Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/12/2012 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB266 | |
| SB27 | |
| SB119 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 27-FLAME RETARDANTS /CHEMICALS CLEARINGHOUSE
3:49:47 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 27(HSS), "An Act relating to flame
retardants and to the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
products containing flame retardants; relating to a multistate
chemicals clearinghouse; and providing for an effective date."
3:50:26 PM
SAM GOTTSTEIN, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, responded to earlier testimony on the proposed
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) voluntary phase out. He
related his understanding that the EPA's phase-out is a proposed
voluntary phase out for U.S. manufacturers to be done at the end
of 2013, prior to the effective date of SB 27, Version E.
However, Version E does not affect imports so eventually U.S.
manufacturers may be complying with the voluntary phase out, but
the U.S. could still import toxic chemicals into Alaska with the
number of known health effects. He related numerous questions
on the definitions in the bill were raised. He offered his
belief that SB 27 seems the intent is to protect Alaskan
retailers. He emphasized that SB 27 is friendly to Alaska
businesses and protects retailers in the state. He related that
SB 27 addresses some of the concerns raised by the committee.
First, it would delay the effective date until 2014. Second,
the bill will exempt used products, such as items sold in thrift
stores. Additionally, the bill would apply to products brought
into Alaska prior to the effective date. Thus a local retailer
or manufacturer/distributor could bring in products until
December 31, 2013 and sell those products at a later date. He
suggested this should allow ample time for retailers to shift to
safe products. He highlighted that 12 other states and the
European Union and Wal-Mart have already banned the chemicals.
He referred to definitions for distributors and retailers. He
offered his belief that if he bought something from Costco that
Costco would be acting as a retailer and the sale would not
apply to this bill. He pointed out that he has researched
Mattress Ranch, which sells approximately ten brand names of
mattresses with different styles. He offered his belief those
brands would be considered the manufacturers while the Mattress
Ranch is considered the retailer. He suggested that Terry
Bannister, the bill drafter, is available to answer questions on
definitions in more detail.
3:53:21 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN stated that more importantly is to ensure Alaska
businesses will not penalized. He suggested the DEC has
indicated that using fines are used as a last resort. Further,
similar pieces of legislation have been passed, but fines are
typically not used by the DEC.
3:54:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether Wal-Mart has taken a
position on the bill.
MR. GOTTSTEIN recalled that from previous testimony on the bill
by some people who have worked with Wal-Mart that Wal-Mart has
worked to ensure their products are PBDE free. He recalled
during the previous summer that Wal-Mart performed enhanced
testing procedures to ensure their products are PBDE free and
Wal-Mart has broadcast to its suppliers that they will not
accept products containing the toxic chemicals. He offered to
provide more specific details.
3:55:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled that Wal-Mart has opposed flame
retardant bills in the past, but it may have been in response to
last year's bill. He pointed out that Wal-Mart is acting
voluntarily, which he suggested provide a much smoother business
transition for them than to have it mandated.
3:55:46 PM
JEFF TUCKER, Fire Chief;, North Star Volunteer Fire Department,
Immediate Past President, Alaska Fire Chiefs' Association
(AFCA), stated that the AFCA supports the phase out of PBDEs due
to concerns with the health risks associated with exposure. The
AFCA believes that the bill is a step in the right direction to
improve the health and safety of firefighters in the community.
He also stated that protecting firefighters and building
occupants is critical, but these goals can be achieved without
exposing themselves to this particular class of toxic chemicals.
He pointed out that when PBDEs burn they release fumes that
reduce visibility and produce highly corrosive gases. The AFCA
supports the use of flame retardants since alternatives do not
contain bromine. He encouraged committee members to pass the CS
for SB 27.
3:57:08 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated that
civil fines are simply one tool in the DEC's toolbox. The DEC
has several programs with regulatory authority to assess fines,
but fines are a rare tool and represent the last resort
typically used for noncompliance. She referred to earlier
discussions which clarify that a retailer is selling directly to
a consumer whereas a distributor is someone selling to another
distributor or a retailer. She pointed out that this bill seems
to target manufacturers and distributors, which would most
likely be out of state companies. She reported she spoke to her
counterparts in some Pacific Northwest states, such as Oregon
and Washington have similar programs. She said the DEC would
have a pathway to implement its program in the state. She
stated that the DEC has a fish tissue testing program that has
collected over 500 samples of fish statewide that contain PBDEs.
