On March 26, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) gave notice of its selection of several per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for review and possible listing under California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65). OEHHA published two separate notices for public comment: one notice for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts and transformation and degradation precursors, and another notice for perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA), as well as each of their salts. The public comment period for both notices closes on May 10, 2021.

Continue Reading California Selects Several PFAS Substances for Scientific Review and Possible Prop 65 Listing

A California state legislator has introduced a bill that would require large corporations doing business in the state to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). The bill, titled the Climate Corporate Responsibility Act, covers publicly traded domestic and foreign corporations with annual revenues in excess of $1 billion. According to state Senator Scott Weiner, who introduced the bill, it could affect up to 5,000 companies. The bill is not limited to any industry sector and would thus impact not only companies typically associated with GHG emissions, like oil and gas producers or power plants, but also would extend to other sectors, including the tech industry, for example.

Continue Reading Mandatory GHG Corporate Disclosure Bill Introduced in California

On January 8, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed to amend the short-form warning regulations under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65. In August 2018, new Proposition 65 warning regulations became effective that significantly changed the required language and manner in which Proposition 65 warnings should be provided. Most significant was the new requirement to specifically list at least one chemical that a consumer could be exposed to in the warning. These regulations, however, provided an alternative warning option — dubbed the “short-form” warning — which does not require the identification of any chemicals in the warning. While OEHHA originally may have intended the use of the short-form warning only on products where space was limited, the actual terms of the regulation do not prohibit the use on products where space is not an issue.

Continue Reading California Proposes to Significantly Limit the Use of Proposition 65 Short-Form Warning