California's Proposition 65 - Solvent and Stainless Steel Alloy questions

[Kimmy]

Can anyone help me with the following:

1. If we apply a paint to our parts which contains prop 65 solvents, do I have to label the parts even if the paint is cured and the solvents evaporated before shipping to the customer?

2. If we have parts made from stainless steel, do we have to label for the nickel that is an alloy in stainless steels?

Thanks,

Kim

 

[RRRubber]

Hi Kim, I have the same question, maybe you can help me. Did you get an answer to your question?

 

[Ninja]

Hi Kimmy,

Your best answers will come from the regulatory bodies (CA and OSHA, I assume).

In my experience, folks tend to lean toward the CYA side of things and label them whether or not it is technically required.
HTH

 

[supadrai]

Our customers want us to declare if any prop 65 chemical was used in production, whether or not it persists, even in trace amounts below the limits.

 

[Kimmy]

I am not sure why they need to know if you used anything in the manufacturing process since the warnings state that "it contains", not "was used" ? We have even been getting plain old steel tagged with California 65 warning labels even though it has no coatings and the certs do not list any 65 substances. I assume they are covering their butts. I tried to get clarification from California but they keep referring me to the web site which does not address my specific questions.

 

[Ninja]

I assume they are covering their butts.

Yes, totally. Guilty until proven innocent.
Can you PROVE that no material exists in there? If not, label it.
Shop through a mall in southern CA...every store (clothes, coffee, toys, calendars, Ficus plants, whatever)....look on the front window, the store will have the label...

I tried to get clarification from California

...LOL...good luck with that!... put on the label and move on, it isn't worth your angst...

My two cents...

 

[Ell]

Yeah, it's a money-maker, for sure. You don't even have to have/prove damages in order to sue - and collect. Millions have been awarded and the state takes a healthy chunk. Slap a label on it.

 

[Candi1024]

Prop 65 is a little confusing on nickel. I have this from a Notice to Interested Parties, dated May 7, 2004:

“For the purposes of clarification, OEHHA (California Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) notes that nickel alloys are distinct from nickel compounds, and are not included in the Proposition 65 listing of nickel compounds.” So nickel alloys are okay.

But still, I may "slap a label on it" That would make a great emoji. lol

 

[Ell]

Candi, I use the Safety Data Sheet as my guide. Section 15 gives the Regulatory info, including Prop 65.
I figure, if the mill states it, I should, too. On the North American Stainless SDS I just checked, they list nickel, chromium, cobalt, cadmium and
lead, all as "chemicals known in the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm."
Problem is, the burden of proof falls on the shipper, not the guy who files the lawsuit.

 

[Ell]

New regulations became effective in August of this year... I wouldn't rely on info from 2004. Check this out:
www .huntonak. com/images/content/2/9/v5/29707/Prop65_brochure.pdf
(take out the spaces...)