She reported that the DEC is finding PBDEs at various levels in
the state. She emphasized that the most likely source of PBDEs
is in homes and from discharge via septic systems and the
wastewater treatment plants - which do not remove the chemicals
- and not the environment. Thus if Alaska's environment
contains PBDEs our homes also contain PBDEs. She highlighted
some evidence that PBDEs show up in our fish, but she stated she
has not done much research into the human exposure element since
it falls under a different department's authority. She
concluded that the DEC's fish tissue testing program has been
reviewing mercury and other contaminants of a health concern are
starting to find PBDEs as well.
4:00:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for an explanation about the septic
system. He asked for the linkage.
MS. RYAN answered that she can provide some materials that
identify the pathway. She said that it has been pretty well
documented that flame retardants exist in personal products in
our homes, in products such as televisions, computers, and
couches. The polymer does not bind with the product it has been
applied to so PBDEs falls out as dust, is consumed by people as
they touch the products, and passes through our bodies into the
sewage outfalls. Further, the products enter the pathway
through the process of washing clothing. She clarified that the
PBDEs are not added to clothing.
4:02:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for a list of the source of the 500
fish samples at some point.
MS. RYAN agreed to provide it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON further asked broadly which fish species
were sampled.
MS. RYAN answered that salmon and Arctic char were tested. She
offered her belief that the most disturbing aspect discovered in
sampling is that the small fry seems to have the highest levels
of PBDEs. She suggested this may be a biomass issue. She
concluded that the department has sampled a large variety of
species of fish found in Alaska.
4:03:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON further asked for the percentage of the
fish that had some contamination.
MS. RYAN answered yes. She offered to provide all the data. In
further response to Representative Johnson, she confirmed the
department has found various levels depending on the species of
fish, the geographic area, and the age of the fish.
4:03:42 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked her to respond to the direction the EPA is
taking on PBDEs.
MS. RYAN offered her belief that the EPA is trying to ban flame
retardants since they are dangerous to public health and are
persistent in our environment. Unfortunately, in her view, the
EPA does not have adequate authority to deal with chemicals in
personal products so they cannot ban them even though they
described in the Federal Register their concerns about flame
retardants and the risks. She reported the EPA has banned new
uses of flame retardants; however they have been unable to
restrict the use of chemicals already in commerce. She referred
to voluntary measures which are related to agreements the EPA
has made with local manufacturers in the U.S. to stop producing
the chemicals and use alternatives. She said that process is
proceeding, but the majority of the products containing flame
retardants do not come from the U.S.
4:05:14 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked whether the EPA has gone far enough or too
far.
MS. RYAN offered her believe that the PBDEs in flame retardants
are problematic so she thinks a ban is a good thing.
4:05:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON recalled some doctors think banning
PBDEs is premature. He asked whether enough alternative
products exist to protect children from burns. He further asked
whether the new products have been tested and if other problems
may arise in a few years.
MS. RYAN agreed with the concern. She stated the bill would
give the department the ability to consider the alternatives to
flame retardants and assess the risks. She said there are
alternatives and several states have banned PBDES and some
companies are using safer alternatives. She noted that PBDEs
give people about 11 more seconds to flee. She related a
scenario in which a person is on a bed which catches on fire,
and if the mattress contains PBDEs the person would have 11 more
seconds before the mattress bursts into flames. She was unsure
the 11 seconds was worth the risk from chemicals persisting in
the environment. She said products are being made in safer
ways. She explained that cigarettes go out as do candles. She
pointed out that improvements in fire safety have occurred in
past 20 years. She emphasized that alternatives have been found
to be safer than PBDEs.
