector.

CMTA has concerns about: how conservation targets are calculated, the potential impact on products, operations or equipment, credit for recycled water use, and how DWR will interpret cooling water use as well as air conditioning and heating interconnected and integral to the operation and maintenance of industrial facilities.

DWR intends to approve process water emergency regulations by October 2011.  A regular rulemaking process will follow, with adoption scheduled for May 2011.If you haven’t already, CMTA urges you to take a serious look at your water use and the alternatives that are available.  We also encourage you to keep an accounting of all of the water savings projects that you have implemented.

The Green Chemistry Draft Regulation for Safer Consumer Products was released by California’s Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) on June 23rd for review and comment.

CMTA and the "Green Chemistry Alliance" submitted its final comments on Thursday, July 22. You can read the letter here. CMTA's primary concerns are six-fold: the broad definition of "chemicals of concern", the lack of required sound science with which to base future decisions, the unrealistic low 0.1% threshold, the usage of intermediates other than Cal OSHA for responsibility, third party certification, and confidentiality issues.

As background, the draft regulation specifies the processes for DTSC to scientifically and systematically identify and prioritize chemicals and consumer products, for manufacturers to conduct alternatives assessments, and for DTSC to impose regulatory responses for alternatives selected by manufacturers. In the coming years, these regulations may significantly impact manufacturing operations, costs, production and responsibilities for products at the end of their useful life.

DTSC is aiming to begin the formal rulemaking process at the end of August/early September. They are considering holding two hearings at the end of the 45-day comment period, in Northern and Southern California. Stay tuned.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently solicited bids from contractors to analyze bulk samples using CARB’s proposed methodology for measuring naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). The proposed methodology is called “Test Method 435” or “M435”: Laboratory Testing of Asbestos Content in Rocks and Soil. CMTA and many others believe that the new methodology is flawed and should be re-examined, including a chance for public comment.

CARB’s key revisions include:

• Changing the definition of asbestos to include “asbestos particles,” which include non-fibrous, common minerals that do not cause the health effects associated with real asbestos. This extremely broad definition will lead to “false positives,” incorrectly identifying large areas of California’s common rocks and clean soil as "asbestos."


• New laboratory procedures that will result in greater confusion as to whether a rock or soil sample contains actual NOA deposits, or merely background asbestos that exists everywhere in California.

The false positives that will occur as a result of CARB’s latest proposed revisions will incorrectly label non-fibrous, common minerals as “asbestos” and will critically jeopardize California’s ability to work the land, produce construction materials, and complete public improvements. The new mandatory methodology will, in turn, put thousands of jobs at risk throughout California.

CARB needs to refine the proposed M435 test method to more accurately identify and quantify actual naturally occurring asbestos in rock and soil fragments and avoid false positives.

 

The Green Chemistry Draft Regulation for Safer Consumer Products was released by California’s Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) on June 23rd for review and comment. It is available at:  www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/gc_draft_regs.cfm

This draft regulation is built on the foundation outlined in the previously released Conceptual Flowchart and Outline for Draft Regulation.  The links for these documents are below:

www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/upload/gc_flowchart-final.pdf

www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/loader.cfm

The draft regulation specifies the processes for DTSC to scientifically and systematically identify and prioritize chemicals and consumer products, for manufacturers to conduct alternatives assessments, and for DTSC to impose regulatory responses for alternatives selected by manufacturers.  In the coming years, these regulations may significantly impact manufacturing operations, costs, production and responsibilities for products at the end of their useful life.

Written comments are due by the close of business next Thursday, July 15, 2010.  They may be submitted by e-mail to gcregs@dtsc.ca.gov or mailed to:

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

Office of Legislation & Regulatory Policy

Heather Jones, MS 22A

PO Box 806

Sacramento, CA 9581

If you submit comments, please forward a copy to Mike Rogge, CMTA’s Environmental Policy Director, at mrogge@cmta.net.  CMTA will also be submitting comments.

DTSC may revise this proposal, based on comments, and is targeting a mid-August release of the revised draft and the beginning of the formal Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking process.

Last year, Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) introduced SB 346 to restrict the use of copper, cadmium, chromium, mercury and lead in vehicle brake pads.  Local governments maintain that it is impossible for them to meet stormwater pollution standards if copper in brake pads is not addressed.

The latest amendments to the bill speed up the phase-out of copper to contain no more than 0.5% by 2025 (from 2032), cadmium to .01% by 2014 and chromium, mercury and lead to 0.1% by 2014.  The problem is that no one knows if this can be achieved.  It is based on the philosophy that regulation will drive innovation.

SB 346 mandates the use of a technology that does not exist. According to the auto industry there is currently no viable, environmentally-safe alternative to copper. The bill does not address what happens if no viable alternative can be found by 2025. Brake manufacturers don’t think this is enough time to develop and test new alternative materials. To comply, car brakes may be installed that were not engineered nor built to perform with certain models, subjecting drivers to potential safety and performance problems.

Another change in the bill is a requirement that brake pad manufacturers perform an alternative analysis in compliance with the Dept. of Toxic Substance Control’s Green Chemistry regulations.  This may create competing and conflicting regulatory and manufacturing schedules.

SB 346 will next be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

At a June 3rd meeting of a California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) working group, Cal EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) previewed a proposed screening methodology for evaluating cumulative impacts and discussed the work they had completed concerning incorporation of the precautionary approach into decision-making by all of Cal EPA’s boards, departments and offices (BDO’s).  The methodology was said to provide the BDO’s with a simple, understandable scientifically guided framework incorporating socioeconomic factors and making use of existing statewide data that can used to support their activities.

The report is due out for circulation and review within Cal EPA shortly and is scheduled to be released for public comment later this year.

While the concepts of cumulative impact and the precautionary principle itself are highly controversial, they are considered cornerstones of an environmental justice philosophy.  Environmental justice advocates have been following this work closely.  This type of approach in regulation has been untested by any state or country to our knowledge.

Additional information on the June 3rd meeting and the materials discussed is available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/cipa060310.html

Every year, Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) introduces a bill to ban flame retardants and every year the bill dies.  Last year it was SB 772 on juvenile products. This year it was SB 1291 (position letter).

SB 1291 (position letter) would have required the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) to include flame retardants as a “Chemical of Consideration” in their development of the Green Chemistry program and to evaluate it as one of their top priority “Chemicals of Concern”.  Citing health concerns, SB 1291 (position letter) would have placed a moratorium on the use of any new flame retardant in the manufacture of any upholstered furniture, bedding and filling materials, until DTSC had made a determination on whether it was a chemical of concern.

One of the problems with this approach is that it takes the decision-making away from the scientists at DTSC to determine Chemicals of Consideration and Chemicals of Concern and instead makes it a political decision in the hands of legislators.

California has some of the strictest fire regulations in the country (copied by many other states) and one of the best records for fire protection.  The possibility of undermining the effectiveness of California’s fire regulations and concerns about the implications on the Green Chemistry program still underway caused the defeat of SB 1291 (position letter) on the Senate Floor on June 3rd.

The bill is dead for this session.

AB 2139 (Wesley Chesbro, D-Eureka) was denied passage on the Assembly floor on Thursday, June 3.  It would have taken the state’s integrated waste management system and curbside recycling and turned it on its head. It placed all end-of-life responsibility for ALL consumer products on the manufacturer and ignored all other parties who should share responsibility.

The bill would have given broad authority to the former Waste Board staff to determine which products to cover.  Those products would have been subject to performance goals, collection rates and recycling goals.  Manufacturers would have been required to submit a product stewardship plan for every product they make, creating a massive new bureaucracy under CalRecycle.

AB 2139 had the potential to create a labyrinth of complicated, inefficient and duplicative programs to handle materials. Consumers would have had to take back materials to hundreds of different sites and/or by multiple means.

Senator Abel Maldonado’s (R-Santa Maria) appointment to Lieutenant Governor means that he will serve on the State Lands Commission. Charged with the task of overseeing the State’s waterways and offshore oil drilling projects, the Commission is comprised of only three members: Lieutenant Governor, Democratic State Controller John Chiang and Republican Department of Finance Director Ana Matasantos. Now that Maldonado has a seat on the panel, it will be the first time since 1974 that Republicans dominate the Commission.

All four of the product stewardship bills have moved through their same-house policy committees on party lines:

• AB 2139 (Wesley Chesbro D-Eureka) Sharps, Household Pesticides and Small Propane Tanks,


• AB 2176 (Robert Blumenfield, D-Van Nuys) Lighting,


• AB 2398 (Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles) Carpet, and


• SB 1100 (Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro) Batteries.

While supporters of extended producer responsibility (EPR) maintain that they want the manufacturers of products to share in the cost and responsibility of handling these products and packaging at the end of their useful life, these bills are crafted in such a way that the cost and responsibility become exclusively the manufacturer’s.

The current cost to industry for the Canadian Province of Ontario’s EPR plan to handle packaging and printed paper is $80 million. It is expected to rise to $350 million as industry takes on full responsibility for recovery and recycling.  Ontario has approximately one third the population of California so this cost would extrapolate to over a billion dollars for this state.  These costs would initially be borne by the manufacturers but passed on to the consumer as a hidden cost.  Paper and packaging is only one product group out of 70 being seriously considered for inclusion by CalRecycle (the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery) in a State-directed EPR program.

