California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65 (Prop 65), requires businesses in California to provide warnings about certain consumer product, occupational, and/or environmental exposures to substances that the State of California has determined to be known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Amendment regulations pertinent to these warnings effective as of August 2018 focused many companies on the requirements, content, and transmission of such warnings.
The warning requirements are subject to certain risk-based and other exemptions specified by Prop 65. Of some significance, a manufacturer of a product that contains a Prop 65-listed substance is exempt from the warning requirement if it conducts an exposure assessment demonstrating that the exposure the substance causes is below applicable safe harbor levels, which are referred to as “no significant risk levels” (NSRL) for carcinogens and “maximum allowable dose levels” (MADL) for chemicals that may cause reproductive toxicity.
Unless an exemption applies, failure to comply with the warning requirements may subject a business to a civil lawsuit and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day per violation, plus attorneys’ fees.
The webinar will discuss legal, scientific, and practical considerations for companies to evaluate before deciding to conduct and rely upon exposure assessments determinations that Prop 65 warning requirements do not apply. The webinar will consist of 45 minutes of presentation, followed by a 15-minute Q&A period.
Topics Covered:
- Legal background for Prop 65 requirements and the potential need for exposure assessments
- Nuts and bolts for conducting an exposure assessment
- Risks and considerations in conducting and relying upon exposure assessments
Speakers:
Lisa R. Burchi, Of Counsel, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
Jason E. Johnston, M.S., Senior Scientist, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.