Legislature(2011 - 2012)
03/14/2011 03:19 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB63 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 63-FLAME RETARDANTS AND TOXIC CHEMICALS
3:19:56 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 63, "An Act relating to flame retardants and to
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of products containing
flame retardants; relating to bioaccumulative toxic chemicals;
and providing for an effective date."
3:20:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 63, labeled, 27-LS0324\M, Bannister,
2/9/11, as the working document.
CHAIR OLSON objected for purpose of discussion.
3:20:38 PM
MIKE COUMBE, Staff, Representative Lindsey Holmes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative
Lindsey Holmes, presented HB 63. He explained that this bill
would ban the use of three toxic chemicals found in mattresses,
mattress pads, upholstered furniture, and the plastic covers on
electronics. This bill would reduce people's exposure to
dangerous chemicals in our homes and help limit the residues
from persisting in cold climates such as Alaska. The chemicals,
known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are added to
foam and plastic casings to reduce flammability. These
chemicals are easily released from these products as microscopic
dust, which can be ingested, inhaled and absorbed. They remain
in the environment for extended periods of time and build up in
fatty tissues, concentrating as the chemicals move up the food
chain. Children are most at risk since chemicals are
transferred from mother to child during pregnancy and nursing.
Exposure to PBDEs can have permanent effects on children. The
PBDEs are associated with thyroid disruption, neural
developmental impairment, and other adverse effects in children
leading to potential brain malfunctions and possible mental
retardation. Despite the fact that the use of these chemicals
is to reduce fires, firefighters are also at high risk as the
PBDEs release dense fumes and black smoke that reduces
visibility and a highly corrosive gas known as hydrogen bromide.
MR. COUMBE related that the federal government has not been able
to prohibit PBDEs since the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act
has proven inadequate in protecting the public and the Congress
has failed to reform the law. Bans of PBDEs have been passed in
12 states including, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, and Maine
have prohibited. Fire safety would not be compromised with this
ban since safer alternatives exist and are in widespread use
today. Companies such as Dell, Hewlett Packard, IKEA, and
Apple, Inc. use safer alternatives and a Washington state study
finds products not containing PBDEs are readily available.
Additionally, the European Union, Wal-Mart and Sam's Club have
also banned the products. This bill does not target retailers,
but manufacturers must inform retailers of the prohibition.
3:25:44 PM
MR. COUMBE provided a section-by-section analysis of HB 63. He
pointed out that Section 1 of the bill would prohibit the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of products that contain
more than one tenth of a percent of pentaBDE, octaBDE, or any
combination of the two. It would also prohibit use of decaBDE
in textile components of mattress pads, mattresses, upholstered
furniture or plastic housing of electronic products. It would
allow the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to
prohibit other flame retardant products if they are found
harmful to the public health or environment and an alternative
exists that is available nationwide so long as the fire marshal
determines the alternative satisfies fire safety standards.
This section provides exemptions for products in transportation
vehicles, industrial, products in industrial, mining, and
manufacturing. Additionally, it exempts products contained in
electronic wiring or power transmission cables, and products
sold prior to the effective date.
3:26:40 PM
MR. COUMBE related that the department must assist retailers in
identifying products that violate the law. It allows the
department to request that the manufacturers of a product it
suspects of being sold in violation to request the manufacturers
to certify the product as legal or notify retailers about the
existence of products containing banned PBDEs. It would
establish penalties of $1,000 per violation. It also requires
the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of
Health and Social Services to review flame retardants and their
possible alternatives.
3:27:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:27 to 3:32 p.m.
3:32:51 PM
MR. COUMBE related that proposed Section 1 also allows the state
to work with a regional multi-state clearinghouse to help the
department carry out its duties with respect to PBDEs and to
help coordinate educational and outreach activities related to
PBDEs.
3:33:23 PM
MR. COUMBE stated that proposed Sections 2 and 3 would authorize
the department to begin adopting regulations and develop a list
by February 1, 2014 of persistent bioaccumulative toxic
chemicals used in products.
3:33:36 PM
MR. COUMBE explained that proposed Sections 4 and 6 would
establish effective date for the bill. He referred to the
proposed fiscal note which identifies three new employees: a
toxicologist to track chemicals, a research analyst, and a
publications specialist to manage the outreach process.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES commented that although the proposed
committee substitute should not affect the FN, she is
considering some additional changes to the bill. In response to
Representative Chenault, she indicted the fiscal note would
likely be reduced.