Local governments would like to see manufacturers take over the managing and funding of waste recovery.  They do not believe that they can tax their residents for the true cost. Almost all of these entities support an expansion of materials to be banned from landfills. The amount of materials has skyrocketed as we have become a more convenience- and disposable-oriented society. So too has the costs of handling – by as much as 16 fold.

The costs of an EPR program vary tremendously dependent upon the product itself, it’s recyclability, density, location of sale, etc.  The bills mentioned above require that the items be recovered from every city and county in the state.  The cost of recovery from rural areas would be significantly higher.

Anti-trust issues exist which have not been addressed in these bills nor in a 2009 paint industry supported bill, AB 1343 (Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael).  An anti-trust exemption is needed because companies would have to band together to decide how much to tax each other and how much the added cost to the customer would be.

CMTA’s Environmental Quality Committee ranked – and opposed – these four bills in the top 25 of the session. While CMTA and its members believe that companies should be good product stewards, we do not advocate a mandated government-run program.  The added cost to products would simply exacerbate the difficulty of California’s residents to cope with the present downturn in the economy and at the same time cost California additional manufacturing jobs.

Two bills that were initially opposed by CMTA’s Environmental Quality Committee have now been dropped by the legislators carrying them. 

AB 2607 (Kevin DeLeon, D- Los Angeles) required the State Department of Food and Agriculture, in conjunction with the University of California Cooperative Extension and certain state agencies, to conduct a study of the health and safety issues of wood pallets used for shipping and the risks they may pose to the state’s food supply. The bill also required the study to evaluate sustainable and recyclable alternatives to wood pallets in California and to report to the legislature its findings and recommendations.  Promoted by recyclable plastic pallet companies, it was actively opposed by the California Forestry Association, the League of Food Processors, California Retailers Association and a host of companies in the state who rely on wood pallets.



Another bill that never saw the light of day was Senator Christine Kehoe’s (D-San Diego) SB 1234.  It required the State Water Resources Board to adopt regulations by January 1, 2012 which would identify unreasonable uses of water during various periods of water shortage.  CMTA’s major concern was with defining “unreasonable uses”.  The bill was pulled by the author before it was heard in committee.

In addition, two bills which CMTA opposed have been amended to remove our concerns:

AB 2379 (Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles) which would increase the amount of technical support provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control to industry in complying with hazardous waste source reduction requirements; and



AB 2565 (Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco) which now allows the lead agency to post CEQA documents on their website and also allows stakeholders to have hard copies sent by mail.

These are positive accomplishments for California’s manufacturers.

On April 1st, the California State Supreme Court sided with California Building Industry Association attorneys establishing that opponents of development projects must adhere to time limits for filing lawsuits under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  The Court overruled appellate and trial court rulings in the case and sided with the City of Stockton, maintaining that the City was clearly upholding CEQA statute of limitations.

The City had established that a project, Wal-Mart, was consistent with prior approvals that had been evaluated under CEQA.  The City posted a “notice of exemption” under CEQA which stated a 35-day period for bringing lawsuits.  The Court also agreed with Stockton city attorneys that the CEQA “notice of exemption” itself was adequate to trigger the 35-day period.

After the 35 days had expired, environmentalists challenged the CEQA approval of the superstore project (part of a larger developmental project). This is a common tactic used by “no–growth” advocates: Challenging CEQA project decisions multiple times in the process, long after the deadlines, asserting that certain considerations were not evaluated, making the CEQA approval flawed and invalid.  Such challenges have delayed or stopped projects already underway after millions of dollars have been spent.  Many times developers walk away from their projects or settle out of court with the environmental groups.

These decisions are positive for developers and will help to maintain some degree of certainty in the CEQA process.

Two carryout packaging bills have been introduced this year to change the manner in which products are carried away from retail establishments.

Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) is the author of AB 1998 to repeal the requirement for in-store plastic bag recycling as of January 1, 2012, but instead would prohibit stores from providing them to customers as of the same date.  The bill would also require Cal Recycle, starting January 1, 2015,to submit to the Legislature a report regarding the effectiveness of the bill’s provisions and recommendations to further encourage the use of reusable bags.  This legislation would apply to both paper and plastic bags.  The bill is co-authored by 14 additional legislators and scheduled to be heard in Assembly Natural Resources on Monday, April 12.

AB 2138 (Wes Chesbro, D-Eureka) has been dubbed the Plastic Ocean Pollution Reduction, Recycling, and Composting Act. It would prohibit a food provider by July 1, 2013 from distributing disposable food service packaging or single-use carryout bags to consumers unless the bag or packaging is recovered for composting or recycling at a rate of 25% or more.  Since recyclers do not want to handle packaging that has come in contact with food and since composting facilities are becoming fewer and fewer, returnable containers would have to be utilized.

CMTA opposes both bills.

The State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) is proposing a budget that would back them out of reliance on the State’s General Fund.  A coalition of water agencies and agricultural and industry groups have taken issue with that approach maintaining that the Board could raise fees without public oversight.  Much of the Board’s programs also serve the public’s interests.  The $6 million budget increase should not be borne solely by permit holders but by the General Fund as well.

The coalition argue that inclusion of General Fund financing ensures that the Legislature will have will have the opportunity to provide oversight and examine programs carefully during the annual budget policy hearings.  “These open committee hearings enable stakeholders and the public to participate and provide comment on proposed fee increases.  Once a water quality or water rights program fund ceases to receive General Fund dollars, WRCB can raise existing fees administratively.”

At a Senate Budget Subcommittee meeting on March 18th, committee chairman Joe Simitian said the coalition comments reflect a legitimate debate about when the public benefits, when there is private benefit and when there is a shared benefit. A vote on the issue was tabled until a future hearing.

Environmentalists at the hearing argued in support of the WRCB proposal based on the polluter pay concept.

Assemblymember V. Manual Perez (D-Cathedral Hill) has introduced AB 1846, Expedited Environmental Review: Climate Change Regulations.  This bill would authorize the use of a focused environmental impact report (EIR) to satisfy requirements under California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a project that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in compliance with a rule or regulation adopted under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Currently focused EIRs can only be used for projects that only install pollution control equipment required by a state agency.

The environmental analysis would still have to include reasonably foreseeable:

1. Environm ental impacts of the methods of compliance;


2. Feasible mitigation measures;


3. Alternative means of compliance with the rule or regulation; and


4. GHG emission  impacts of the methods of compliance

In addition, a focused EIR can be used as long as the agency certified an EIR in conjunction with a certified regulatory program and the review included an assessment of growth-inducing, cumulative impacts and alternatives to the project. This environmental review must be completed within five years of the certification of the focused EIR.

The intent of this legislation is to speed up construction of projects which will reduce greenhouse gases.

According to Assemblymember Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata) AB 479, Solid Waste Diversion, will move out of the Senate Appropriations Committee in June where it has been held since last year.

AB 479 requires the Integrated Waste Management Board (now the Resource Agency’s Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery) to ensure that 75% of all solid waste is diverted from landfill by January 1, 2020 either by source reduction, recycling or composting. While the bill prohibits the board from imposing any enforceable requirements against a local agency or a solid waste enterprise to implement the diversion level, it does not preclude the Department from mandating specific practices by industries, businesses and institutions.

California has currently achieved a 58% diversion rate. The 75% level is not expected to be achieved without a commercial recycling mandate and massive implementation of extended producer responsibility. Chesbro’s Environmental Consultant reports that they are contemplating changes to remove industry concerns that were voiced last year, but to date, we have no details.

Assembly Majority Leader-elect John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles) has introduced AB 2398, a Product Stewardship bill for Carpet. It is one of many extended producer responsibility (EPR) bills in the California legislature this year.  EPR is the concept that the manufacturer of a product should be responsible for the ultimate disposal of the product at the end of its useable life.

AB 2398 requires the carpet producer, or a product stewardship organization, to submit a product stewardship plan to the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (now being called CalGreen) by September 30, 2001. It prohibits the sale of carpets by producers or retailers after January 1, 2012, without submitted plans.

Plans must contain performance goals for collection rates.  Filing requires the payment of a fee to the Department, specified as $10,000 in other EPR bills, but left blank in this bill.  In addition, an annual report is required and an unspecified annual administrative fee.

Each plan must address the environmental impacts of a carpet over the entire life cycle, including product design, manufacture, distribution, collection, transportation, reuse, recycling and final disposition of discarded carpet.

Starting January 1, 2014, the collection recovery rate for each carpet manufacturer must increase by no less than five percent annually until a 95 percent collection rate is reached.  Fines up to $10,000 per day for non-compliance apply.

Four California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform bills have been introduced this year with bi-partisan authorship.  Two are Extraordinary Session (fiscal emergency) bills which are not expected to pass during the special session; however, two replicas, AB 1805 (Charles Calderon, D-City of Industry and Brian Nestande, R-Palm Desert) and SB 1010 (Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana and Dave Cogdill, R-Fresno), are expected to move in the regular session in March.  A myriad of important economic development projects are currently being held up due to frivolous lawsuits under the guise of the CEQA statute.  The public and private sector spend millions of dollars defending these lawsuits and the ultimate result is additional cost to consumers, lost jobs and a depressed economy.

