Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/08/2011 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB15 | |
| SB5 | |
| SB27 | |
| SB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 27
"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."
9:40:26 AM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR, explained that SB 27
focused on healthy families and safer homes. He explained
that polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) were flame
retardant chemicals found in televisions, computers,
furniture, mattresses, carpets, cell phones, microwaves,
etc. He stressed that Alaskan's were at risk from PBDE
exposure for three reasons: (1) Alaskans spent a
significant amount of time indoors, which increased their
exposure PBDE household dust; (2) Toxins including PBDEs,
were concentrated in cold climates and carried in global
air currents; and (3) Alaskans ate wild foods that
concentrated PBDEs, such as marine mammals and some fish
species. He informed the committee that U.S. companies had
voluntarily agreed to stop manufacturing PBDEs beginning in
2012; however, foreign companies had not. He urged the
support of the committee and emphasized that Alaskans
needed the legislation to help protect their health and
homes.
9:41:46 AM
CARLA HART, STAFF, SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, presented the
highlights of the bill. She discussed that PBDEs were
pervasive, could be released from products in the form of
microscopic dust, and could be easily ingested, inhaled,
and absorbed. The chemicals remained in the environment for
extended periods of time, built up in fatty tissue, and
became more concentrated as they moved up the food chain.
She explained that PBDEs were neurotoxins, which impacted
hormones that regulate how the human body functions. She
relayed that couches manufactured prior to 2004 frequently
contained at least one pound of the toxic chemicals. The
chemicals could be ingested when a person ate food with
their fingers. She stressed that the neurotoxins were
transferred from mother to child during pregnancy and
nursing and that small children often put items from the
floor in their mouths. Exposure to small concentrations of
PBDEs at critical stages of development could have
permanent effects on development, and could potentially
trigger cancers and other health problems decades later.
Ms. Hart remarked that Senator Donny Olson had hosted a
session on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) earlier
in the session; the similarity of the impacts of FASD and
PBDE exposure were notable; however, a pregnant woman could
protect a child from FASD by avoiding alcohol. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not have the
authority under current law to impose a ban of the toxic
chemicals; therefore, individual states had begun to take
action. The bill would not compromise fire safety, given
that changes in product design had reduced the need for
chemical flame retardants. She relayed that a safer
chemical alternative had passed the scrutiny of the fire
marshal for State of Washington and other alternatives were
under consideration throughout the country. Supporters of
the bill included the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association,
Alaska Association of Professional Fire Fighters,
Association of Village Council Presidents, Arc of
Anchorage, Nome Eskimo Community, Alaska Inter-Tribal
Council, Alaska Nurses Association, and the Native Village
of Savoonga.
Ms. Hart noted that the Division of Environmental Health
under the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
did not have a toxicologist despite the prevalence of
household and industrial toxins. She discussed that the DEC
fiscal note included funding for one toxicologist. The
fiscal notes from the Departments of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) and Public Safety (DPS) were zero. She
detailed that the annual financial impact equated to
approximately $139,000 or $0.20 per Alaskan.
9:45:33 AM
Co-Chair Stedman delineated that there were three fiscal
notes for SB 27, including two zero notes from DHSS and DPS
and one fiscal note in the amount of $139,000 in general
funds from DEC for the funding of one new full-time
environmental program specialist position.
9:46:51 AM
DR. SARAH JANSON, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (via
teleconference), spoke in support of SB 27. She was a
physician who specialized in occupational and environmental
medicine and was a reproductive biologist with expertise in
chemicals that mimicked hormones. She explained that flame
retardant chemicals such as PBDEs were hormone disrupting
chemicals that interfered with the body's natural hormones
including those critical in brain and reproductive system
development. Flame retardants like PBDEs were common
components in household items and had become incorporated
into human bodies. Humans were among the most highly
exposed; exposure came from multiple places, but was
particularly prevalent in dust that leached from consumer
products in households. Pregnant and nursing mothers passed
chemicals to developing fetuses and infants during critical
windows of brain and reproductive system development. Small
children had been found to have exposure of up to three
times more than their mothers due to their propensity to
put items from the floor in their mouths.
Ms. Janson explained that the chemicals had been found to
disrupt the thyroid hormone and sex hormones such as
estrogen and testosterone. Health outcomes associated with
harm in lab animals included damage to brain development
that resulted in hyperactivity and memory problems,
reproductive harm such as low sperm counts and small
testicles, and cancer. She was troubled that many of the
outcomes, which had once only been found in animal studies,
had been found in human populations. A recent study of U.S.
children had found that those with high PBDE exposure in
the womb performed worse on learning, memory, attention,
and physical development. The use of PBDEs would continue
to add to the negative impact on the environment and human
bodies. She relayed that continued exposure put future
generations at risk for chronic disease and irreparable
harm.
Senator Olson asked how the dangers of PBDEs compared to
other neurotoxins, such as cadmium, mercury, and other.
Ms. Janson replied that it was difficult to separate the
contribution of PBDEs from other heavy metals, mercury,
lead, cadmium, and PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls] that
were historically used as flame retardant chemicals. The
chemicals could all cause greater harm when combined
together. She did not know a specific percentage that
caused conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder; however, she opined that the elimination of
exposure to the chemicals would have a significant impact
on public and reproductive health.
Senator Olson queried the specific neoplasias that existed
as a result of PBDEs. Ms. Janson responded that there was
animal research data related to Deca PBDEs, which were
listed by the EPA as a probable human carcinogens based on
thyroid tumors and liver abnormalities.