CHAIR OLSON lifted his objection. Version M was before the
committee.
3:37:22 PM
LAUREN HEINE, Environmental Chemist, Co-Chair, Wal-Mart
Sustainable Value Network for Chemical Intensive Products,
stated she also serves on the California Green Ribbon Science
panel. She stated that alternatives to PBDEs are chemicals that
work which means that they have the same fire retardant
properties to the PBDEs which are currently being considered for
ban. She reiterated that a viable alternative does not mean
fire safety should be waived but means the substitute provides
the same performance and cost without the negative health
effect. These chemicals have been banned by a number of states
and the U.S. manufacturers of PBDEs have agreed to stop making
them. As of 2004, pentaBDE and octaBDE are no longer
manufacturers in the state. In response to Chair Olson she
agreed they are still imported.
3:39:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the terms.
MS. HEINE explained that three main types of PBDEs, which are a
family of chemicals with a common structure of a brominated
diphenyl ether molecule which may have anywhere from one to ten
bromine atoms attached, are pentaBDE, octaBDE, and decaBDE,
which contain five, eight, and 10 bromine atoms, respectively.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on toxicity.
MS. HEINE related that pentaBDE and octaBDE are considered more
persistent, whereas decaBDE breaks down from sunlight into
nonaBDE and octaBDE. She works in the area of green chemistry,
which embraces the idea that risk is the function of hazard and
exposure. Typically, exposure is controlled but exposure
control is expensive since it requires protective equipment, and
hazardous waste disposal plus exposure control can fail. Green
chemists propose that a better strategy is to use less hazardous
chemicals initially. Thus, green chemists focus on the hazard
side of the equation instead of focusing on controlling the
exposure side.
3:41:09 PM
MS. HEINE reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Administration's (EPA) Design for the Environment has had a
number of partnership programs that use the best science and are
highly inclusive of industry and evaluated 12 alternatives to
pentaBDE, which is used in foam. The EPA is currently
evaluating approximately 27 alternatives to decaBDE. She
referred members to a list. She explained that the only way the
chemical can be considered is when it is found to be
economically and performance feasible. She pointed out that
these chemicals have been brought forward by the chemical
manufacturers.
3:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked for clarification on economic
equivalent. He asked for clarification on the latitude used for
chemical cost comparisons. He agreed that everyone wants to be
green but recycled paper costs more than regular paper. He
understood the safety concerns but he also expressed his concern
for the additional cost of the green chemicals.
MS. HEINE restated that the alternatives were brought forward by
the manufacturers as viable within a cost range. She did not
consider herself to be an expert on chemical costs but agreed
that prices vary between customers depending on the size of the
company, the amount of the chemical, and tend to drop over time
as the product use increases. She suggested that the chemicals
currently being evaluated were brought forth by flame retardant
and product manufacturers who selected these products since they
are viable from a cost and performance standard.
3:44:23 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked for clarification on importing PBDEs.
MS. HEINE stated that the EPA and U.S. manufacturers reached an
agreement not to manufacturer PBDEs any longer. She offered her
belief that different mechanisms apply to prevent importation of
products manufactured elsewhere. She said that passage of the
bill which would affect products imported that contain the
PBDEs.
3:45:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the EPA documentation in
members' packets which states that the EPA intends to support
and encourage the voluntary phase out of manufacturers by 2010
and all sales would cease 2013. He asked for the reason for the
bill's necessity if it will already be banned by the federal
government.
MS. HEINE asked for his reference.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON detailed the EPA publication dated
2/21/11 EPA document Existing Chemical Action Plan Summary.
MS. HEINE related that the EPA has some complex regulatory
tools, including ones used for significant new uses for
chemicals. She related her understanding that the EPA intend to
support and encourage the voluntary phase out of manufacturer
and import of decaBDE.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the reference to cease all
sales by 2013.
MS. HEINE offered her belief that this refers to the principal
manufacturers and importers of decaBDE to initiate voluntary
reductions in the manufacturer and import. She clarified that
this does not refer to decaBDEs manufactured elsewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES clarified that the language refers to
manufacturers agreeing to stop importing the chemical itself,
not necessarily importing products that contain the chemical.
