Tris
(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCPP) is a chemical used as a
flame retardant by the furniture industry to meet flammability
standards, including California�s TB 117. TDCPP is found in
the polyurethane foam used in a number of products in addition to
home furnishings, such as children�s products, automotive interiors,
novelty items, and packaging. In October 2011, the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added TDCPP
to the Proposition 65 list of carcinogens and, on October 9, 2012,
published a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) for TDCPP of 5.4
micrograms per day. Since October 2012, citizen enforcers have
issued more than 50 notices of violation to manufacturers and
retailers of products alleged to expose California consumers to
TDCPP. The noticed products have thus far included household
furniture, children�s products, and massage/lumbar support
pillows. It can reasonably be anticipated that the types of
products targeted by enforcers will broaden.
If a product
contains a chemical on the Proposition 65 list, all businesses with
ten or more employees are required to provide a �clear and
reasonable warning� before exposing Californians to that product.[1] The
warning requirement, which applies to manufacturers and retailers
alike, becomes effective one year after the chemical is placed on
the Proposition 65 list. Unless the listing of TDCPP by OEHHA
can be successfully challenged in the courts or a business can
establish an exemption to the warning requirement, all products
containing TDCPP must now carry a Proposition 65 compliant
warning.
Proposition
65 Compliance
In order for a
warning to be Proposition 65 compliant, the following considerations
must be satisfied:
- The Warning
Must Be �Clear.� The
text of the warning must communicate that the chemical is known to
cause cancer, or reproductive harm. The regulation provides
the following safe-harbor �clear� warning language for a
carcinogen:
WARNING: This product contains a chemical
known to the State of California to cause cancer, or birth defects
or other reproductive harm.
- The Warning
Must Be �Reasonable.� The
warning must be conspicuous enough that a consumer would probably
see it before the exposure. If it appears on a label with
other warnings, it must be no smaller than the other
warnings. The other language should not contradict the
warning language. Further, any language included in the
warning, elsewhere on the warning label and/or elsewhere on the
product that somehow softens the warning will likely be determined
to fall outside the safe harbor.
Proposition
65 Exemptions
A business has
�safe harbor� from Proposition 65 warning requirements if exposure
to a chemical occurs at or below the NSRL.[2] The
NSRL is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not
more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed
to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, a
person exposed to the chemical at the �no significant risk level�
for 70 years would not have more than a �one in 100,000� chance of
developing cancer as a result of that exposure.
As a practical
matter, even with the NSRL set by OEHHA for TDCPP, it may be
difficult for a business to establish that the TDCPP in its product
falls within the NSRL. Proposition 65 compliance is based on
how much of a substance the average person is exposed to, not
on how much is in the product. An exposure analysis can be a
complex and costly undertaking.
Proposition
65 Remedies and Enforcement
The primary
remedies available under Proposition 65 are injunctions and civil
and criminal penalties of up to $2500 per violation per day.
Proposition 65 is enforced through litigation brought either by
�public enforcers� (including the California Attorney General and
certain district attorneys) or by �citizen enforcers� (organizations
or private California citizens). Most Proposition 65 actions
are filed by citizen enforcers.
Since 1986,
few Proposition 65 cases have been fully litigated through
trial. The vast majority of the cases have been settled out of
court or resolved through consent judgments. Citizen enforcers
collect millions of dollars in settlements from manufacturers and
retailers every year. Not surprisingly, the number of
Proposition 65 cases filed each year continues to increase. In
2012, there were more than 950 notices of violation served; this
year the number of notices will undoubtedly exceed 1,000.
Orrick lawyers
have been representing clients in Proposition 65 litigation and
other Proposition 65 related matters for over 20 years.
Further information about Orrick�s Proposition 65 practice can be
found on Orrick�s Web site at: http://www.orrick.com.
[2] The determination of an NSRL by OEHHA does not preclude
a business from presenting scientific evidence to establish that a
level of exposure to a listed chemical poses no significant
risk. |