Blog home >

SACRAMENTO, California, September 30, 2008 (ENS) – California will reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in consumer products and the environment under legislation signed Monday in Los Angeles by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The two bills enable the state to take more responsibility by 2011 for identifying and regulating dangerous chemicals and for analyzing safer alternatives.

Governor Schwarzenegger said the legislation “will spur a new era of research and innovation and promises to drive economic growth and competition in the green chemistry sector.”

“This bi-partisan package of environmental legislation propels California to the forefront of the nation and the world with the most comprehensive green chemistry program ever established,” the governor said.

“It also puts an end to the less effective ‘chemical-by-chemical’ bans of the past,” he said. “With these two bills, we will stop looking at toxics as an inevitable byproduct of industrial production. Instead they will be something that can be removed from every product in the design stage – protecting people’s health and our environment.”

The legislation is a response to growing concerns raised by scientists and public health advocates about unsafe and untested chemicals in consumer products.

While many consumer products include harmful substances, from lead-tainted toys to linens with toxic flame retardants, there is currently no state agency that has broad-based authority to take these products off the shelves or spur the development of safer alternatives.

The governor signed AB 1879 by Assemblymember Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat, and SB 509 by Senator Joe Simitian, a Palo Alto Democrat. Each legislator also co-authored the other’s companion measure, and they both worked with Republican lawmakers to craft the bills.


From left: Assemblymember Mike Feuer,
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and
Senator Joe Simitian at the bill signing
news conference. September 29, 2008
(Photo courtesy Office of the Governor)

Assemblymember Feuer said, “Instead of putting partisan politics first, we’re putting peoples’ health first.”

AB 1879 establishes authority for the state Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop regulations that create a process for identifying and prioritizing chemicals of concern and to create methods for analyzing alternatives. It allows DTSC to impose “restrictions or bans” on chemicals of concern.

The bill establishes a Green Ribbon Science Panel made up of experts to provide advice on scientific matters, chemical policy recommendations and implementation strategies, and to ensure implementation efforts are based on science.

It expands the role of the Environmental Policy Council, made up of the heads of all California Environmental Protection Agency boards and departments, to oversee implementation of the green chemistry program.

SB 509 creates an online Toxics Information Clearinghouse, a database to increase consumer knowledge about the toxicity and hazards of thousands of chemicals used in California every day.

“Californians currently have little if any access to information about the many thousands of chemicals that are commonly used in their products, released into the environment, or present at their workplaces,” said Senator Simitian. “The governor’s signature on SB 509 represents a significant breakthrough in the ultimate goal of protecting people from exposure to harmful products.”

Simitian chairs the Senate Environmental Quality Committee which held hearings in 2006 to discuss the findings of a report by the University of California’s California Policy Research Center entitled “Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation.” The report revealed that on any given day, the United States produces or imports 42 billon pounds of chemicals that may cause problems for human health and the environment.


The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission
recalled this toy boat today for
excessively high levels of lead.
(Photo courtesy CPSC)

The Chemical Industry Council of California is supportive of the new legislation, endorsing the comments of attorneys Todd Maiden and Eric McLaughlin of the council’s affiliate member, the law firm of ReedSmith.

“The most prominent features of California’s green chemistry law are its foundation on science and real-life assessment of chemical usage and exposure risk,” write Maiden and McLaughlin.

“Like all new regulations, those promulgated under the Green Chemistry law will impose operational changes and up-front compliance costs on the regulated community. However, change also presents new opportunity,” they write. “Compliance with California’s green chemistry law will likely reduce the costs of proper hazardous waste management and disposal, and satisfaction of workplace safety and health requirements. New opportunities to market products and processes as eco-friendly will also arise.”

Sierra Club California Director Bill Magavern helped to shape the legislation and he was present at the signing ceremony. He asserted Sierra Club’s position that, “Californians should be able to buy products for our households without having to worry that we’re bringing home hazardous substances that could harm our families.”