4:08:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES clarified that the 11 seconds is the
escape time flame retardants provide as compared to not using
any alternative fire safety. She further clarified that the
bill is not advocating not using other fire safety. She
reiterated that using PBDEs would provide 11 seconds more as
opposed to not using any of the fire safety alternatives in
mattresses or furniture.
MS. RYAN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES emphasized that the bill does not
advocating giving up the 11 seconds, but rather to use another
type of flame retardant.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that 11 seconds is a long time.
CHAIR OLSON remarked that everyone around the table figures 11
seconds could help them flee from the bedroom.
4:09:00 PM
DAVID HEIMBACH, Physician, speaking on behalf of himself, stated
that he has served as the director of the University of
Washington (UW) Burn Center in Seattle, Washington. For 35
years the UW Burn Center has treated almost all of the major
burns in Alaska and for the last 10 years have treated all of
them since the burn unit in Alaska is closed. He stated that he
has served as the President of the American Burn Association,
the International Society for Burn Injury, and has been awarded
numerous awards for his work in developing countries regarding
burn and fire safety. He made three points. First, there is
not any question that fire retardants give people more time to
escape fires. The burn center cares of 900 burn patients per
year. He clarified he is speaking not for the burn center or
UW, but for himself. About one-third of his patients are
children. The vast majority of his juvenile patients are
covered under Medicaid. The other people at risk, who need that
11 seconds to escape is the elderly - which he actually thinks
it is longer than 11 seconds - but the elderly are also at risk
for not being able to get out from a fire quickly. It costs
approximately $6,000 per day in the burn center's intensive care
unit (ICU). A child with a 40 percent of his/her body burned
will likely stay in the hospital for 1.5 to 2 days for each
percentage of burn. This would total about 80 days stay in the
ICU for a cost of $500,000, which is a substantial cost to the
state. He calculated by multiplying the cost by the number of
patients gives the sense of the substantial expenses incurred
for burn patients. He cautioned members to be careful before
banning substances and to compare the risks to the consequences.
Second, he suggested that Dr. Gordon Nelson would discuss the
safety issues. He said he has no problem with polybromides
being banned since they are being voluntarily removed by the
EPA. He turned to the earlier comments on the risk to
firefighters, who are concerned about inhalation. He pointed
out that pure pine smoke in and of itself contains 250 known
toxic chemicals, which can be tripled for plastics since they
contain about 700 toxic chemicals. The addition of small
amounts of the newer products does not add to the problem of
smoke inhalation. He reiterated that he has studied smoke
inhalation his entire medical career. He reiterated his
cautions. Be careful about banning products shown to be safe.
The U.S. is removing the ones that have been shown to be
harmful. The European Union and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and Canada have declared the newer products to be without
risk to humans.
4:14:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether he was speaking for or
against the bill. She has heard good substitutes are available.
DR. HEIMBACH answered that he is not supporting SB 27. He
explained not good substitutes that have been studied as much as
the current chemicals. It would be necessary to watch these new
chemicals for 10-15 years before they get into the food chain
and environment. He reiterated the new chemicals are not tested
and may cause cancer or other issues. He related that
children's sleepwear now is tighter fitting than it once was so
it does not require flame retardants. In 1972, kids would lick
their clothes and the chemicals were found to be mutagenic. He
pointed out that now that clothes are better, but there is not a
chemical substitute for anything that resembles the safety
provided by the PBDEs. He related that Dr. Nelson could to
speak to this.
4:16:11 PM
STEVE RUBRIGHT, on behalf of himself, related his understanding
that some alternatives exist, but he hasn't heard of any
substitute for fire retardants that seems to save lives. He
recalled testimony that new drugs could be studied. He
commented that fire spreads quickly and 11 seconds is a lot of
time during a fire. He thinks this bill is premature since in
2013 the federal government is taking a nationwide approach to
address the issue. He expressed concern about the bill.
4:17:56 PM
CHAIR OLSON responded that this bill has an effective date of
July 1, 2014, in order to allow the EPA to promulgate
regulations and give the states time to decide whether the
regulations are adequate or if other changes are necessary.
