Stainless Steel and CA Prop. 65 6

[metalman8357]

Back in the 80's when prop. 65 passed in CA, my company did not want to take any risks and we placed a cancer warning label on all of our products. Now, we've run out of space on the packaging for our stainless steel/carbon steel products and they've asked the materials engineers to assess these products for adherence to Prop 65. Both Nickel and Hexavalent chromium are present on the list of unsafe chemicals. The law states that "you should determine whether the manufacture or use of the product is likely to expose individuals to listed chemicals." Personally I think it's ridiculous that we need to put this label on each box of bolts that we manufacture. Does anyone have any experience with this, the internet has not been too helpful. It's my understanding that in normal every day handling of a stainless steel bolt, a person should not come into contact with nickel or hexavalent chromium. The chromium (III) oxide layer should protect leaching of these chemicals. I would also have to look at whether these chemicals could be leached into the water supply...

Any thoughts?

 

[SnTMan]

Yeah, but none that are helpful to you

Regards,

Mike

 

[metalman8357]

Agreed...

 

[CoryPad]

I recommend reviewing the Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (GADSL):

http://www.gadsl.org/

and General Motors standard GMW3059 Restricted and Reportable Substances for Parts:

http://www.allisontransmission.com/servlet/DownloadOnDemand?ApplicationID=213&DownloadID=75

Nickel is classified as Declarable when present above 0.1 %. Hexavalent chromium has a more complex set of limits, but you likely do not have a leachable form on the surface of stainless steel so you probably can drop that from the lable. Review the test methods identified in these documents - you may need to conduct the testing once on your products to confirm compliance.

 

[MikeVise]

I understand and can relate to your concern and frustration. We have had to deal with Prop65 on what seems to be an endless number of issues, so perhaps I can provide some in sight. Prop 65 is managed by Calif OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) and on their web site, they have tried to clarify the listing of nickel. Nickel alloys are not the same as listed nickel compounds, and the state attorney general has indicated that dentists do not need to provided warnings for the stainless steel used in braces and other dental work. The state has also indicated that surgical stainless with up to 16% nickel can be used in implants and body jewelry. It would seem that no warning would be required for simple stainless bolts, the exposure to nickel (related to the amount of direct contact with the product) from a SS bolt must be much, much lower than for contact from SS used in implanted or dental materials. SS is clearly an alloy, so that nickel is not included in the nickel compounds listed on Prop 65. I am not aware of stainless steel as the subject of any other significant litigation or issues, certainly if it were, it would be a BIG issue, there is stainless EVERYWHERE, and it would represent a major headache and big headlines.

Regardless, I doubt stainless steel bolts would be high on anyone's list of targeted products. Proposition 65 is enforced by "bounty hunters", for example any Calif. citizen can bring a lawsuit if they can demonstrate exposure to a listed chemical from a consumer product. So there is no guarantee under any circumstance that you will not be sued, anyone can sue, but by doing some level of analysis, you can much more easily fend off a potential lawsuit.

For more certainty, one could conduct an exposure evaluation, if the exposure is below the NSRL or 1x10^-5 risk, then no warning is required. An exposure evaluation is somewhat costly (a few thousand $ up to perhaps $10K), but it would likely apply to all products handled similarly to a bolt, so most all nuts, washers, hangers, etc. would be covered by the same analysis.

Hope that helps.

 

[stanweld]

I suppose you can only have wooden nickels in CA.

 

[MikeVise]

Nearly blew coffee everywhere. (It was fresh and hot, too.) Perfect comment. You mind if I pass that around as example of just how ridiculous the law is??

 

[stanweld]

MikeVise,
Feel free.

 

[TomDOT]

"You have chosen to recognize stanweld for a helpful or expert post! Thanks for letting stanweld know their post was helpful."

 

[dbooker630]

The company where I work has prohibited components with cadmium or hex chrome platings from being used in the products we sell. Nickel is a different story as obviously it cannot be removed from applicable stainless steels. Raw material cost for nickel has been as much a driver of reduction as environmental implications. Nickel must be reported on the federal Toxic Release Inventory, a public record. I can still google my name as contact from reports submitted 25 years ago!