She explained that currently although chemical manufacturers
have stopped manufacturing products in this country but they can
still import products that contain chemicals.
3:49:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled China sold toys to Wal-Mart
containing lead. He asked who would be held responsible, China
or Wal-Mart.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that it would not be
the individual retailers fault.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how to prevent unscrupulous
manufacturers.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked to consider this further.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that chemicals
outlawed in U.S. will ultimately be shipped in by other
countries.
3:51:18 PM
MS. HEINE pointed out that Wal-Mart has banned PBDEs and will be
conducting testing. She thought this would be a big help since
Wal-Mart, which is financially bigger than most countries will
require people to know what is in their products. She thought
this is one of the most powerful impacts of this bill since
people will have better information. Typically, people are
unaware of the toxicity. This bill will help product
manufacturers having more information of what they are making
and selling.
3:52:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recalled her qualifications but asked for
further clarification on her relationship with the
organizations.
MS. HEINE related she hold a doctorate in environmental
engineering chemistry. She said she provides consulting work
for nonprofit groups. She works with an organization, Clean
Production Action. She works with EPA's Design for the
Environmental and has facilitated projects for them. California
has a Green Chemistry initiative and she was nominated to the
Green Ribbon Science Panel, a national group of scientists. She
has been asked to chair the Wal-Mart Chemical Intensive Products
(CIP) Tool Development Committee. She explained that Wal-Mart
has networks for a number of product classes and groups chemical
intensive products together. She further explained Wal-Mart has
developed a tool with a company called The Works that allows
them to have better visibility into the products Wal-Mart sells.
Wal-Mart is attempting to sell products that contain safer
chemicals.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER reiterated her involvement with Wal-Mart
as Co-Chair of its Wal-Mart Chemical Intensive Products (CIP)
tool development committee.
3:54:10 PM
MS. HEINE mentioned that not all alternatives need to be
chemicals. A number of mattress manufacturers use inherently
flame retardant fabrics as a barrier. She stated that an
industry association, the Phosphorus Inorganic Nitrogen Flame
Retardant Association (PINFA), manufacturers no halogenated
flame retardants. This includes huge corporations focused on
non-halogenated flame retardants. In further response, she
indicated that means these flame retardants do not contain any
chlorine or bromine.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding that the
products would fall under "good" products.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that the products are "good"
today.
MS. HEINE pointed out that it is good to engage and evaluate
alternatives since generally not all of one class is good or
bad. She has co-developed a method for comparing chemical
alternatives based on hazard that grows out of EPA's Design for
the Environment Program. This provides a comprehensive
evaluation that allows for fair comparison. She previously
compared flame retardant televisions, including one halogenated,
and two halogenated and found difference between them. She
thought the goal was to be fair and evaluate alternatives.
MS. HEINE stated that electronic manufacturers have found safer
alternatives, including Sony, Hewlett Packard, Apple, Inc. Sony
Ericcson. She acknowledged a number of health issues exist. As
people learn about the chemicals, they are realizing the
importance of also considering the life cycle, not just whether
it is safe to use right now, but whether it is safe to make and
use and dispose of since the end of life of the product may
cause problems. She recapped that the movement toward green
product is a new and growing market plus a better understanding
of impacts that happen along the supply chain.
3:58:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether she was speaking for Wal-
Mart.
MS. HEINE answered that she is not paid by Wal-Mart.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that Wal-Mart requires all
consumer products to comply with applicable federal, state, and
industry fire regulations. He indicated that California and
Hawaii have established restrictions. He pointed out that Wal-
Mart is doing so to meet state and federal regulators.
MS. HEINE responded that Wal-Mart wants PBDEs out of products
sold in the U.S. including infant/toddler, camera, toys pet
toys, skin care products, sporting goods.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON disagreed. He suggested that it meant
attention to those products, but all products must comply with
applicable federal, state, and industry fire safety. He
summarized that Wal-Mart will comply with existing law.
MS. HEINE added that Wal-Mart is so big it cannot piece meal
this so it is banning pentaBDE, octaBDE, and decaBDEs and they
will test products for quality control.
4:00:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER assumed her expertise is in chemistry. HE
asked how the PBDEs become toxic chemicals once they are
applied.