This reform effort is not directed at gutting CEQA or even creating an exemption.  The hope is to provide litigation relief for priority projects that have already passed a CEQA review.

The proposal includes allowing public and private projects to apply for a “safe haven” from future lawsuits a) once they have completed the CEQA process, b) after public hearings are held in the proposed project’s region, and c) upon approval of the Secretary of Business Transportation and Housing Agency. The criteria in selecting the project are:

1. The  number and quality of jobs that will be created by the project,


2. The amount of capital investment made by the project, and


3. A balance  between projects sponsored by public and private entities.

CMTA has joined forces with a broader coalition in support of both bills.

Assemblymember Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata) has submitted a bill to the Legislative Counsel which will again attempt to give the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (DRR&R) (previously the Integrated Waste Management Board, now minus the Board) the responsibility to develop, implement and administer product stewardship programs.  This bill establishes a framework approach for managing products that they feel have significant end-of-life impacts on the environment and public health. 



The goal of the bill is to reduce the role of local government, ratepayers and cost to the state, and transfer the responsibility and costs for managing the programs to the product producers.  This concept is known as “extended producer responsibility”. 



The bill requires companies to establish a “Product Stewardship Plan” with strategies and goals to increase collection, reuse and recycling.  Producers must consult with stakeholders during development of the plan, solicit comments and make responses prior to submitting the plan to DRR&R with a $10,000 application fee. Annual fees thereafter would be $1,000.  Companies could be fined up to $10,000 per day for non-compliance. 



Currently the bill only addresses five product categories, but it will eventually encompass as many as 70.  The five product categories are:

1. Sharps, including hypodermic needles, syringes with needles, blades and other needles;


2. Residential pesticide containers;


3. Small personal use propane tanks;


4. Personal butane lighters; and


5. Single use food packaging types found to be a significant source of ocean and beach contamination.

Local jurisdictions have seen their costs to divert materials from landfills skyrocket as they strive to reach higher diversion goals. Costs rise as the State increases the number of products designated as hazardous.  Costs rise as recycling volumes increase. Costs rise as more in the society relish disposability.  Yet,  local governments are uncomfortable placing true costs of waste management onto their residents. This will be a high-priority bill for CMTA.

Following are laws that went into effect on January 1 that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will implement:



•    Ensuring that plumbing material that carry cooking and drinking water are lead free;

•    Requiring that lighting products do not exceed European limits for toxic metals;

•    Establishing a health-based cleanup standard for methamphetamine labs;

•    Prohibiting the use of lead wheel weights;

•    Requiring the agency to develop information on nanomaterials in collaboration with manufacturers and importers;

•    Lengthening the statute of limitations on spill reporting;

•    Extending the California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act; and

•    Modifying the testing requirements for transporters of used oil.



For more information, go to www.dtsc.ca.gov/PressRoom/upload/News_Release_T-25-09.pdf.

California’s largest single recycling services provider, Tomra Pacific, Inc., filed suit on November 9th against the State of California, claiming $416 million in loans made to the cash-starved general fund from the Beverage Container Recycling Fund are illegal and must be repaid.  Tomra claims the loans have driven the recycling fund into insolvency, causing the state Department of Conservation (DOC) to eliminate payments to recyclers and irreparably harming the state’s 23-year-old effort to reduce can and bottle waste.



Revenue in the recycling fund comes from the nickels and dimes California assesses on cans and bottles and fees imposed on the makers of aluminum, glass and plastic beverage containers.  Formulas dictate the annual level of these “processing fees” but, generally, the more flush the recycling fund, the lower the fees assessed against manufacturers. 



The loans to the general fund from this DOC-managed fund began with $218 million in 2002 and $98 million in 2003.  They were to be repaid on June 30, 2009, but lawmakers postponed the payback until June 30, 2013.  Then when AB32 was passed, Governor Schwarzenegger withdrew $67 million to pay for the initial costs incurred by the Air Resources Board to begin implementation. This year another $100 million was loaned to the general fund.



In June, DOC announced that the recycling fund was insolvent due to a higher level of recycling (a record 74 percent in 2008) without any mention of the loans.



Tomra is laying off employees and says that a substantial amount of cans and bottles won't be recycled by them or others “unless the payments to recyclers increases back to the pre-raid levels”.  On October 20, the Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) announced that handling fees to the recyclers would not be paid and processing payments would be reduced by 5 percent due to "a lack of monies in the fund."  Cities and counties, which receive subsidies from the fund to support local curbside recycling efforts, have seen their payments fall from $10.5 million to $1.5 million.



Manufacturers who sell products packaged in cans and bottles will have to pay higher fees into the recycling fund to help restore it to solvency.  Processing fees are expected to increase in the vicinity of 65 percent over the next three months.



Tomra contends that if the loans were not made to the general fund, the recycling fund would have been able to cover its normal level of payouts and that they violate the express requirements placed on each of the loans by lawmakers: “Repayment shall be made so as to ensure that the programs supported by the California Beverage Container Recycling Fund are not adversely affected by the loan.” 

 

The State Water Resources Control Board will hold a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Fee Workshop on December 8 from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the Cal EPA building, Sacramento, in Conference Room 350.  The workshop will explore the Board’s alternative options for assessing NPDES fees.  The workshop will be self directed by the NPDES stakeholder workgroup, but two Water Board staff members will be present to answer questions and provide background information and support to the workgroup.  For those who cannot attend, the conference number for this meeting is (916) 227-1132.



For more information, please see www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/



The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will hold two workshops in 2010 to discuss and frame the plan for implementing the Toxics Clearinghouse provided for under SB 509 (Simitian, 2008):

•     March 15-16 – Sacramento


•     Late May – Berkeley

For more information on SB 509 and the green chemistry program under development, go to: www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/green/

 

Gale Filter, Program Director for Cal EPA’s Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Enforcement and Emergency Response Program, has recently proposed a fundamental change in environmental enforcement.  The proposal calls for the creation of green jobs and utilizes environmental enforcement tools such as predictive policing, data-mining techniques and community-based prosecution.  Filter will make an initial presentation to the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) Forum Board in December. CUPA members are often staff from local county health or fire departments.



The program is community focused and will use data obtained through a process called "ground truthing."  This process begins when volunteers in the community are trained to recognize and map hazardous and sensitive sites.  The volunteers then conduct inventories of the businesses in their neighborhood.  One ground truthing exercise has already been completed in Los Angeles.  Enforcement bus tours are also planned. 



A source reports that the program will place a higher priority on community-based facility inspections than those from its own department engineers. 

 

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the California Nano Industry Network (formed by CMTA) will host the fifth Nanotechnology Symposium on November 16th from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Sacramento.



The morning session will focus on the collaborative efforts emerging in the United States and internationally regarding health, safety, and environmental impacts of nanomaterials. The afternoon session will look at company examples of evolving nanomaterials’ safety and various areas of concern.



For more information, please see http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/UpcomingSymposium.cfm.

On October 1, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) released their second "Straw Proposal for Safer Alternative Regulations" as a starting point for Green Chemistry implementation.  They were careful to note that the document should not be considered draft regulations.

The proposal applies a very broad definition to consumer products, including almost all products commercially sold in California.  Only food, pesticides, prescription drugs, durable medical goods, dental amalgams and mercury lighting are exempt.  DTSC also chose to include chemicals used in the workplace whether or not they are present in the finished product.

The product categories included in the Straw Proposal are:

1. Products designed for use by infants or children


2. Products designed for use in K-12 schools


3. Clothing, linen and textiles


4. Furnishings including, but not limited to, mattresses, sofas, chairs, tables


5. Cleaning products including, but not limited to, soaps and laundry detergents


6. Products designed to release fragrance or scent during use


7. Products designed to dispense, store or prepare food


8. Products designed for application directly in or to the human body.


9. Products designed, or reasonably anticipated, to release any chemicals during intended use by consumers or after disposal (automobile brake pads, automobile tires, fireplace logs, glues, adhesives, and solvents, for example)

In addition, included are products containing any of the 16 named chemicals in the proposal, as well as products containing chemicals restricted by an authoritative body, foreign or domestic, that allows public comment and publishes results.  There is no distinction made between intentionally-added versus unintentionally-added chemicals, no exemption for exposure below a risk level, and no de minimus exclusions.  The scope of the program captures in the neighborhood of 10,000 chemicals and a 100,000 products.



Retailers will be required to demand that their suppliers (manufacturers) certify that their products do not contain chemicals of concern or possess specified hazardous traits. 



Manufacturers will have one year to generate data or collect documentation sufficient to determine if the chemicals or chemical ingredients in their products fit into any of the hazard categories specified in the Straw Proposal.  The hazard categories listed are: toxicity (acute, target organ–single or repeat exposure, acute aquatic), serious eye damage, germ cell mutagenicity, genetic toxicity, reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, respiratory sensitization, skin sensitization, bioaccumulation, and hazardous to the stratospheric ozone layer.



Manufacturers of products that do exhibit any of these characteristics will be required to conduct an alternatives analysis, identify alternatives and compare hazard categorization of their product and potential functional alternatives.  If their analysis shows no viable alternative, the manufacturer would be required to document their findings, identify an appropriate response action, notify DTSC and repeat an alternative analysis within two years.  The manufacturer is not forced to substitute an alternative, but if they don’t within 10 years, the product is thereafter banned. 



