Document jNg5p4qomwGjRjBxgNY41EJNQ

TO: Distribution Interoffice Communication JRCM: DATE: SOBJ: T. G. Grumbles September 1, 1988 FETAL HOTBCT10N POLICY GUIDELINES _F: VIS1A A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 7, 2:00-3:00 to accomplish the agenda items below. The meeting will be in Conference Room 2A,. 1. Review conference call notes and assignments 2. Review progress to date on assignments (if any) 3. Discuss individual assignments - scope, content, etc. 4. Set realistic time line 5. Review action items W cr-- T. G. Grumbles dlj Distribution: D. Eckard, E. Faulk, Dr. Drumwright 5 min 5 min 30 min 10 min 5 min VVV 000008430 TO: Distribution Tf\ '%Z XF: r* -'rn .-* Interoffice Communication lECM: DKEE: SUBJ: T. G. Grumbles September 1, 1988 roOPCSmCN 65 CHEMtCAL UST ADDITIONS Attached is an article regarding possible additions to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals. Based on my review, it appears the chemicals proposed would not have the potential to appear in current commercial products. However, please review the list in regards to your plants' products and let me know if I've missed something. A OVv- T. G. Grumbles dlj Attachment Distribution: D. D. Zimmer, K. B. Youngblood-IGCP P. Fetzer-LCVCM D. Whitehead-LdAB K. Resh- Baltimore G. La3d.cL-Hammond J. E. Yates-Ponca City VVV 000008431 Volume 34, No. 8 - August 22, 1988 MORE CANDIDATE CHEMICALS PROPOSED FOR PROP.65 LIST The Scientific Advisory Panel of the California Health and Welfare Agency is reviewing another group of 40 chemicals for potential listing under the state's Proposition 65 as ingredients thought to cause either cancer or reproductive toxicity. Companies can comment before Sept. 16, when the 12-member panel will meet to consider which of the ingredients to recommend as additions to the list. Recommendation by the SAP is tantamount to approval by the governor. Among the chemicals proposed for listing is crystalline silica, an ingredient used as an abrasive in cleaners. Also proposed are chemicals identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as having sufficient evidence of carcinogenicty in humans (Group 1), or limited evidence in humans with sufficient evidence in animals (Group 2A); and ingredients listed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). Proposed ingredients are: As reproductive toxicants All-trans-retinoic acid Anticancer alkylating agents including Bus ul fan Chlorambucil Cyclophosphamide Cytarabine Anticancer antimetabolites including Fluorouracil Methotrexate Carbon disulfide Dime thylacetamide Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether He xachlorobenzene Iodine-131 Kepone (chlordecone) Mechlorethamine Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) IARC - Group 1 1-(2-chloroethyl) -3- (4-methylcyclohexyl) -1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU) Erionite IARC - Group 2A Androgenic (anabolic) Benzidine-based dyes Cisplatin steroids VVV 000008432 (continued on reverse side) IARC - Group 2A, continued Creosotes Diethyl sulphate N-Ethyl-N-nitrosourea 5-Methoxypsoralen N-Methyl-N-nitrosourea Phenacetin Propylene oxide Silica, crystalline Styrene oxide Vinyl bromide OTP list 3-Amino-9-ethylcarbazole hydrochloride C. I. Basic Red 9 Monohydrochloride Chlorinated paraffins: C12, 60% chlorine 3-Chlo ro- 2-methylpropene Diglycidyl resorcinol ether (DGRE) D imethy1viny1chloride Ethyl acrylate 4,4' -Oxydianiline 1,2 -Propylene oxide Companies interested in submitting comments to the SAP should write to the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, 1600 Ninth Street, Room 460, Sacramento, CA 95814. For more information, contact George Misko, CSMA regulatory counsel. VVV 000008433 800 PHONE LINE IS TARGETED UNDER PROP.65 Four environmental groups have filed notice with the California Attorney General alleging that a number of non-cigarette tcbacco manufacturers and retailers of those products are in violation of the warning requirements of Proposition 65. If the Attorney General and city and district attorneys do not move against the manufacturers and retailers by Oct. 1, the environmental groups are expected to file suit. If successful, they will be entitled to 25% of civil fines assessed against the companies. The notiae filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club and Campaign California charged that neither containers of pipe tcbacco, cigars and other non-cigarette tobacco products nor store shelves where the products are sold carry warnings that the products might cause cancer or birth defects. Several tobacco manufacturers say they have not violated Prop. 65 because they provided retail merchants with point-of-sale placards with appropriate warning. The retailers, however, have not displayed the product-specific placards because they did not want a "war of signs" and relied instead on the toll free phone line. The groups, in a "direct challenge to the 800 number," called the toll free line promoted on store window signs as a source for information on toxic substances "generalized and misleading."