MS. HEINE responded that flame retardants are sometimes
additives and are mixed in with polymers or can be coated on a
surface. Other times they are considered reactive, which she
said were less mobile PBDEs. She pointed out the "new car"
smell as the smell of the chemicals leaching into the air. It
vaporizes when it gets hot. The chemicals can migrate depending
on the environmental pressures.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER referred to the stability, that some
chemicals are more stable, others become less stable over the
life of the chemicals or when heated. He asked whether the
alternatives are stable.
MS. HEINE said that some of the alternatives are inorganic and
some are polymers, which consist of larger molecules that are
less mobile. The way the EPAs Design for the Environment (DfE)
reviews the chemicals is by considering whether the chemical is
persistent, biocumulating, and toxic. Persistent means it lasts
a long time. Bioaccumulation refers to the accumulation of
substances, such as pesticides, or other organic chemicals in an
organism. The chemical can accumulate, such as if the chemical
is in a fish and humans eat the fish the chemical can become
more concentrated. The persistence and biocumulating effects
are problematic when they are found to be toxic due to the
length of the exposure.
4:03:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the scope and prevalence of the
PBDEs in furniture in Alaska, such as mattress covers and
electronic covers.
MS. HEINE explained that prior to phase out of pentaBDE and
octaBDE were frequently used in the U.S. The chemicals are
found in breast milk and body fluids. It takes considerable
time for the products to move through the economy. So unless a
person is sleeping in a brand new bed, the odds are the older
products contain the chemicals. She pointed out there will be a
lag time in terms of the product distribution and as people
become aware of the PBDEs and dispose of the product. In
response to Representative Saddler, she said she was uncertain
of PBDEs levels in Alaska but explained the PBDEs are contained
in textiles, in electronics, wiring cable, construction
materials, automotive, aviation, shipping pallets, and water
borne emulsions and coatings. She provided the committee a list
of alternatives from the EPAs DfE. She said she could not
provide the volume of contaminated products in Alaska only the
general products that contain PBDEs.
4:06:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON referred to public comments in members'
packets noting significant opposition from organizations that
oppose the preemptive state ban of these chemicals. The
organizations find the EPA time frame is more appropriate. He
stated that these organizations expressed concern for the
public. Many of them treat burn patients and are concerned
about burns from products that are not treated with flame
retardants. He asked for further clarification.
MS. HEINE said she understood the concern. She responded that
viable alternatives meet fire safety requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON referred to the EPA completion date
timeline of 2013 and asked for the reason to jump out ahead.
MS. HEINE answered that a number of other states have already
taken similar action as has Wal-Mart. She highlighted that
these chemicals are banned in Europe, not necessarily decaBDEs,
but the pentaBDE and octaBDEs are banned. She suggested the
committee could review each one separately if it felt that
delays for some were warranted.
4:08:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding that most of
these chemicals were regarded as safe at some point in history.
He related that these new green chemicals are coming on line.
He acknowledged that the U.S. probably needs to regulate
chemicals but expressed concern that setting the standards too
high might put chemical companies out of business. He inquired
as to whether the green replacement chemicals have had adequate
testing and if the alternatives may be found hazardous at some
point in the future. He further asked about the PBDEs in breast
milk. He commented she is a researcher and asked for the
evaluation timeframe of the green chemicals.
MS. HEINE responded that he has touched on a critical idea. She
referred to the pentaBDE, octaBDE, and decaBDE PBDEs which are
under consideration in the bill. She stated that pentaBDE and
octaBDE are pretty much "out of the picture" since action was
taken in 2004 to ban the chemicals. Currently, decaBDE is being
phased out. The list of alternatives is currently being
evaluated for health and safety. She indicated that the
question on whether the alternatives are safe is one that the
EPA DfE is addressing. The EPA does want to ensure the
chemicals are safer. She attested to the safety aspects for a
number of the alternative chemicals. She was uncertain of the
safety for some chemicals and acknowledged that some will be
deemed unsafe. She anticipated that the EPA's DfE process would
be completed in about six months.
4:11:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT pointed out that it has taken 40 years
to determine decaBDE is harmful. He expressed concern that the
new chemicals "green or not" may have the same adverse effects
on humans but it may take 40 years for the toxicity to surface.
CHAIR OLSON asked whether any reduction in environmental levels
of PBDEs has been found since seven years has lapsed since they
were banned in 2004.
MS. HEINE answered she was unsure. She offered to check her
sources
CHAIR OLSON offered that subsequent testifiers may also have
information on this.