There are a number of other aspects of this proposal in relationship to life cycle analysis, potential response actions, and transparency. 



This program is designed to be self-implementing and require minimal regulatory oversight from DTSC.  The list of products will also be reviewed every two years for additions.



On October 14, the Green Ribbon Science Advisory Panel convened and expressed a great deal of skepticism about this plan.  Established by law, the Panel is made up of experts to provide advice on scientific matters, chemical policy recommendations and implementation strategies. The Panel’s directive is to ensure that implementation efforts are based on a strong scientific foundation.



Some panel members commented that the program would be extremely costly and that it was so broad it would prove unworkable.  There were many comments suggesting that DTSC needed to play a bigger part in making decisions and approving actions, and that more prioritization was needed to narrow the focus to the most pressing hazards.

SB 728(Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach) authorizes local entities to enforce the provisions of the parking cash-out program (PCOP).  It gives the Air Resources Board the power to impose a $500 civil penalty for a violation of PCOP and also empowers a city, county, air pollution control district or air quality management district to adopt a penalty or other mechanism to ensure that employers within their jurisdiction are in compliance. 

Existing law requires employers to provide a cash allowance to an employee who does not use the company-provided parking in an amount equal to what the employer would otherwise pay for the space.  This requirement only applies if the employer:

1. Employs at least 50 persons, regardless of the number of work sites;
2. Is located in an air basin designated nonattainment for any state air quality standard;
3. Provides free or subsidized employee parking on leased spaces (i.e., on spaces the employer does not own);
4. Can calculate the expense of the parking subsidy, which means the parking is leased separately from the building or office space; and
5. Is able to reduce the number of leased parking spaces without financial penalty. 

Sponsors of the bill, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, say the bill is a means to ease traffic congestion, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote social equity, and support investments in other travel modes. On the other hand the Council for Environmental and Economic Balance say that the parking cash-out program may lead to unintended consequences, such as employees continuing to commute as single-occupant drivers and parking in surrounding neighborhoods or in nearby parking facilities while accepting cash for not parking in the company parking lot.

SB 728 passed by both houses of the Legislature and is going to the Governor for his signature or veto. 

Environmental Summit, Oct. 7-9

CMTA’s environmental summit, "Balancing Environmental Needs and Economic Realities," will be held October 7-9 in San Diego at the beautiful Catamaran Resort Hotel on Mission Bay.  The conference is hosted jointly with the Industrial Environmental Association and the Chemical Industry Council of California.

A golf tournament kicks off the program at noon on Wednesday, October 7th, at the Coronado Golf Course. The conference starts Thursday, October 8th, through noon on Friday the 9th.  Jack Stewart, CMTA President, will be the keynote speaker for the opening session discussing the CMTA-commissioned Milken Institute study "Manufacturing 2.0: A More Prosperous California today". The report explains the current state of California manufacturing and the need for action to save the state's most critical engine of economic growth.

Three simultaneous tracks run throughout the first day.  Green Chemistry and Global Climate Change/Air Quality are day-long. Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board, Maziar Movassaghi, Acting Director of the Department of Toxic Substance Control and U.S. EPA’s Amy Zimpfer are confirmed speakers.  The third track includes a morning session on Emerging Business Strategies and an afternoon session on Hazardous Waste/Recycling/Extended Producer Responsibility.  The 2009 Environmental and Sustainability Awards will be presented to deserving recipients during lunch.

After Friday morning’s session there will be a track on Water Supply and Water Quality.  

For more information, including registration, golf and applications for awards, sponsorship or exhibiting, go to www.cmta.net.

"Reducing waste and materials at the source of generation, increased use of compost to benefit soils, coupled with increased recycling – especially in the commercial sector – and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) plus Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) also have the potential to reduce emissions, both in-state and within the connected global economy."

• Expand pollution prevention and product stewardship programs to more business sectors
• Broaden technical assistance programs beyond hazardous and solid waste reduction by adding green chemistry and engineering lifecycle approaches
• Create incentive programs to assist California businesses that adopt green chemistry and engineering practices

• Incorporate green chemistry and green engineering principles in California’s public education and the existing Education and the Environment Initiative (EEI) program
• Enhance scientific curricula in green chemistry, engineering, and materials sciences at California’s universities and colleges
• Develop postsecondary and career technical training programs for lab technicians for new clean industries and the materials
  sciences industries
• Foster research and development in new green materials and technologies
• Encourage establishment of green chemistry technology transfer centers ("R&D Incubators") for rapid commercialization
• Create programs to increase global market opportunities for California green businesses
• Create high-skill, high-wage green worker jobs for Californians

• Require consumer friendly online disclosure of chemical ingredients for products sold in California, while protecting trade secrets
• Create low-cost and easily-accessible online web portal for product ingredients

• Establish an online clearinghouse for chemical toxicity and hazards
• Appoint a Green Ribbon Science Panel to help prioritize chemicals of concern and data needs
• Enter into data-sharing agreements with other countries and states to link scienti_c studies worldwide and avoid costly duplication of effort

• Create a systematic, science-based process to evaluate chemicals of concern and alternatives to ensure product safety
• Task the Environmental Policy council with oversight to ensure multimedia (air, land, water) concerns are addressed
• Pursue consistency in enforcement statutes governing toxics in products

• Set a voluntary goal to achieve "Cradle-to-Cradle" economy by 2050
• Establish a California Green Products Registry to develop green metrics and tools (e.g. environmental footprint calculators, sustainability indexes) for a range of consumer products and encourage their use by businesses
• Direct state agencies to lead by example in the purchase of sustainable products<

•    AB 2505 (Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica) bans polyvinyl chloride (PVC) packaging containers in certain applications as of January 1, 2010.  While maintaining that PVC is toxic, the author exempted food and pharmaceuticals products, apparently to lessen the opposition.  The bill would ban PVC containers for nuts and bolts, for example, but ignores the fact that PVC is approved for conveyance of drinking water.  It is also the preferred product in aquariums.  In addition, AB 2505 creates an onerous new burden on California businesses by requiring each person that manufacturers, imports, sells, or distributes any plastic packaging (not just PVC) to certify that the container is in compliance with this law.

•    SB 13 (position letter)13 (Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro) prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of any food contact substance that contains perfluorinated compounds in any concentration exceeding 10 parts per billion as of January 1, 2010.  In the interest of minimizing public concern, manufacturers signed an agreement with the U.S. EPA to voluntarily cease production of specific perfluorochemicals (above a certain carbon length chain) due to bio-persistence in the bloodstream.  Doing so in spite of the fact that there is no credible link to human health risk.  This bill moves up the date of the ban and makes it mandatory.  It also bans almost all perflurochemicals, including the majority of those that are being developed to replace the chemicals which are bio-persistent.

•    SB 1712 (Carole Migden, D-San Francisco) would consider, as of January 1, 2009, lipstick bearing traces of lead as an adulterated cosmetic.  Manufacturers would have to provide evidence and certify that the lipstick was tested and found to contain no more than an "unavoidable trace" of lead.  The bill, though, doesn’t define "trace" and it ignores the fact that lead is not intentionally added to lipstick (very minute amounts are often found in the soil where coloring minerals are obtained).  Furthermore, the amount of lead that is transferred into the blood stream through lipstick is insignificant.  A California manufacturer testified that this bill would essentially ban lipstick in this state.

•    SB 1713 (Migden) bans the manufacture, sale or distribution of bisphenol-A in detectable levels in toys, childcare articles or liquid food and beverage containers intended for children under three.  It also requires manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative when replacing bisphenol-A in their products.  To date, no government has banned bisphenol-A.  Few products have been so thoroughly tested.  

1. How much should the tax be on hazardous chemicals produced, used, or distributed in California?
2. What information would trigger a ban of a chemical by the state of California?
3. What incentives should the state of California provide to promote the development of safer chemical or product alternatives?  
   
4. What would be the appropriate response by the state of California for failure to use safer alternatives?
   
5. What would be the appropriate response by the state of California for failure to disclose product ingredients?
6. By what date should the state of California require reusable or biodegradable non-petroleum based packaging?
   
7. How can industry use a multi-media standard, such as ISO 14000, to demonstrate performance above and beyond compliance with regulatory standards for products and processes?

• All vehicles with engines manufactured between 1998 and 2002 must be retrofitted or replaced by December 31, 2011;
•All vehicles with 2003/04 engines are to be retrofitted or replaced by December 31, 2012;
•All 2005 and newer engines must be retrofitted or replaced by 2013; and
•All trucks must meet 2007 emissions standards by the year 2114 and 2010 emission standards by the year 2022.

June    Draft scoping plan released
July     Workshops on draft plan
Oct.    Final staff proposal released
Nov.    CARB adoption of scoping plan

• marijuana smoke
  
• trinitrotoluene (TNT)
  
• n,n-dimethylformamide
  
• bromodichloromethane
  
• chlorpyrifos
  
• hexavalent chromium
  
• sulfur dioxide
  
• methylisocycanate
  
• DDE
  
• bisphenol-A
• caffeine 

• AB 8 (position letter)33 (AB 8 (position letter)33pdf" class="black7bold">position letter) (Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City) requires California businesses to report all information to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) that was deleted by the December 2006 streamlining changes in the Federal Toxic Release Inventory program. The changes to the federal program were based on the assumption that altering reporting requirements in some circumstances would provide an incentive for companies to reduce use and discharge of specific chemicals. This bill eliminates that incentive and creates a California-specific reporting requirement that would put California companies at a disadvantage.
  
