I. REGULATORY “TRIGGER”: When is the Requirement to Do an Alternatives Analysis Triggered?
A. Chemical of Concern in a Product
California is required to develop a process to identify and prioritize “chemicals of concern” in consumer products in California.
1. What factor(s) should be considered to identify a product sold in California containing a chemical of concern?
2. Should the process allow for chemicals to be “nominated” by external parties for consideration?
3. Which “endpoints” (toxicity, risk, hazard, other) or other attributes should trigger designation as a chemical of concern?
4. What relationship should exist (if any) between this process and the Toxics Information Clearinghouse?
5. How should data gaps (absence of endpoint or other information) influence state action? What should the state do where uncertainty exists? How should “quality” of data affect this determination?
6. Who should make the determination regarding a product containing a chemical of concern?
7. How frequently should products with a chemical of concern be reviewed, updated, or changed?
8. Can a chemical identified as a chemical of concern later be “de-selected” based on new or additional information or by filling data gaps?
9. How should this process link to the evaluation of safer alternatives? (See II below.)
A. Factors for Prioritization
California is required to consider three explicit factors in prioritizing products containing chemicals of concern; they are: (i) the volume of a chemical in commerce in the state, (ii) the potential for exposure from use of a consumer product, and (iii) potential effects on sensitive subpopulations (including infants and children).
1. How should the state consider these factors?
2. How should these be weighed or balanced?
3. What are sources of this type of information? How could this information be obtained?
4. What additional factors (if any) should be considered?
5. Should the state consider information—or the absence of information—about:
a. Emission, effluent, discharge, release, and waste stream data?
b. Biomonitoring data?
c. Environmental monitoring data (water quality, air quality)
d. Disease registry data?
e. Other information?
B. Available Information for Others
California is required to reference and use—to the maximum extent feasible—available information from other nations, governments, and authoritative bodies.
1. Are there other models for identifying and prioritizing chemicals in consumer products that California could consider?
2. What are the limitations of these other models?
3. Are there tools beyond the traditional toxicological risk management paradigm?
5. Do these other models prompt the use of safer alternatives?
6. Are there other approaches for assessing potential danger, weighing uncertainty, or determining priority or action regarding chemicals in consumer products used in other fields (such as workplace safety, medicine, food safety, finance, other) that California could consider?
7. Where other institutions have acted (for instance, to allow, limit, restrict, or ban a chemical or chemicals in products)?