MS. HEINE reported that the U.S. has had some of the highest
levels in the world. She recalled that effects may be available
from data collected in the Scandinavian countries that have
banned PBDEs. She reiterated that the purpose of the EPA's DfE
is to evaluate the safety across a set of comprehensive
attributes. She related that in the past people did not know
the PBDEs were being put into products and were not asking
questions about persistence and toxicity. Additionally, testing
was not required. She offered her belief that growth in
knowledge, experience, and pressure to use safer products has
changed the dynamic. Further, if the population density and
massive use of these chemicals had not happened the problem may
not have arisen, she said.
4:14:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the sponsor statement which
states use of PBDEs could cause health issues and lifelong
health risks. He asked for clarification on what health
problems the PBDEs cause. He further asked for the effect of
overexposure to these chemicals.
MS. HEINE deferred to experts for specific health impacts but
related her understanding that most of the health impacts are
chronic ailments. She reported some findings she recalled
including that the chemicals affect the proper development of
the endocrine and nervous system. She characterized the
problems as more developmental problems.
4:15:45 PM
PETER BRIGHAM, MSW, Emeritus Member; Federation of Burn
Foundations (FBF), stated that he is an emeritus board member of
the Federation of Burn Foundations. He is a former committee
chair and member of the Board of Trustees for the American Burn
Association (ABA). He discussed the issues in HB 63 as it
relates to the burn injury community. He offered his belief
that anyone who works with burn care providers and survivors as
he has for the past 35 years would be inclined to support any
action that would save lives or prevent injuries. He indicated
he first became aware of the hazards caused by the accumulating
presence of toxic flame retardant chemicals along with a lack of
any data on their effectiveness. He offered that many within
the ABA share such concerns and the association has not endorsed
the specific stance of the industry. He pointed out that the
industry stance is represented by Citizens for Fire Safety
(CFS), which is the industry's public relations arm. Contrary
to the inference on the CFS's website, there is no cooperative
study underway by the two organizations. The industry does
depend heavily on individual spokespersons from the burn
community in the face of the general concerns in the health and
science professions. He has tracked the fire and burn injury
statistics as the ABA member entrusted with updating the ABA's
annual burn incidence fact sheet. In tracking the steady
decline in fire and burn death or injuries for the past 30
years, he has noted many reasons for the trends. All of the
changes should be taken into account when considering
alternative routes to fire safety and in weighing the hazards of
PBDEs and other chemicals.
4:18:56 PM
MR. BRIGHAM responded to an earlier question. He explained that
some specific tests of safety and under review in terms of
validity of how fires are ignited. These include numerous
safety efforts, such as smoke alarms, more public education,
stronger building codes, and safer designs of cigarettes,
cigarette lighters, and candles. Unlike PBDEs, none of these
influences on fire casualties have negative side effects of
PBDEs. Other changes may have had a far greater positive impact
than any that can be claimed for these chemicals which include a
major decline in smoking, the transition in home cooking from
the stove to the microwave and the U.S.'s growing reliance on
restaurants and fast food outlets. Given all these other
reasons for the decline on in fire and burn casualties the
balance of the concern needs to shift toward increased scrutiny
and action related to the accelerating presence of toxic flame
retardant chemicals. He urged members to support HB 63.
4:20:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether he represented the American
Burn Association (ABA).
MR. BRIGHAM answered that the ABA does not have a specific
position on polybrominated fire retardants in consumer products
since the organization has a widely diverse opinion within the
association as to the dangers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to another letter in members'
packets from David M. Heimbach, MD, FACS, who is Past President
of the ABA and Past President of the International Society for
Burn Injury (ISBI) who opposes this bill and purports to let the
EPA phase out the retardant.
MR. BRIGHAM agreed that the views are diverse among the ABA. He
acknowledged that Dr. Heimbach is a distinguished member of the
organizations.
4:21:42 PM
ARLENE BLOOM, Scholar, University of California, Berkeley;
Executive Director, Green Science Policy Institute, related that
she studies organic chemicals. Carbon bromine chlorine
represents the kinds of molecules that stay in the body for
months or years. She stated that she and her colleagues who
study these chemicals have become concerned when the chemicals
are used in consumer products since they tend to be stored in
fat, which is one reason PBDEs are found in breast milk. These
are not naturally occurring chemicals in the body so the body
does not have the ability to expel the toxins. These are
persistent chemicals that will stay in the body for a long time.