  
• SB 1001 (position letter) (Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata, D-Oakland) changes the make-up of the Regional Water Boards, making them less accountable to stakeholders (namely industry and agricultural interests).   
  
  
• SB 719 (Mike Machado, D-Linden) does essentially the same thing as SB 1001 (position letter), but with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
  
  
• AB 48 (position letter) (Lori Saldana, D-San Diego), introduced two years in a row, prohibits the sale of electronic devices containing specified heavy metals if they are banned in the European Union.  While amended heavily, this bill still relies upon a foreign entity to set California law.  It also adds to the bureaucracy within the Department of Toxic Substance Control setting up an unfunded program (think fees!) to change industry practices which is already changing.
  
  
• AB 1108 (position letter) (Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco) bans a wide range of children's products, from toys to baby bottles, which contain phthalates.  Scientific evidence (at least at this time) does not support a ban of this chemical.
  
  
• SB 990 (position letter) (Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica) aims at one specific site, Boeing's Santa Susana Field Laboratory, to stop its potential future sale unless the firm cleans-up the property. The standards to be met are prohibitively costly and are actually lower than background radiation.  
  
  
• CMTA joined coalitions opposing "Green Building" bills, AB 35 (Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City), AB 8 (position letter)88 (Ted Lieu, D-Torrance) and AB 1058 (John Laird, D-Santa Cruz). These bills mandate that buildings be built "green" for future state, commercial and residential construction and that they meet standards developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (not a government organization).  CMTA believes that the state building commission should continue to be the agency responsible for establishing building standards and not, as these bills might have it, Cal-EPA (Cal EPA agrees).  CMTA believes green building construction should be voluntary and that there be only one certification program.
  
  
  
  

November 7-9, 2007
Mission Valley Marriott

CMTA and the Industrial Environmental Association (IEA) will host their joint environmental conference, "The Greening of California Business," for November 7 through 9, 2007 at the San Diego Mission Valley Marriott.  (An 11 a.m. tee time has been reserved for Wednesday, November 7th at the Coronado Municipal Golf Course on Coronado Island.)

Numerous tracks will be running simultaneously on Thursday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. covering such subjects as global climate change, green chemistry, sustainability, Proposition 65, product stewardship, green building, and upcoming environmental legislation.  Mary Nichols, the new chair of the State Air Resources Board, and Tam Doduc, chair of the State Water Resources Board, as well as a number of state legislators are already confirmed as speakers.

At the Thursday luncheon, CMTA and IEA will be presenting Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability Awards to deserving companies.  If you’re interested in receiving an application, contact Mike at mrogge@cmta.net.  Friday’s program will consist of a number of special workshops.  

Please save these dates and plan to attend.

Related media: Governor fires his top smog-fighter, SD Union Tribine, June 29

On May 11th, The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) (often your local County Health or Fire Department) announced a concept to change their approach to CUPA inspection and enforcement.  The inspection program has remained basically the same over the past 20 or more years.  This announcement is despite decades of experience, new and more sophisticated regulatory mandates, dramatically improved knowledge of individual facility compliance, wide variations in population proximity to regulated facilities, more sophisticated enforcement approaches and development of additional compliance tools with proven success.

There is a desire to use their limited resources in the most effective manner possible.  As they pointed out, the only previous tool used to measure their effectiveness was compliance enforcement actions and they have been mandated by regulation to make inspections of all facilities on a specific schedule.  Over the years, the majority of these facilities have become much more knowledgeable on environmental laws and are continually in compliance.  Regulators would rather concentrate on those industries or facilities that have proven to have continued problems, pursue those who scoff the law and attempt to intercept products coming into the State which threaten the environment or health and safety of the public.

DTSC and CUPA foresee an open forum with numerous symposiums, workshops, seminars and meetings to develop their program.  The draft plan initially calls for a limited number (5-7) of carefully monitored pilot projects to test strategies that meet goals while concurrently maintaining high compliance at lower priority facilities.  They must identify the regulatory universe they believe needs to be controlled, set standards, do education and outreach, set up a compliance verification program, develop performance indicators and agency coordination protocols, set priority and feedback systems for CUPA implementation of alternative compliance strategies.  This is a huge, progressive and unprecedented undertaking.  It was obvious by the materials distributed that they have already given this a great deal of thought.

CMTA looks forward to working with DTSC and the CUPAs over the next year on the development of this new program.  If any member would like more information on the draft plan or to be involved in discussions, please contact Mike Rogge at mrogge@cmta.net.  A schedule for follow-up meetings has yet to be released.

On May 1 the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) announced the development of a "Green Chemistry Initiative" which aims to create a cradle-to-cradle approach to chemical regulation.  In a memo discussing the initiative’s creation, Linda Adams, Secretary of Cal/EPA, said that "Product-by- product, chemical-by-chemical and now even city-by-city approaches can often have unintended, even regrettable consequences, even with the best intentions." 

The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), under Cal/EPA’s umbrella, will lead the effort.  DTSC Director Maureen Gorsen stated that for 40 years the regulatory focus has been an "end of the pipe" or "after-product" use (emissions, waste and discharges).  The Green Chemistry Initiative instead embraces the consideration of public health and environmental effects of chemicals during the design of products and processes. 

This is a fundamental new approach to environmental protection.  The agency will attempt to define the challenges, the options and the recommendations for action pursuant to a very aggressive timetable.  Google could be capturing a database on the universe of information available concerning chemical safety, testing, risk, regulations, alternatives, use, etc.

Gorsen has committed to a transparent process with stakeholder involvement, workshops, symposiums, conferences, roundtables and meetings.  There will also be a dedicated website and consultation with universities, Canada, the European Union and the U.S. EPA.  There will be a cross-agency coordination working group formed among Cal/EPA boards, departments and offices, the Department of Health, the Department of Conservation, State and Consumer Affairs and the Department of Industrial Relations. 

The schedule calls for kickoff meetings in May and June, the website and listserve operating by January 1, 2008 and policy recommendations to Secretary Adams by July 1, 2008.  Comments about challenges, options and ideas from stakeholders by May 31 are being sought.  Ideas can be sent to Green.Chemistry@dtsc.ca.gov.

Members of the California Senate and Assembly want to mandate that more products be diverted away from landfills.   

In AB 546, Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) proposes that CPU towers be added to the list of devices covered under the Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 (SB 20, Chapter No. 526, Byron Sher, D-Stanford) and that the retailer collect a $10 fee from the consumer at the time of the sale.  Likewise, Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) has introduced AB 1535 to add personal computers to the list with a $6 recycling fee at the point of sale.  Note that there is already a mandate for a recycling collection program for laptop computers.

Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) has authored AB 1193, to require manufacturers of mercury thermostats to establish and maintain collection and recycling programs by January 1, 2008 or stop sales in the state after July 1, 2008. 

On the packaging front, Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) introduced AB 904, Food Container Recycling.  It would prohibit a food provider from distributing, by a date unspecified at this time, a disposable food service package to a consumer unless that package is either compostable or recyclable.  It would also prohibit a food provider from distributing a disposable food service package after July 1, 2012 unless the package is either recovered for composting or recovered for recycling at a 25 percent rate or more.  Only paper and aluminum come close to meeting these figures at the present time.  Unless technology improves markedly in the next five years, the bill will ban plastic and styrofoam packaging for fast food. 

A more comprehensive landfill bill, SB 1020 (Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles), raises diversion goals from landfill disposal, or transformation through recycling, source reduction, or composting, from 50 to 75 percent by January 1, 2012.

A cursory review of the list of environmental bills introduced this year indicates that bills concerning chemical usage are high on the priority list of a number of legislators.  The purpose of these bills runs the gamut from additional reporting requirements to limitation in use to outright bans. 

Among the proposed chemicals to be banned are decaBDE (a fire retardant), diacetyl (a butter flavoring), phthalates and bisphenol-A (used in most plastics), formaldehyde (used in composite wood manufacturing), and perfluorinated compounds (incorporated in polymers for stain and/or flammability protection).

In March of 2006, Professor Michael Wilson of UC Berkeley’s California Policy Research Center presented conclusions from his two-year study, done for the State Senate and Assembly Environmental Committees, that evaluated the need for California to implement some or all of the regulations in the European Union’s REACH initiative (registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals).  He recommended the development of a chemical reporting system to close the data gap, an expansion of regulatory authority and a new state agency to evaluate chemicals of concern.  Many of this year’s chemical bills address these issues while others appear to bypass the comprehensive policy approach that he advocated and instead issue bans.

Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) introduced AB 258 to eradicate plastic debris from the environment by targeting waterway and ocean contamination. 

The bill requires the California Coastal Commission to convene a multi-agency task force consisting of department representatives from: Fish and Game, Conservation, Water Resources Control Board, Integrated Waste Management Board, Boating and Waterways, Coastal Conservancy, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and Coastal Commission.  This task force would be charged with submitting a semiannual report to the Ocean Protection Council summarizing the progress made by public agencies and organizations in addressing marine debris, and to suggest actions to improve the State’s efforts.  The task force would also seek funding from public and non-governmental organizations to support actions to reduce the introduction of debris into the marine environment.

