March 19, 2021

Senator Christine Cohen and Representative Joseph P. Gresko Chairs, Environment Committee Legislative Office Building, Room 3200 Hartford, CT 06106 In-person and Via Email to [email protected]

Re: CTA Comments on S.B. No. 926 – An Act Concerning the Presence of PFAS in Certain Consumer Packaging

Dear Senator Cohen, Representative Gresko and Members of the Environment Committee:

The Consumer Technology Association™ (CTA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Environment Committee regarding Senate Bill No. 926 (S.B. No. 926). While CTA supports sensible regulation of toxic chemicals, we respectfully oppose the broad approach proposed in S.B. No. 926. This legislation does not incorporate a risk-based methodology to chemical regulation and is instead a ban of a large and diverse class of chemicals.

As North America’s largest technology trade association, CTA® is the tech sector. Our members are the world’s leading innovators – from startups to global brands – helping support more than 18 million American jobs. CTA’s members have long been recognized for their commitment and leadership in innovation and sustainability, often taking measures to exceed regulatory requirements on environmental design, energy efficiency, and recycling. CTA’s members implement robust chemical management programs designed to track and, where needed, restrict chemicals within the supply chain.

Risk-Based Approach. It is CTA’s position that regulation of any chemical should be founded on a risk-based approach. Restrictions of chemicals should be enforced where there is an identified risk of exposure to the chemical associated with the specific use of that chemical as supported by scientific evidence (e.g., risk evaluations, exposure assessments, etc.). Risk is a function of both hazard and exposure. S.B. No. 926 fails to recognize the exposure component of risk and focuses solely on hazard. The result is a bill that proposes to exclude chemicals without a thorough assessment of the hazard and exposure specific to the intended use of the chemical in specific packaging applications.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other Federal agencies have implemented, robust regulatory systems for managing chemicals. These agencies have the resources and CTA Comments on S.B. No. 926 - OPPOSE March 19, 2021 personnel needed to effectively and appropriately regulate chemicals including undertaking risk management processes to reduce or eliminate risks associated with chemicals after completion of a risk evaluation assessing both hazard and exposure. Regulation of chemicals should be undertaken by those agencies with the appropriate science-based systems for evaluating and managing chemicals.

Regulating PFAS as a Class. PFAS is a large, diverse group of over 1,000 chemical compounds, and their properties vary widely. PFAS should not be considered as a single group or class given it is possible to scientifically define distinct categories of PFAS based on shared properties. A class approach to regulation is neither scientifically accurate nor appropriate.

The restriction date of October 1, 2023 is not sufficient to confirm the use/non-use of over 1,000 PFAS chemicals within the supply chain and then redesign packaging accordingly to ensure the entire class of chemicals is not present at any level. To even facilitate that process, CTA’s members would need specifically identified chemicals via CAS Registry Numbers (CASRNs). From there, members need to determine if alternatives exist to meet safety and performance capabilities.

For comparison, a chemical phase out in the European Union under the Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment 2 (RoHS 2)1 is typically effective four years from the date of notice. The less than two-year timeline proposed here is unrealistic for industry and does not provide a reasonable period of time to transition to alternatives especially for an entire class of over 1,000 chemicals.

Conclusion: For the reasons outlined above, CTA respectfully requests that you oppose S.B. No. 926 and take into consideration these concerns regarding any future regulation around chemicals within packaging.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or requests for additional information.

Sincerely,

Katie Reilly Director, Environmental and Sustainability Policy E: [email protected] M: 703-625-0054 cc: Senator , Vice Chair Representative Christine Palm, Vice Chair

1 Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment

CTA Comments on S.B. No. 926 - OPPOSE March 19, 2021

Senator , Ranking Member Representative Stephen G.Harding, Ranking Member Representative Aimee Berger-Girvalo Representative Whit Betts Representative Patrick E. Callahan Representative Brandon Chafee Representative Mike Demicco Representative Patricia A. Dillon Representative Doug Dubitsky Representative Craig C. Fishbein Representative Kenneth M Gucker Representative Cindy Harrison Senator Representative John "Jack" F.Hennessy Representative Maria P.Horn Senator Alex Kasser Senator Representative David Michel Representative Mary M. Mushinsky Representative Tom O Dea Representative John-Michael Parker Representative John E. Piscopo Representative Rosa C. Rebimbas Representative Geraldo C. Reyes Representative Kevin Ryan Representative Frank Smith Representative David T. Wilson Representative Philip L. Young