She offered that human health data is available on PBDEs in the
home. She related that asbestos is an occupational chemical
that causes mesothelioma cancer in those who work with asbestos.
She reported that children exposed to PBDEs suffer intelligence
issues similar to those found in children exposed to lead. The
PBDEs harm fertility. She stated that significant research has
been done on animals.
MS. BLOOM explained that the reason many of the flame retardant
chemicals are in our homes is due to California's furniture
flammability standards and its distribution of furniture on the
west coast. Chances are if the furniture label indicates it
meets the California standard, it may contain PBDEs,
particularly if the furniture was purchased prior to 2004. She
offered her belief that it is important to protect the
population from these types of chemicals. She said it is
difficult to know the impact but she thought it may be a huge
boon to human health. She pointed out studies with animals have
shown an increase in neurological impairment, hyperactivity, and
certain types of cancer can be caused by these types of
chemicals. She indicated an increase in those types of
behaviors has been found in children. She asked whether these
chemicals should be allowed to impact our children. She agreed
that it is important to ensure that the replacements are not
problematic. She offered her belief that decabrominated
diphenyl ether (decaBDE) is being replaced with decabrominated
diphenylethylene which is only two atoms apart, has been found
to be similarly persistent and biocumulative. She thought it
may also be toxic.
4:28:32 PM
CHAIR OLSON banned related that pentaBDE and octaBDE were banned
in 2004. He asked whether any noticeable reductions in the use
of pentaBDE and octaBDE have occurred.
MS. BLOOM answered that pentaBDE was used in California from the
80s until 2004. She reported that furniture has an average life
span of three owners or 30 years. She also stated that the
chemical leach out when the furniture is taken to the landfill.
However, most of the pentaBDE furniture is still in our homes.
She stressed the importance of identifying the furniture
containing pentaBDE so it could be safely disposed and not leach
into our water, soils, and food supply. In response to Chair
Olson, she mentioned that she had a sample of furniture taken
from Alaska's Capitol Building and tests showed it did contain
pentaBDE.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT commented that mesothelioma associated
with asbestos, which was used in houses for years. He stated
the asbestos was replaced with a man-made fiber. He surmised
that it is likely that insulation is probably just as bad as
asbestos insulation. He remarked that this is just another
example of replacing a chemical with another chemical.
4:31:43 PM
DAVID HEIMBACH, Director, University of Washington (UW), Burn
Center, state that for the past 35 years he has been the
director of the UW's Burn Center. He pointed out that he has
taken care of all the severely burned people from Alaska, or
about 30 per year. He offered his belief that fire retardants
save lives. They provide minutes extra to get out of a burning
room or home and protect them. Children are most likely to
suffer from burns when mattresses, pillow, sleepwear, or
furniture do not contain fire retardants. He remarked that he
has listened to today's testimony. He recalled one person
testified that when PBDEs products burn it produces dense black
smoke. He related that pure pine wood burns and releases 250
toxic chemicals that are far more toxic than the ones under
discussion and plastics probably contain 500-600 toxic chemicals
when they burn. He said that dense black smoke is trivial
compared to smoke from burning many other products. He
emphasized that it is not true that many safer retardants are
available. It took 40 years to figure out that decaBDE causes
bad things to happen, mostly in large doses in animals. He
related his understanding that a definitive study has not been
performed that identifies harm caused to humans. He remarked
that relating PBDEs to lower intelligence is somewhat similar to
the arguments for asbestos removal. Once asbestos was
determined to be dangers people rushed to remove it only to find
it is far more dangerous to the people removing it than it would
have been to leave it alone.
DR. HEIMBACH said he became interested into PBDEs when the State
of Washington passed its laws without ever asking anyone in the
burn community for their views. He was not aware of the law
until it had already passed. He appreciated the testimony that
highlights no one knows whether the replacements will be safer
since it took 40 years to discover toxicity with decaBDEs. He
related a recent scenario in which a 9-month-old baby was in a
crib, laying on fire retardant pillow on a non-fire retardant
mattress. A candle fell into crib and the little baby was
charred up to her mid-chest to the point where her chest was
laying on the pillow. He observed that the pillow was not
burned at all. He offered his opinion that this is as clear an
example as he could provide to demonstrate what fire retardants
can do. He felt certain more will be injured and die from no
fire retardant in products than ever will be from people
thinking they've inhaled PBDEs toxic chemicals. He has served
as the President of the ABA and the ISBI. He spent 12 years on
the Medical Advisory Board for the Shriners Burns Hospitals. He
concluded that he had the unique experience of receiving an
award from the Dalai Lama for his work in burn care in
developing countries.