4:18:28 PM
CHARLES KLEVER, speaking on behalf of himself, related he is in
the construction industry. He expressed interest in the use of
PBDEs since flame retardants are used in welding clothes and
other shop clothing. He noted an exemption for industrial use;
however, he was unsure about the industrial use for clothing.
He also shared his concern about testimony that indicates PBDEs
were studied for a couple of years; however, the levels were not
quantified. He said a couple years of study does not seem like
due diligence. Additionally, he is from Oregon. He recalled
the DEC suggested following Oregon; however, he characterized
following Oregon as a slippery slope.
4:20:31 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director; Biologist, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics, stated that she previously testified and is
speaking strongly in support of SB 27 for public health reasons
and to protect vulnerable populations including children and
firefighters.
4:21:26 PM
ANDREW MCGUIRE, Executive Director, Trauma Foundation, San
Francisco Hospital, stated he has been involved in fire and burn
prevention for 39 years. He stated he has led two successful
campaigns. First, he led a campaign to get children pajamas
mandated flame resistant as an effort in Massachusetts that
became a federal standard. The standard for children's pajamas
took effect in the early 70s and by March 1977, there were no
longer chemicals used in children's pajamas. Instead,
children's pajamas were made out of modaacrylic and polyester or
other synthetic fibers, but without using any chemicals. He
pointed out that synthetic fibers are fire resistant. Thus he
clarified that chemicals are not used in clothing. Second, he
led a campaign to mandate that all cigarettes become self-
extinguishing or fire safe so they do not ignite mattresses or
furniture. He clarified that manufacturers do not make
cigarettes safe by adding chemicals. Instead, the cigarette
paper is slightly thicker in several areas since oxygen cannot
penetrate the thicker paper.
4:23:29 PM
MR. MCGUIRE answered several questions raised. First,
manufacturers can make fire safe mattresses, electronics, and
furniture without using chemicals. He stated that is absolutely
true for upholstered furniture, in fact, there is a federal
draft standard by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
that many believe will be promulgated in the next year or so
which lays out all criteria. He elaborated that it has to do
with the weave and thickness of fabric and if a synthetic
barrier or cloth can be used between the fabric and the foam.
More importantly, when it comes to furniture the standard for
furniture in North America is to add flame retardants to the
foam of furniture, not to the fabric. He offered his belief
that it has been shown in the peer review literature that flame
retardants does not offer fire safety since the way a fire
starts is the fabric ignites first. Once the fabric ignites the
flames are large enough to overcome the fire retardant safety
factor in the foam. He suggested that if people wanted to use
flame retardants effectively, the flame retardants would be used
in the fabric and not underneath the fabric. He emphasized that
there is not any peer review literature or scientific articles
on the efficacy of fire safety of chemicals used in furniture.
MR. MCGUIRE stated that secondly, the data does not show a fire
problem exists for cases - containing chemicals used in the
plastic cabinets - of televisions and other electronic products;
however, there is a push by the chemical industry for a flame
standard so a candle can't ignite a plastic case. He
highlighted that electronic fires typically start on the
interior with overheating of products inside the television.
MR. MCGUIRE pointed out other methods exist for fire safety
without adding PBDEs or other fire retardant chemicals to the
plastic. He cautioned that a phony organization has been
created by chemical industry called Citizens for Fire Safety.
He pointed out that when Dr. David Heimbach testified in
California the last time he testified he said, under oath, his
way was had been paid to that hearing by the chemical industry.
He said the same is true with Dr. Gordon Nelson. He related
they were the only outsiders to testify on a related fire-
retardant issue and they both claimed their way was paid by the
chemical industry. He offered his belief that when someone
identifies their affiliation they should also include the
information that they are speaking on behalf of the chemical
industry. He said the IRS 990 filings for Citizens for Fire
Safety states its mission as one "to promote the common business
interests of the chemical manufacturing industry." However,
their website indicated the organization was founded as a
California nonprofit seeking to educate the public on fire safe
practices within the home as well as empower those organizations
charged with protecting the public safety. He reiterated his
belief that this is a phony organization. Further, a similar
organization was created by the tobacco industry to fight the
fire safe cigarette campaign for 28 years. He surmised the
person ultimately behind creating the phony organization on
behalf of the tobacco institute is the same person who works for
the chemical industry to help create this organization. He
emphasized that legislators must be alerted to the fact that
these groups are created with names that sound legitimate, but
are simply funded by the chemical or tobacco industry.