The bill would further require the State Water Resources Board and the Regional Boards, by January 1, 2009, to implement a program:

• To control discharges of preproduction plastics from point and non-point sources (including waste discharge).
• To require monitoring and reporting for all facilities handling preproduction plastics.
• To require implementation of best management practices for the control of discharges of preproduction plastic by plastic manufacturing, handling, and transporting facilities.

However, on February 8th, the Ocean Protection Council adopted 10 resolutions presented by the Santa Monica environmental group, Heal the Bay.  State workers were given until December to prepare a plan to phase-out the most toxic and damaging types of plastic packaging by 2015.  In addition to curtailing the use of styrofoam cups and other items, the resolutions called for targeting "plastics that can leak chemicals, such as cancer-causing vinyl chloride and Bisphenol-A", which the resolutions claim are "linked to prostate cancer in humans and reproductive problems in wildlife."  (This is a claim that is strongly disputed by industry advocates.)

Lt. Governor John Garamendi, a member of the council, led the charge to amend the less ambitious staff-prepared plan and instructed staff to find money to deploy agents to prosecute plastic manufacturers that allow plastic pellets to spill off industrial lots. 

The details of AB 32 (Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles) (Statutes of 2006, Chapter 488) implementation will be worked out in the next several years and will include a mix of near-term and long-term requirements.  The Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to publish, by June 30, 2007, a list of discrete early action greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures to be adopted, implemented and enforceable no later than January 10, 2010.

The ARB will conduct a symposium on near-term climate mitigation on March 5-7, the purpose of which is to explore options available to reduce GHG emissions that are based primarily on technology solutions.  The three-day conference, which will take place at the ARB headquarters in Sacramento, will include a discussion of new and available technologies and various other options to achieve emissions reductions.  

Thus far, ARB staff has identified two measures to be included in the list of early actions: low carbon fuels standards and high-GWP refrigerant restrictions.  A staff report will be submitted to the ARB later in the month, with approval of the plan slated for May.

The first bit news item is an announcement from the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) that it will be combining its enforcement and emergency response functions within the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 

Maureen Gorsen, Director of DTSC, stated that the purpose is to provide an organization that facilitates external and internal communications and speaks with one voice.  The new unit will also have the added tasks of compliance assistance and enforcement training.  A Deputy Director of Enforcement has yet to be named. 

Gorsen said that the new unit will gradually shift away from emphasis against traditional treatment, storage and disposal facilities, and direct more effort at those who transport or treat hazardous waste without a permit.  DTSC has recently worked with local prosecutors in a series of highly publicized sting operations targeting companies or individuals who are operating without licenses or permits.

The second news item occurred when Cal/EPA released its budget on January 10th.  The Schwarzenegger administration immediately came under fire.  Some environmental groups criticized the lack of funding for the initial year of the newly approved biomonitoring program required by SB 13 (position letter)79, Chapter Number 599, Statutes of 2006, (Don Perata, D-Oakland).  The bill calls for implementation of a program to conduct a statewide survey every two years to establish baseline levels and trends of potentially harmful chemicals found in the human body.  The budget calls for $1,210,000 and three positions in the Department of Health and Human Services, $167,000 and three positions in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and $123,000 and one position in DTSC.  This is the first large-scale state biomonitoring program of its kind in the country.  Administration officials defend the budget saying that the program will be phased in and receive additional funding in future years.

A third news item comes from the Air Resources Board (ARB). On February 22nd it will consider a proposal to lower California’s existing one-hour ambient air standard for nitrogen dioxide and establish a new annual standard for the pollutant.  This revision is not expected to have an impact on California manufacturers, and that all areas of the state will likely meet the revised standard.  Even if an area violates a state ambient air standard for nitrogen dioxide there appears to be no penalty.

And lastly from Cal/EPA – the State Water Resources Board (SWRB) currently has two openings.  Jerry Secundy resigned near the end of 2006 to take over the helm at the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) and Art Baggett’s term on the board expired on January 15th.  Appointments to these positions by the Schwarzenegger administration will be critical in shaping the SWRB’s position on a number of pending issues important to the manufacturing industry: total maximum daily loads (TMDL’s), stormwater numeric limits and mercury policy and objectives, for example.

While there are currently very few "environmental" bills in print (and most are spot bills), the stage is already set for another very active year dealing with legislation that could significantly impact segments of industry in California.  Last year, two major environmental bills were signed by the Governor: AB 32 (Fabian Nunez-D, Los Angeles), the Global Climate Change bill and SB 13 (position letter)79 (Don Perata, D-Oakland), the biomonitoring bill.  Implementation of both of these issues will generate additional "clean-up" legislation in the new session.

We are also anticipating legislation dealing with a number of other issues which were on the table last year:

Senator Martha Escutia (D-Whittier) termed out of office last year, but one of her bills, SB 1205 is expected back.  SB 1205 would have imposed civil and criminal penalties and increased fines by 100 times for air pollution violations.  The California Clean Air Roundtable, sponsored by the Kirsch Foundation, decided mid-December to support re-introduction of SB 1205 and to endorse increased enforcement.  SB 1205 started out last year as the Children’s Breathing Rights Act, but faded as the beneficiaries of the fines changed.  Children’s rights groups and the district attorneys were cut out in favor of the air districts.

Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) has promised legislation promoting "Green Chemistry."  While no one outside of his staff seems to know what form this legislation will take, we do expect at least a couple bills related to this.

Assemblymember Lori Saldana (D-San Diego) has introduced AB 48 (position letter) which would ban electronic devices containing specified heavy metals in concert with European standards.  This bill starts off in the same form that AB 2202 was in last year when it died.

We also anticipate the perennial legislation banning phthalates, Bisphenol-A, and styrofoam.  We may also see a bill resembling the San Francisco ordinance banning the sale of plastic toys and implements for children. 

A Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View) bill giving the Air Resources board authority over indoor air quality died last year, but a variation of that bill is expected again.

Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) has introduced two spot bills which are likely potential vehicles for a container tax to further support air emission abatement in the major port cities.

The last day to introduce bills is February 23.

Late on the Assembly floor on August 29th, SB 1205 (Martha Escutia, D-Whittier), Air Violation Penalties (CMTA’s number one environmental bill this year), failed on a 29-34 vote.
 
Another bill relating to air quality violations, SB 109 (Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento), resurrected by the district attorneys, was expected to have a similarly hard time.  It was heard and amended on August 29th in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, but failed passage.  The amendments were not available as of this writing.  CMTA believes it is still a "double jeopardy" bill providing the possibility for both civil and criminal penalties for air violations. The bill is dead for this session.
 
SB 419 (Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto), Hazardous Substance Railcars, was defeated on the Assembly floor on Monday, August 28th, by a 29-32 vote.  SB 999 (Mike Machado, D-Linden) which would have changed the make-up of the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management District also failed passage in the Assembly on a 29-32.  In addition, both SB 1478 (position letter) (Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough), Air Toxic Hot Spots Reporting, and SB 1252 (position letter) (Dean Florez, D-Shafter), Particulate Matter Penalties, went down to defeat in the Assembly. 

Two bills that CMTA opposed, SB 13 (position letter)79 (Don Perata, D-Oakland), Biomonitoring, and AB 289 (Chan), Test Methods, were amended to satisfy our concerns (i.e. we have gone neutral).  Likewise, both Native American sacred sites bills, SB 13 (position letter)95 (Denise Moreno Ducheny, D-San Diego) and AB 2641 (Joe Coto, D-San Jose) were amended to satisfy the concerns of the opposition.

On August 30th AB 32 (Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles), Global Climate Change, passed the Senate and was sent back to the Assembly for concurrence in Senate amendments.  The Assembly concurred on a party-line vote with no republicans voting for the measure after 90 minutes of debate.
 
AB 1101 (Oropeza), Diesel Magnet Sources, went down to defeat in the Senate 9-20 as did SB 459 (Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles), Locomotive Emissions Tax. 
 
On the other hand, SB 927 (Lowenthal), Port Container Tax, passed the Assembly 41-26 and AB 1953 (Chan), Lead in Plumbing, also passed on a second vote 41-35.  CMTA will be asking for a veto on both.

SB 655 (Ortiz), Asbestos, failed passage.

• AB 32 (Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles) Mandatory Cap on California Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• AB 289 (Wilma Chan, D-Oakland) Chemicals Testing Methods
• AB 8 (position letter)88 (Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate) SCAQMD Regulation of Rail Yard Emissions
• AB 1101 (Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach) Diesel Magnet Sources
• AB 1953 (Chan) Lead Plumbing
• SB 109 (Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento) Air Quality Violations - Prosecution
• SB 419 (Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto) Rail Cars Hazardous Materials
• SB 459 (Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles) Locomotive Air Emissions Tax  
• SB 655 (Ortiz) Asbestos
• SB 760, now SB 927, (Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach) Port Container Fees
• SB 849 (Martha Escutia, D-Whittier) Environmental Health Tracking
• SB 1205 (Escutia) Children's Breathing Rights Act - Air Pollution Penalties
• SB 1252 (position letter) (Dean Florez, D-Shafter) Air Pollution Penalties - Particulate Matter
• SB 13 (position letter)68 (Don Perata, D-Oakland) Electricity - Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
• SB 1478 (position letter) (Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough) Toxic Chemical Release Form

• SB
  1395 is internally contradictory:  It begins by describing its
  applicability to projects that have been determined to be exempt from
  CEQA and then goes on to say those CEQA-exempt projects are,
  nevertheless, required to go through a CEQA consulting process. 
  This begs the question – is the project subject to CEQA or not?

