California Safer Consumer Products Compliance Costs Will Vary Widely

The state toxic substances authority says “a simple single-chemical alternatives analysis” could cost $2,000 to $3,000, a moderately complex analysis with existing data “would be in the tens of thousands of dollars” and one “of greater complexity requiring extensive testing” could run in the hundreds of thousands.

Alternatives analyses that manufacturers of targeted chemical/product combinations must conduct under California’s Safer Consumer Products regulation could run to “the hundreds of thousands of dollars” in associated costs, according to the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control.

In an attachment to an Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement posted to the agency’s website May 22, DTSC says it cannot estimate the full economic impact of the regulation – currently in draft form – until the first list of chemicals of concern and up to five priority products is published, within 180 days after the regulation takes effect.

The Personal Care Products Council expects the SCP regulation to be adopted in October.

DTSC says it has consulted with alternatives analysis practitioners and stakeholders and received wide-ranging projections for the prospective costs to affected firms, depending on “the scope and complexity of the [analysis] that the responsible party elects to undertake.”

The total cost of alternatives analyses industry will incur under the first list of priority chemical/product combinations could range from $125,000 to $110 million under different scenarios and depending on the complexity of the analyses undertaken.

Based on agency research, “a simple single-chemical alternatives analysis could cost as little as $2,000 to $3,000, a moderately complex alternatives analysis using existing data would be in the tens of thousands of dollars, and an alternatives analysis of greater complexity requiring extensive testing could cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars,” DTSC says.

Firms already carrying out alternatives analyses as part of their own research and development programs likely will face lower expenses, the agency suggests. It also notes costs “would likely be greatly reduced to the extent responsible entities form consortiums to perform all or part of their alternatives analyses,” which could include product testing and analysis of end-of-life product impacts.

Such a system, in which firms team up to share in the burden and expense of investigating alternatives for a targeted chemical, would bear similarities to the model in Europe wherein manufacturers subject to safety-assessment requirements under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals law form Substance Information Exchange Forums to mitigate costs and avoid duplicative or unnecessary testing (Also see "ECHA Provides Cues For Self-Assessing REACH Deadline Preparedness" - HBW Insight, 15 Apr, 2013.).

DTSC describes example scenarios under which the total cost of alternatives analyses incurred by industry ranges from $125,000 for “simple” analyses conducted for two priority products, each having 25 manufacturers, to $110 million for more complex analyses performed in search of viable alternatives for chemicals of concern in four priority products, each with 100 manufacturers.

Costs would vary each time a list of priority chemical/product combinations is issued under the Safer Consumer Products regulation, which despite multiple revisions still has “seriously problematic” elements, according to industry groups. Cosmetics are expected to be among products targeted in early rounds – if not the first round – of chemical/product prioritization (Also see "Pending Calif. Consumer Products Reg Inconsistent, Unfair – Trade Groups" - Pink Sheet, 27 May, 2013.).

California’s DTSC does not estimate costs that would be faced by firms subject to subsequent enforcement measures in the event that reformulation, relabeling and related actions are needed following an alternatives analyses.

Comments on the Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement are being received until June 6.

[Editor’s note: This story was contributed by Elsevier Business Intelligence’s “The Rose Sheet,” your source for personal care product and cosmetics industry news. Call 1-800-332-2181 for a free trial – no credit card required.]