Here's an update on the situation with the California Green Chemistry Initiative's Safer Consumer Product Alternatives regulation development process.
At last week's Green Ribbon Science Panel meeting, the new director, Debbie Raphael, former co-chair of the Green Ribbon Science Panel, provided a near-term timeline and stated that her intention is to put a regulation in place that is, in her words, "practical, meaningful, and legally defensible."
This means:
Practical:
For both DTSC (California EPA’s Department of Toxic Substance Control) and industry. DTSC will not be able to add resources; the law (AB 1879) does not give it authority to charge for anything. The regulation must be implementable and understandable for industry.
Meaningful:
If this becomes only a paper-shuffling exercise, we're wasting our time. It must be meaningful to DTSC and the general public. I further take this to mean it must have net positive public health and environmental effects.
Legally defensible:
If DTSC gets sued, it needs to be confident that it will win.
Raphael feels that, since the process is already "outside the law" -- that is, the regulation was supposed to be in place by January 1, 2011, but the Schwarzenegger administration apparently gave DTSC the OK to miss the deadline -- we're no worse off now by trying to do it right, instead of simply trying to do it expediently. The current Brown administration, and also the various stakeholder groups it seems, is much more interested in supporting a good implementation rather than a fast one.
Raphael is reaching out to industry and other stakeholders over the next few months. Industry is interacting -- for better or worse -- with DTSC on this regulatory development project primarily through a single lobbying entity called the Green Chemistry Alliance, though some manufacturers and industry associations are participating outside GCA. The defined timeline is as follows:
Mid-October:
Release of an informal regulation for public review. This is not a "draft" or a "preliminary" regulation. This will precede the formal regulatory process and be for review and discussion.
November 14-15:
The GRSP will be convened in Sacramento to discuss the informal regulation document.
Between now and mid-October:
DTSC will hold stakeholder meetings to discuss non-scientific issues.
The way DTSC is approaching this finally feels "right" to me; it is addressing the really big and thorny technical issues head on, asking the right questions, and enabling good scientific and engineering debate at the GRSP meetings. This is a very difficult regulation to write, since it breaks new ground and is hampered by a poorly-written law (AB 1879), but Ms. Raphael's background, capabilities, and temperament lead me to believe that we will have a positive outcome.
Flyingscot, yes Europe has RoHS and REACH and a raft of other environmental regulations. However, none do what this does and the EC and ECHA are watching what goes on in California closely. REACH comes closest, but it does not require that an alternatives assessment (AA) be done when a manufacturer can't use a specific chemical anymore in their product, and that's - to me - the biggest difference here (aside from the fact that this is a product-focused regulation and REACH is chemical-focused). In the authorization process manufacturers can, in fact, perform an AA to help justify why they want their chemical authorized but that's the only place it shows up.
This regulation can be looked at, perhaps, as the next step for REACH.
Hospice, good observation. This is a very complex issue that government - and industry - has not tackled before. Implementation will take time for two reasons: 1) DTSC doesn't get funded by AB1879 for this so I think it necessarily needs to start off with a pretty narrow approach. 2) Manufacturers are going to have to become familiar with this process; data gathering, interpretation, decision-making, and ultimately writing up the report will take significant time.
Anyone looking for "quick wins" with this process are going to be out of luck. This is intended to solve a big, structural problem rather than a point issue so will take quite a while to become fully implemented.
Eurpope already has a lot of good (and some not so good) legislation in this area. I hope the CA initiative rolls some of the best practices from Europe into their own legislation. I also hope that other states then follow suit but this is likely to need a good deal of Federal intervention which sometimes is not that easy to get. I applaud those who take on this difficult challenge for the greater good.
It is great to see these regulations moving forward, even if they are a little behind the original deadline. I'm curious how many other states will follow suit. It seem like California has always been the gateway to regulations and laws being adopted, though some states shun the ideas just because California passed them. It would be nice to see this done on a much larger scale, like Federal and eventually internationally. Unless there is cooperation across the board, there will always be ways to circumvent the system.
I wish Rapheal could help move the initiative forward and meet a reasonable deadline. But the success of the initiative will depend on how each stakeholder gets involved and willing to cooperate. Manufacturers might also need ample time to complete alternative assessments of the chemicals of concern and this may delay all the process.
I agree that an international regulation initiative might be profitable for everyone. But based on the outcomes of recent world environmental summits, we can say that governments worldwide are not ready to adopt a common regulation policy. California is setting a precedent that other states or provinces will emulate.
Thanks for bringing this effort to our attention. I applaud the efforts the state is making to get this regulation moving in spite of the lack of resources available to implement it. I always roll my eyes when I see something on its way to law with provisions not to add any resources, nor guidlines on practical implementation.
Implementing regulations and laws at the State level definitely takes much longer. At least at the federal level, the battle is fought once. At the state levels, well, its 50 fold. I do find that when the state decides to implement something new, its edict is not clear and usually requires quick turn around from the particular organization. I am glad to see California forgoing the deadline to make sure that it is done right. After all, isn't that the ultimate goal?
With ever-expanding demands for better environmental and social performance in many sectors of the industry, electronics manufacturers should take a more active approach to compliance and rule setting.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This