• The CEQA consultation process is open-ended with no time
  limitation.  After the determination has been made by the lead
  agency that the project is exempt but before the agency can act to
  approve or carry out the project, it must consult with the
  tribes.  The consultation process has no beginning or ending
  timeframes.  It could go on indefinitely.  In the meantime,
  the project is on hold.

• SB 13 (position letter)95 indefinitely
  tolls the statute of limitations. One of the benefits of filing the
  notice of determination (exemption) is that the 35 day statute of
  limitations is triggered.  This bill opens the window to bring
  challenges indefinitely.

• Read "Schwarzenegger wants market-based system to combat global warming" in the Associated Press
  
• Listen to Dorothy Rothrock dicuss how a cap on greenhouse gas emissions will "cap California's economy" on Marketplace radio
  
• Read "Environmentalists cheer governor's strong stands" in the San Diego Union Tribune
  

This year a surprisingly large number of reasonably positive bills have been introduced. 

Recycling
AB 2127 (George Plescia, R-San Diego) requires a report from the Integrated Waste Management Board on the impact of alkaline battery disposal into normal trash, solutions and estimated costs for battery recycling infrastructure. 

Green Building
Assemblymember Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) has introduced a spot bill, AB 2160, that is intended to study and recommend voluntary green building guidelines and incentives for new residential housing.

Air Quality
Assemblymember Michael Villines (R-Clovis) in AB 2151 (position letter) would like to require the State Air Resources Board to abide by the same rules as the regional air districts and provide public cost effectiveness figures for control measures.  To reduce air pollution, AB 1901 (Shirley Horton, R-Chula Vista) provides a program to loan money to assist retrofitting truck fleets of 5 to 10 trucks with up to two years to repay. 

Flood Control
Assemblymember Greg Aghazarian (R-Stockton) has authored AB 2026 relating to  Flood Control. It would require the Reclamation Board in the Department of Water Resources to put the health and safety of the public before environmental and wildlife concerns when making decisions.  AB 2659 (Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City) would prohibit the use of state funds, personnel, or resources for a feasibility study relating to the restoration of Hetch Hetchy Valley until the Legislative Analyst determines that certain levee work, capital improvement projects and evaluations have been completed.  Assemblymember Alan Nakanishi (R-Lodi) proposed a bill, AB 1877 – Streambed Alteration agreements: levee or flood control systems: notification.  The bill allows for an expedited undertaking of flood control maintenance if a proposed change is minor in nature.

CEQA Reform
Senator Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta) has proposed SB 1191, a CEQA reform, which would create a shorter form to reduce time and save money.  Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) also has a CEQA bill, SB 1705, that would require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in the Resources Agency to develop and implement an expedited process for CEQA review for a project proposal to upgrade, replace or modify energy infrastructure that will be undertaken along an existing energy corridor or utility right-of-way and that returns the habitat to pre-existing conditions or enhances the habitat.  A bill regarding CEQA mitigation measures, SB 1814, was introduced by Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch).  It would require the Secretary of the Resources Agency by July 1, 2007, and annually thereafter, to report on the types and effectiveness of a representative sample of mitigation measures adopted by state and local agencies.

Groundwater Management
Senator Mike Machado (D-Linden) has introduced SB 1795 which declares that recharging of a groundwater basin for the purpose of storage constitutes a beneficial use of water if it is consistent with management objectives set forth in a local agency’s groundwater management plan.  Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) has authored a bill, SB 1286, which would establish a binational council to address air quality issues in the Calexico-Mexicali Air Basin to identify goals, strategies and actions that could be taken to improve air quality basin-wide.

CMTA will continue to follow and support these and a number of other positive bills wherever possible.

• The first exemption gave extra time to create programs for
  collection of waste and another extension might hinder future
  development.

• This exemption applied to only four categories of universal
  waste, while all other universal and hazardous wastes have already been
  banned.

• An infrastructure program was created through the state’s 2003 e-waste recycling act.

• Recycling facilities, in DTSC’s opinion, are adequate enough for the program.

• The bill has testing methods developed in a vacuum, which would
  be of little use to regulatory agencies.  As stated in a February
  10, 2005 letter from California Air Resources Board Executive Officer
  Catherine Witherspoon to Assemblymember Chan, "ARB scientists will
  still be in the position of needing to verify the science of the
  chemical manufacturers – requiring equipment purchases and staff
  time."  Rather, the bill should require one single agency to
  initiate a collaborative process to review existing data sources and
  identify any potential data gaps.  Why ask companies to develop
  new test methods if they aren’t needed or are already available from
  other sources?

• Any agency requesting test methods from chemical manufacturers
  should have an objective basis for the request.  Under current
  laws, such as the Air Toxic Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act,
  both implementing agencies and regulated entities must prioritize their
  workload based on evaluation of factors that may indicate a potential
  health risk (for example, chemical potency, toxicity, degree of
  chemical usage, volume of emissions and proximity to receptors). 
  AB 289 should include a similar requirement.

• Though the bill affords some discretion to the requesting agency
  to determine the target matrix for the test method, the bill still
  retains requirements for metabolites, degradation products,
  octanol-water partition coefficient and bioconcentration factor in
  humans.  These parameters may not be relevant to a particular
  chemical or to the requesting agency and therefore should not be
  designated in statute as minimum requirements for test method
  development.

• Chemical test method development can be extremely costly. 
  In some instances, costs can be as high as $100,000 to $1 million to
  develop.  Manufacturers do not want their research results
  available to competitors.  Chemical test method development could
  involve use of proprietary information and technology, yet AB 289 has
  no provisions for protecting such information from public disclosure.

• Since AB 289 was defeated on the Assembly floor last June,
  neither the sponsors nor the author reached out to the opposition to
  discuss amendments until the day before the amendment deadline. 
  This issue is too complicated to be cobbled together in such a short
  time.

• Mandatory
  Climate Change Emissions Reporting that builds upon California’s
  Climate Action Registry and allows the state to track progress towards
  meeting the Governor’s targets. Collecting emissions data, starting
  with data from the largest sources of emissions, they believe, will
  allow the Governor’s targets to be translated into a statewide emission
  cap for the 2010 and 2020 timeframes (and lay the foundation for a cap
  and trade program).

• A Public Goods
  Charge for Transportation that funds key strategies to reduce climate
  change emissions and to reduce dependence on petroleum. The report
  states that overdependence on petroleum fosters undesirable
  geopolitical, economic, energy, and environmental consequences. 
  If the new tax is implemented on par with the existing public goods
  charges on electricity production, it would be about 2.6 cents per
  gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel.  The surcharge on petroleum
  products "would provide funding for key strategies that will reduce
  climate change emissions and reduce the dependence on petroleum," the
  report said.

• A Coordinated Investment
  Strategy for the State Funding Programs – such as the State Pension
  System, Public Interest Energy Research fund, and other state
  investment programs.  The aim is to achieve benefits by
  transitioning to a low carbon footprint. The investment strategy would
  provide incentives for industry to develop emission reduction
  technologies for use in California and abroad and encourage
  California’s lead in technology development. CalEPA believes this will
  leverage the talent at California’s universities to develop new
  technologies for reducing emissions and train the next generation of
  technicians that will be necessary to operate and service these
  technologies.

• Provision for Early Action
  Credit to California businesses that support the transition to federal
  and international emission reduction schemes, including a cap and trade
  program. Such a provision would ensure that companies proactive in
  advance of such schemes are not penalized.

• The green building Leadership in
  Energy and Environmental Design Certification (LEED) and the design and
  installation of a cogeneration system that meets the entire electrical
  demand at Pharmaceutical Research and Development in San Diego; and

• The innovative contract ALZA (a J&J company) implemented with
  the City of Mountain View to purchase methane gas from their municipal
  landfill. That gas now fuels three electric generators, providing the
  ALZA campus with three megawatts of power supply while reducing CO2
  emissions by an average of 17.3 million pounds per year, roughly the
  equivalent of taking 1,500 cars off the road annually.

• Identify "Best Management Practices" for ASBS runoff;

• Establish local stakeholder groups to facilitate the management of ASBS;

• Work with regional water boards to develop and implement ASBS assessment plans;

• Remedy any undesirable alteration of natural water quality;

• Allow discharges that do not cause an undesirable alteration of natural water quality; and

• Provide state funding to facilitate local protection of these areas of statewide significance.

• California
  manufacturers face extremely high operating costs in the state, nearly
  30 percent above the national average.  In order to remain
  competitive, they have become the most productive and efficient
  manufacturers in the world.  That means they produce more goods,
  with less inputs, including energy, than any other region.  In
  this way, they are already helping to limit GHG emissions.
  

• Regulations
  that would cap existing emissions and force purchasing of emission
  credits would limit growth of manufacturers in the future. Competition
  is global, and adding new costs in California is not an option.
  California could lose high-paying, high-benefit manufacturing jobs to
  other, less restrictive, states or countries.