“We worked hard all year long with Mr. Feuer and our allies at Breast Cancer Fund, California League of Conservation Voters and Environment California to craft this landmark legislation,” Magavern said.

“These legislative measures are the beginning of a much-needed overhaul of the state’s broken chemicals management system,” said Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., president of the Breast Cancer Fund. “With the signing of these bills, our state is taking a historic step toward reducing Californians’ exposure to toxic chemicals.”

Advocates say they are committed to working with the governor over the coming months to implement the legislation. But they also urge the Schwarzenegger to release his Green Chemistry Initiative recommendations, which are expected to include a more comprehensive plan for chemical policy reform and the search for safer, less toxic chemicals.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.



RICHMOND, California, September 8, 2008 (ENS) – Environmental justice groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the Richmond City Council’s approval of Chevron’s refinery expansion project. At issue is an environmental review that the groups claim concealed the fact that the expanded refinery would process heavier, dirtier oil, resulting in higher levels of air pollution and increased risks of accidents and oil spills.

“The City Council failed its legal and moral obligation to protect our health,” said Richmond resident Torm Nompraseurt of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, one of the plaintiff groups. “Those dangerous chemicals are going to endanger me, my family, and my neighbors but the city didn’t even look at what Chevron is really going to be doing.”

Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income and communities of color, are overburdened with health problems related to exposure to industrial pollution, including high rates of asthma and cancer. The Chevron refinery, located on San Francisco Bay, is the largest industrial polluter in the area.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Contra Costa County Superior Court on behalf of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Communities for a Better Environment, and the West County Toxics Coalition.


Chevron refinery at Richmond, California
(Photo courtesy Chevron)

The Richmond Refinery is one of the largest and oldest refineries on the West Coast. It covers 2,900 acres, has 5,000 miles of pipelines, and hundreds of large tanks that can hold up to 15 million barrels of crude oil, gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, lube oil, wax, and other chemicals produced by the refinery.

The expansion would allow heavier and dirtier crude oil to be processed at the refinery, which would increase releases of mercury, selenium, toxic sulfur compounds, and greenhouse gases, the groups point out.

“Chevron’s project would lock in a fundamental switch to dirtier oil refining that increases toxic and climate-poisoning pollution drastically when avoiding these impacts is feasible,” said Greg Karras, a senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment. “The city violated the community’s right to know about and act on this information.”

Hundreds of residents jammed the City Council hearings in July demanding the City Council limit the refinery from processing dirtier crude oils and re-do the environmental impact report to consider what Chevron actually plans to build.

Instead, the groups complain, Chevron made a multi-million dollar offer of funding for local projects in exchange for the city’s approval of the refinery expansion with weakened environmental protections and less public review of future refinery projects. Chevron valued its offer at about $61 million.

City and Chevron officials negotiated a proposed contract to execute the deal without public input, and presented it at the City Council’s hearing on the project without the public notice required by state open government laws, the groups claim in their lawsuit.

“Chevron must stop its toxic assault on poor people of color in Richmond,” said Henry Clark, executive director of the West County Toxics Coalition. “The City Council is selling out our community, but our health is not for sale. We will fight this until we achieve environmental justice.”

“The California Environmental Quality Act requires government agencies to look before they leap by analyzing and mitigating all significant environmental impacts” said Will Rostov, an attorney for Earthjustice, who represents the environmental justice groups in court. “The city’s environmental review fails in its most basic purpose.”

A poll conducted by David Binder Research indicated that 73 percent of Richmond voters opposed the approval of the Chevron expansion until the environmental and health impacts of refining heavier crude oil were fully reviewed in a revised Environmental Impact Statement.

In addition, 75 percent of voters polled said it was very important or extremely important that any projects or funding between Chevron and the City Council be determined in an open public process.

A 56 percent majority of respondents have heard “nothing at all” about the negotiation between the City Council and Chevron to provide funding for local projects, while the City Council was voting on the refinery expansion project.

David Binder Research surveyed 400 likely voters in the city of Richmond between July 8 and 10, 2008, with a margin of error of ±4.9 percent.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.