4:36:52 PM
GORDON NELSON, Ph.D., Vice President, Florida Institute of
Technology, speaking on behalf of himself, stated that he has a
doctorate in Organic Chemistry from Yale University. He related
he first started working with flame retardants in plastics when
he was at the General Electric Company in the early 1970s. He
reported that decaBDE has been used in televisions and
appliances since 1975. In 1974, the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission found televisions were of unreasonable risk
due to fire hazards. At the time approximately 200 deaths per
year were attributable to fire. When the Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL) adopted voluntary regulations, which
became effective in 1975, the deaths were reduced to zero. He
reported that each person has a 40 percent probability of
experiencing a fire in his/her lifetime or to have the fire
department come to our home. He reported that televisions and
plastics made without a flame retardant will create a life-
threatening fire. He said he has seen these fires happen. He
emphasized that octaBDE and pentaBDE have not been manufactured
in the U.S. since January 2005 and were only small volume
chemicals. DecaBDE is manufactured in large quantities and is
the main fire retardant chemical used for a variety of products,
including televisions and backing for carpet. He said that
decaBDE does not have the same properties as pentaBDE or
octaBDE.
4:39:22 PM
DR. NELSON reported that the European Union has extensively
tested decaBDE by the risk assessment process and has been found
to be of reasonable risk. Thus, decaBDE is not banned in
Europe. He related that decaBDE has and is to be phased out by
December 2012. He stated that it is not only the manufacturers
that have made the commitment but also ICL Industrial Products,
which is the largest U.S. importer of decaBDE. Thus, it is not
just the manufacturers who have agreed to the phase out since
importers have banned decaBDE as well, except for the military
and transportation uses scheduled to be phased out by December
31, 2013. He related that often a one for one replacement is
not possible and may need a new flame retardant or plastic for
an application.
4:41:04 PM
DR. NELSON recalled recalled earlier testimony on Wal-Mart's
testing and on the fiscal note. He stated that Direct Analysis
in Real Time (DART) High Resolution Mass Spectrometry can offer
immediate results, noting that waving a piece of plastic by the
instrument would identify the flame retardant. However, the
equipment costs $210,000 and takes a scientist to operate. He
remarked that he was please to see the proposed committee
substitute (CS) has an effective date of 2013 given that the EPA
has a consensus process underway and major manufacturers have
agreed to phase out the project. This would allow that timing
to occur. He related that a similar bill is in the other body
and he prefers some of the language. He referred to page 2,
lines 5-6 of HB 63 which refers to a flame retardant that is not
a brominated flame retardant.
4:42:53 PM
DR. NELSON also referred to page 4 of HB 63 which defines
"brominated flame retardant" as a flame retardant that contains
pentaBDE, octaBDE, and decaBDE. He indicated that as a chemist
a brominated flame retardant is any chemical product used for
flame retardant purposes that contains the element of bromine.
He offered his belief that the language in the bill would be
confusing to scientists. He preferred some language in the
Senate version of the bill that removes the proposed sections
"review by departments" and "list of toxic chemicals." The
Senate version would also insert a simpler provision of a
multistate chemicals clearinghouse. He encouraged the committee
to consider requiring the clearinghouse to work with the EPA and
European agencies as well. He summarized that he agreed with
comments asking whether the bill would accomplish anything as
written given that the EPA has a planned phase out. He offered
his belief that it does not accomplish much.
4:44:18 PM
DR. NELSON said, "If decaBDE were a hazard, which it's not, the
legislation doesn't provide for take back. It doesn't prohibit
placement of used products in landfills. It doesn't remove
products." These products will be around for 30 years and the
exposure will not change. If a hazard exists, much more should
be done. He urged Alaska to allow EPA to do its work. He
suggested Alaska establish an intergovernmental clearinghouse to
review these materials and other materials since it would be
useful not only for Alaska and other states. He concluded that
the agreement with EPA sets forth a rational transition to newer
alternatives which is critical in these circumstances.
[HB 63 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|