• Policies
  to address global issues should be the purview of the federal
  government. This would ensure that California companies are not
  disadvantaged compared to other companies in other states who do not
  have to comply with California rules. The federal government is also in
  the position to coordinate targets, compliance enforcement and
  regulations with other countries to protect the national economy.

• Is
  it technically feasible to establish numeric effluent limitations, or
  some other objective criteria, for inclusion in stormwater permits

• How would such limitations or criteria be established

• What information and date would be required

• Provide
  local jurisdictions with "plug-‘n-play" tools to implement a
  residential green building program without the need to devote scarce
  resources for developing their own program;

• Provide
  a common standard that can be used by jurisdictions throughout the
  state without causing builders the headaches associated with
  requirements that vary by jurisdiction;

• Aggregate several varying residential guidelines in order to achieve greater simplicity; and

• Provide guidelines developed by an independent source.

•  Homeowners, do-it-yourselfers and remodelers;

• Builders, designers and building professionals; and

• Local government.

•     By 2010-  Reduce to 2000 emission levels
•     By 2020 - Reduce to 1990 emission levels
•     By 2050 -  Reduce to 80% below 1990 levels

Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) is carrying SB 484 relating to "cosmetics and chronic health effects."  Scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Health Committee on June 28th, the bill is co-sponsored by Support Breast Cancer Action, the Breast Cancer Fund and the National Environmental Trust. 

SB 484 would require cosmetic manufacturers, whose products are sold in the state, to provide California Department of Health Services (DHS) information on each product they sell into the state, and to identify, by product, any ingredients used that include a chemical listed under Proposition 65 (the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act) or that has been identified by an authoritative body as a substance appearing on specified chemical lists.
 
This information is required whether or not the level or type of exposure to a chemical in a product poses an actual risk to consumers.  The chemical lists specified in SB 484 are generally developed from laboratory tests that generally involve feeding large amounts of the chemicals to rodents over a period of time.  This level or route of exposure is not typical for cosmetics.

Also, the bill does not restrict the type of information that DHS can require from manufacturers (pricing information, financial data, sales data, personnel records, etc.) and fails to protect such information from public disclosure.  Confidentiality and competitive issues will arise unless this information is protected. 

SB 484 requires DHS to determine if the 54 products listed in a 2004 Environmental Working Group report have been adequately substantiated for safety as required by federal regulations.  Of the more than 10,000 ingredients listed in the report’s data files, over half of them are actually name fragments or misspellings of other ingredients.  The DHS cost to sift through the chemical lists, the submitted information, and to administer and enforce the legislation would be significant. CMTA believes this bill, were it to become law, would lead to future legislation and taxes to support the effort.

The bill is based on fear and speculation rather than sound science.  No credible research has ever shown that any cosmetic or personal care products caused cancer or reproductive harm.  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act rules require every ingredient used in a cosmetic product to be adequately substantiated for safety before it is marketed.

This bill will be discussed at the next CMTA Environmental Quality Committee meeting.

This year a record number of environmental bills were authored and a
majority were viewed as harmful by the business community.  

June
3rd was the last day for bills to pass out of their house of
origin.  During the final two weeks, a number of bills died in
their house of origin’s appropriations committee or on the floor,
particularly in the Assembly.  The moderate Democratic Assembly
caucus influenced the outcome in many instances, taking a stand on
bills which they viewed as detrimental to California’s economic
recovery. 

Noteworthy bills that have died or were made
into "Two-Year bills" since introduction are listed below. 
(Two-year bills stop moving for the current year, then are brought up
at the start of the second year of the session.  They are given
strict deadlines for passage early in the second year.)

1. 
SB 870 (position letter) (Martha Escutia, D-Whittier), Air Quality Violations, stated
legislative intent for mandatory minimum penalties in cases of serious
and chronic violations and allowed fine monies to go to community-based
air pollution control programs;
2.  AB 990 (Sally Lieber,
D-Mountain View), Toxic Substance Substitution, proposed the
replacement of specified chemicals with "safer" alternatives without
scientific justification;
3.  AB 1430 (Jackie Goldberg, D-Los
Angeles), Air Contaminants, would have limited the use of air emission
credits in low-income communities or communities with a significant
minority population;
4.  AB 1101 (Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach),
Air Pollution: Diesel Magnet Sources, would have required facilities
such as ports, rail yards, airports and distribution centers to
mitigate emissions over which they have little or no control;
5. 
AB 1360 (position letter) (Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley), Institutional Control Sites, would
have mandated the Dept. of Toxic Substance Control as the controlling
agency for all Brownfield cleanup rather than the lead being assigned
at the discretion of the agencies.  The bill would also have
negated a number of the positive aspects of AB 389 (Cindy Montanez,
D-San Fernando) enacted last year;
6.  SB 369 (Joe Simitian,
D-Palo Alto), Ecological Labeling, would have required products be
certified to meet Green Bear Eco-Label criteria;
7.  AB 289
(Wilma Chan, D-Oakland), Hazardous Chemical Analytical Methods,
required the submission of very costly and potentially proprietary test
methods to the California Environmental Protection Agency;
8. 
AB 701 (Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara), LEED Building Standards, would
have implemented the platinum (the highest) Green Building Council
standard for all new or renovated state buildings;
9.  AB 528
(Dario Frommer, D-Los Angeles), Civil Actions, allowed a party with a
"beneficial interest" to sue without showing harm (bounty hunter
legislation);
10.  AB 319 (Chan), Phthalates and Bisphenol-A, banned these chemicals in children’s products;
11.  SB 985 (Joseph Dunn, D-Santa Ana), Adulterated Candy, would have banned candy with any lead content; and
12. 
AB 1049 (Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood), Food and Beverage Recycling
Labeling, would have required in many cases duplicative eco-labeling
requirements and would have caused confusion in existing programs.

Since
this was a "banner year" for environmental bills, there are still a
myriad of bills that pose a threat to California industry.

At the United Nations World Environment Day ceremonies in San Francisco on Wednesday, June 1st, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets for California.  The Governor called for a reduction of GHG to 2000 levels by 2010 (approximately 11 percent); a reduction to 1990 levels by 2020 (approximately 25 percent); and a reduction to 80 percent less than 1990 levels by 2050.

The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) will coordinate development and implementation of strategies to achieve the GHG reduction targets in conjunction with the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing, the Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Secretary of the Resources Agency, the Chairperson of the Air Resources Board, the Chairperson of the Energy Commission and the President of the Public Utilities Commission.  The Secretary of Cal/EPA must submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature by 2006, and biannually thereafter, on progress made, mitigation and adaptation proposals, and options for a GHG emission cap and trade system to reduce GHG in the most cost effective manner possible.

These goals are not as stringent through 2020 as those proposed by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) in his AB 1365.  He proposed a reduction of at least 7 percent by 2010 over 1990 levels and 10 percent by 2020 over 1990 levels.  Such reductions are not realistic considering the expansion of the California economy since 1990.
 
California has been a leader in adopting policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  The state boasts four times more renewable power than the national average and our industries are subject to the cleanest emission standards in the country.  

For manufacturers in California, meeting any new and aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets will be a challenge.  Current high business operating costs in the state will severely limit the ability of companies to both meet any new emission standards and remain competitive in the state.  California’s high costs include excessive taxes, fees, labor, litigation, and regulatory costs.  More than 350,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since January 2001, many to other states and nations.  The current laws, regulations and policies that are now forcing industry out of California will not help us achieve global emissions reductions.  In fact, moving industry to less regulated locations could result in total global emissions increases.  For this reason, it's important that a national policy be embraced that affects all states equally.

To ensure that manufacturers can absorb the new costs associated with meeting greenhouse gas reductions, it is vital that we lower other costs to keep investment and jobs in the state.  CMTA urges the administration and lawmakers to take steps to ensure that California manufacturers can remain competitive in California.

Per the California Environmental Insider (May 16, 2005), "the decision to abandon any further effort this year to change Cal/EPA was communicated by Cal/EPA Secretary Allan Lloyd in an internal e-mail to other administration members.  Lloyd said that the effort was being abandoned ‘in the current year,’" leaving it open to speculation whether or not the Administration will reorganize Cal/EPA in the future."

During Governor Schwarzenegger’s election campaign, he vowed to "blow up boxes" to reform the operation of state government.  The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was one of the areas selected for change by his California Performance Review (CPR) team. 

The CPR proposed the abolishment of Cal/EPA’s independent boards (like the Air Resources Board and the State Water Resources Control Board) and placing their functions under a new Department of Environmental Protection whose director would report directly to the Governor.  It also contemplated consolidating similar functions currently administered by more than one Cal/EPA Agency including all contaminated property and brownfield clean-ups etc.

The proposals concerning Cal/EPA were attacked from all sides: by business groups who liked some aspects of the current setup and environmental groups who disagreed with elimination of the independent boards.  This lack of broad support apparently influenced the administration to abandon reorganization of Cal/EPA for this year.  Again, the Insider states "Former Cal/EPA Secretary Terry Tamminen, now the Governor’s cabinet secretary, subsequently told the L.A. Times that the administration still hopes to reformulate Cal/EPA at some time in the future."