4:28:37 PM
GORDON NELSON, PhD, Vice President for Academic Affairs;
Professor of Chemistry, Florida Institute of Technology, stated
that he is a university chemistry professor at Florida Institute
of Technology. He said he has had a long career in academia and
industry. He related he has been burning plastic items and
working on flame retardants for about 30 years. He said he has
been interested in listening to the testimony, but unfortunately
there is a lot of information that does not provide the total
picture. First, he reported that the EPA voluntary phase out is
not proposed, but is underway. The agreements were executed
with EPA on December 15, 2009 by each of the three world's
largest flame retardant suppliers. The agreement indicated that
by December 31, 2010, the sales of decaBDE would be phased out
for electrical and electronic equipment. Additionally, by
December 31, 2012, all uses except transportation military will
be phased out. He reiterated that the agreement is an agreement
between the three suppliers and the EPA, which included phase-
out of imports as well. He stated this affects not just what is
being manufactured in the U.S., but also their involvement with
imports.
4:31:14 PM
DR. NELSON he pointed out that pentaBDE and octaBDE BDEs have
not been manufactured since 2004. He suggested the committee
may wish to think about codifying the EPA agreements. He
identified two differences between SB 27 and the EPA phase-out.
First, the phase out include military uses, specifically, since
those can be large products and difficult to find alternatives.
Second, the EPA agreement exempts products from recycling. He
pointed out that post-consumer recycle of products containing
decaBDE is not affected. Further, the sale of products made
from recycled products containing PBDEs will not be affected.
4:32:45 PM
DR. NELSON stated in the 1970s he worked for General Electric
Corporation and during that time he burned some of the first
televisions made with decaBDE and polystyrene. He reported that
the number one application for decaBDE has been in televisions,
but not in computers. He related that in the U.S. in the 1970s
there were 200 fire deaths per year caused by television fires,
800 life- threatening fires, and 20,000 television fires in the
nation. The Underwriters Laboratories (UL) requirements came
forward with a voluntary standard, which was used instead of a
mandatory process. He stated that the team questioned whether
the requirements to go to flame retardant plastic would make a
difference. He described the testing procedures for televisions
by igniting the tuner bracket to create an internal fire and
without flame retardants in three parts - the antenna bracket,
the tuner bracket, and the enclosure - the tests created a life-
threatening fire from a single television in a 10 by 10 foot
room in five minutes. Additionally, the team tested the same
three parts made using polystyrene containing decaBDE and was
not able to ignite the parts, even using outside ignition by
using paper. Instead, the enclosure melted. Finally, the team
concluded that the use of flame retardants would eliminate
deaths from televisions and that is what has happened. He
concluded that when people say the use of flame retardants does
not have a substantial life-safety record they are wrong.
4:36:09 PM
DR. NELSON turned to the extra 11 seconds escape time provided
by flame retardants. He offered his belief that is a test with
no relationship to a risk for fire, as amplified by the use of
flame retardants in televisions. The purpose of using flame
retardants is to eliminate fires, make some fires much smaller,
and make other fires take a much longer time to ignite. He
agreed with earlier testimony that 11 seconds could allow a
person to escape.
4:36:52 PM
DR. NELSON recalled earlier testimony on proposal by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC)proposal to upholster
furniture using a smoldering test. He said that CPSC has tried
with extensive furniture industry opposition to get a national
test for furniture for decades. The use of smoldering only test
rather than an open flame as used in California belies the fact
that 50 percent of fire deaths from upholstered furniture in the
U.S. are caused from open flame or electrical sources rather
than cigarettes. He credited the statistics to the latest
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) statistics.
4:37:45 PM
DR. NELSON said first, pentaBDE and octaBDE no longer exist.