Senator Olson asked what negative effects had been seen in
Europe that had caused the European Union to ban PBDEs.
Ms. Janson answered that PBDE levels in breast milk in some
European countries had declined subsequent to their removal
from consumer products. She did not know whether a follow-
up study on health impacts had been conducted; the body
took a long time to metabolize the chemicals; therefore, it
would take considerable time before health impacts could be
measured as a result of the removal of PBDEs from products.
9:53:10 AM
DR. ANDRE FELIZ, MEDICAL RESEARCHER, DOCTOR, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA DAVIS, DEPARTMENT OF COMPARATIVE PATHOLOGY,
CALIFORNIA CITIZENS FOR FIRE SAFETY (via teleconference),
testified against SB 27. His expertise was in air
particulate pollution and he explained that science had
been unable to directly link health problems to PBDEs.
There had been no reported literature about any adverse
health impacts in humans resulting from exposure to Deca or
other polybrominated fire retardants. His research focused
on air particulate matter and how humans received toxins
from dust and inhaled chemicals. He had found that the dust
constituted a higher environmental danger than some of the
toxic chemicals that people believed were in the dust. He
stressed that the danger of fire was greater than the
danger of PBDE exposure. He emphasized that 3,500 children
had died as a result of fire in the prior year and 90
percent of the cases were at home. He stressed the
importance of fire retardants in the prevention of fires.
He had worked with burn victims and relayed that scars
could last a lifetime. He believed that before banning
PBDEs that it was important to consider their roll in
saving lives. He addressed the danger of replacing PBDEs,
which had been studied for over 30 years, with newer
alternatives that had only been studied for a few years.
9:57:13 AM
PETE ERRIGO, SELF, BIRD CREEK (via teleconference),
testified against SB 27. He expressed concern that the
removal of fire retardants would expose people to
unnecessary risk. He believed there was legislation in
place that would phase in new fire retardants and
recommended allowing time for the bill to take effect.
9:58:30 AM
PATTIE SAUNDERS, THE ARC OF ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 27. She discussed that the
organization served Alaskans with developmental
disabilities and mental health issues. She emphasized that
preventing a single occurrence of developmental disability
would save between $1 million and $3 million over a child's
lifetime according to national experts and the Governor's
Council on Special Education and Disabilities. One out of
six families was impacted by developmental disability and
the savings represented by preventable disabilities were
"staggering." She highlighted that the bill would work to
remove PBDEs from the environment and would help to protect
brain development in children. The bill would create a
registry of safe fire retardants that would protect
children, families, and firefighters. She detailed that
monetary savings provided by the bill would be substantial;
the prevention of 10 disabilities per year would save
between $10 million and $30 million over the next ten
years. She was perplexed by testimony that stated concern
about burn victims but downplayed the impacts of chemicals
that could cause disabilities in children, which could be
replaced by equally effective safer alternatives. She
queried the relationship between the testifier and chemical
manufacturers or industry representatives. She reiterated
that $139,000 per year was a small amount to pay and
wondered whether committee members could face the parents
of babies born with preventable diseases. She opined that
critics of the bill were unwilling to take modest steps to
protect children and other.
10:02:48 AM
DR. LAUREN HEINE, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, was present to
discuss alternatives to PBDEs. She worked with businesses
such as Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Walmart that were
interested in developing products that were beneficial for
human health and the environment. She pointed out that a
fire retardant must meet required fire safety performance
to be considered an alternative; therefore, banning PBDEs
would not restrict fire safety. She stressed that although
fire safety had saved lives there was no evidence that
PDBEs had done so. United States manufacturers had agreed
to phase out PBDEs; however, the chemicals were still
imported into the country in products. She informed the
committee that Walmart had recently banned products that
contained the chemicals. Mattress manufacturers did not
need PBDEs and used a flame retardant barrier instead.
Plastic manufacturers such as DSM, Apple, Seagate, Hewlett-
Packard, and other did not use any brominated flame
retardants. She thought it was odd that related bans were
normally seen negatively. She believed the state would be
sending an important signal that: (1) People needed to know
the contents in products that they were making and selling;
and (2) Manufacturers needed to make safer alternatives
that were consistent with what people valued. She pointed
out that DOW Chemical had just offered an alternative to a
brominated flame retardant that had health benefits and
would be used with EPA partnerships. She stressed that
bills like SB 27 sent important signals through the supply
chain and drove innovation for new products and processes
in the U.S. She thought there was an opportunity to move
towards safer and healthier products.
10:07:36 AM
Senator Olson asked how the cost increase due to the use of
alternative flame retardant chemicals would impact young
parents and other consumers.
Senator Wielechowski responded that both fire safety and
health safety could be accomplished. He did not believe
there was any evidence that the ban on PBDEs in Europe and
up to 13 other states had caused an increase in fire
related burns. He represented lower income areas in
Anchorage and he was sympathetic to their needs. Bans had
caused companies to become more innovative and to provide
safer alternatives. He did not believe a cost increase
would result from a ban on the chemicals because safer
options were available and were currently used in 12 other
states and throughout Europe. The ban on PBDEs by large
companies such as Walmart, Apple, and Hewlett-Packard, was
significant and would help to keep costs down. He
emphasized that Alaska was particularly affected by the
risks posed by the chemicals; studies showed large amounts
of PBDEs in the breast milk of Yup'ik mothers due to their
subsistence lifestyle.
SB 27 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.