Second, the EPA has a detailed process which will lead to phase
out for decaBDE, which is largely completed. Finally, he spoke
to the difficulty the department will have to find fire
retardant alternatives. He acknowledged there may be
alternatives, but asked whether the product will serve the
function. He offered his belief that is will not be easy to
determine since hundreds of flame retardants exist, but not all
work in every circumstances which is why decaBDE was used in
televisions and pentaBDE was used in foam. He related that
decaBDE is used in sophisticated materials, such as shipping
pallets; however, the most promising alternatives end up with a
substantially heavier pallet, which is above 50 pounds. He
stated that 50 pounds is the limit that a single person may lift
under Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations so the alternative does not allow the product to be
used. He predicted the DEC will have grave difficulty in
finding alternatives that are safer for the environment. He
urged members not to support SB 27.
4:40:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES related her understanding all three forms
of the PBDEs are going to be phased out by the EPA long before
the bill goes into effect so she did not understand the reason
to object to the bill.
DR. NELSON answered that pentaBDE and octaBDE aren't being made
and decaBDE is in a phase-out process. He offered his belief
that SB 27 does not exempt military or post-consumer recycling,
which would be permitted under the EPA. He said he fully
understands the reasons legislators may want to codify the EPA
agreement, but certainly there are some chemical suppliers in
China and other places; however, the voluntary agreement has
been carefully crafted and the exemptions are in place. He
submitted that the bill certainly won't do much to change the
disappearance of the phase-out that is already underway for
PBDEs.
4:42:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for the history of the chemicals.
DR. NELSON answered that decaBDE was invented by DOW Chemical
Company, which was extensively tested. He reported this
discovery came at a time when televisions were burgeoning and
the fire issue had emerged. He related that decaBDE was the
perfect flame retardant for polystyrene. He reported the
requirements for televisions were imposed between July 1, 1975
and 1979 and television manufacturers began using decaBDE in
1975. He recapped that decaBDE was invented in 70s and was
heavily into market by 1975.
4:43:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for the length of time before the
"red flag" went up to indicate decaBDE posed health hazards.
MR. NELSON answered it took approximately 20 years.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether it may take 20 years to
find out if new chemicals used as flame retardants are
dangerous.
MR. NELSON responded that decaBDE passed European risk
assessments, unlike pentaBDE and octaBDE, which did not pass.
He said that decaBDE was extensively tested by DOW in 1970. He
offered his belief that decaBDE is not a horrendously toxic
chemical.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said his point is that any replacement
may be worse for the environment than the current flame
retardants.
MR. NELSON said he somewhat agrees, but in Europe and the U.S.
use more extensive topological testing is occurring today than
they did 30 years ago. He predicted that that it will be
possible to understand things faster, in fact, a large number of
flame retardant chemicals have been extensively examined in
Europe.
4:45:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON cautioned against moving forward with
chemicals that are not as effective and could be more toxic. He
offered his belief that the EPA phase-out is preferable.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON recalled his testimony that pentaBDE and
octaBDE are no longer being made but asked about imports from
China. He questioned whether the chemicals are being made.
MR. NELSON answered that China is not using pentaBDE and
octaBDE.
4:46:24 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked whether he could identify the number of deaths
from decaBDE, pentaBDE, octaBDE per year.
MR. NELSON answered that in terms of toxicity to his knowledge
there were none.
CHAIR OLSON pointed out that these chemicals are hazardous but
the impacts are unknown.
MR. NELSON identified this as an important question. He
emphasized that decaBDE has saved people's lives which has been
quantified; however, he was not aware of any papers that
quantify deaths from the topological properties of the
materials.
4:47:36 PM
CHAIR OLSON commented that the U.S. can quantify the number of
smokers that die each year from cigarette use, but the numbers
are not available for these chemicals. He wondered if this bill
is premature.
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 27.
[SB 27 was held over.]
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:49:49 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB266 Draft Proposed CS version Y.pdf |
HL&C 4/12/2012 3:15:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| SB119 Draft Proposed Amendment-Holmes.pdf |
HL&C 4/12/2012 3:15:00 PM |
SB 119 |