Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
04/03/2019 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB27 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2019
1:52 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to the manufacture, sale, distribution, and
labeling of child-related products containing certain flame
retardant chemicals; relating to an interstate chemicals
clearinghouse; adding unlawful acts to the Alaska Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to the purchase and sale of state land;
relating to discounts for veterans on state land purchases; and
relating to the assignment of permanent fund dividends to
purchase state land."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 27
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) RES, L&C
04/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: STATE LAND SALE; PFD VOUCHER AND ASSIGN.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) MLV, RES, FIN
03/13/19 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/13/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/19 (H) MLV, RES, FIN
03/14/19 (H) MLV AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/19 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/26/19 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/19 (H) Moved SSHB 3 Out of Committee
03/26/19 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/27/19 (H) MLV RPT 4DP 2NR
03/27/19 (H) DP: THOMPSON, JACKSON, TARR, RAUSCHER
03/27/19 (H) NR: TUCK, LEDOUX
04/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CAROL BACON, Retired Firefighter
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27.
VYTENIS BABRAUSKAS, PhD
Fire, Science and Technology Inc.
New York, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27.
EVE GARTNER, Staff Attorney
Earthjustice
New York, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27 and answered
questions.
SARA HANNON, Spokesperson
Alaska Nurses Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27.
MAUREEN SWANSON, Director
Healthy Children Project
Learning Disabilities Association of America
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the Learning Disabilities
Association of Alaska, based in Juneau, testified in support of
HB 27.
DAVE CAVITT, Owner
Furniture Enterprises of Alaska, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 27 and offered a
suggestion.
EMILY NEENAN, Director
Alaska Government Relations
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACSCAN)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27 and answered
a question.
DARRELL BREESE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Rauscher,
sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:52:04 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:52 p.m. Representatives Hannan,
Talerico, Spohnholz, Rauscher, Hopkins, and Tarr were present at
the call to order. Representative Rasmussen arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 27-REGULATION OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS
1:53:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to the manufacture, sale,
distribution, and labeling of child-related products containing
certain flame retardant chemicals; relating to an interstate
chemicals clearinghouse; adding unlawful acts to the Alaska
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR TARR passed the gavel to Vice Chair Hopkins.
1:53:11 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:53:44 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR, speaking as the sponsor of HB 27, provided
a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "HB 27, Toxic Free
Children's Act." She cautioned that federal laws regarding
chemicals don't ensure the population is safe [slide 2]. For
example, she noted, many things have changed in the manufacture
of products since passage of the 1910 federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the 1938 Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act. The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), she
continued, was updated [in 2016] but is still so weak that it
doesn't even ban asbestos, a known carcinogen. Asbestos has
been taken out of manufacturing because of its known
carcinogenic effects, she added, but the law doesn't ban it and
it's examples like this that point to why work must be continued
to update laws based on current information.
CO-CHAIR TARR explained that the 2008 Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act provides that children must be used as the
benchmark for chemical safety [slides 3-5]. She pointed out
that many of the 60,000 chemicals in use in the U.S. in 2008
were grandfathered in by TSCA in 1976 despite never having been
tested for adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Between the 1976 and 2008 laws, she continued, it was learned
that children are much more vulnerable to chemical exposure
because of being on the ground, putting things into their
mouths, and their higher metabolisms. However, she continued,
very few chemicals have been retested since the 2008 law because
it is very difficult to establish causation for exposure to a
single chemical since each person has a different amount of
exposure to a given chemical. For example, she noted, some
people eat organic foods and some do not, and women tend to use
personal care products, which contain many different types of
chemicals, much more often than do men.
2:00:06 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR warned that even for chemicals that have been
regulated or approved by a federal agency, much was done without
any scientific foundation and much more is now known today. It
was previously thought, she said, that significant exposure to a
chemical was needed for it to have adverse health impacts, but
it is now known that only a few incidents of exposure can have
adverse health impacts. However, she reiterated, it is very
difficult to establish a direct link that a person's exposure to
a particular chemical caused their cancer. Therefore, she
suggested, a precautionary approach should be taken that a
chemical not be used if it can't absolutely be stated that it
doesn't cause harm.
2:00:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether it is the importing and
manufacturing of products that is being talked about by HB 27.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied that since Alaska isn't a big manufacturer
of products it would be mostly imported products. For example,
she said, flame retardants are used in upholstered furniture and
therefore products purchased for one's home may have these
chemicals. It has been learned, she continued, that much lower
levels of exposure can be problematic and having these items in
the home results in continuous exposure, particularly in Alaska
where doors are kept closed, thereby intensifying the exposure.
It is not where an item is manufactured, she noted, but about
exposure in the home or workplace. Responding further to
Representative Rauscher, Co-Chair Tarr explained HB 27 would put
restrictions on the manufacturers of products and the use of
products.
2:02:16 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR returned to her presentation of HB 27 and reviewed
the health concerns related to exposure to the chemicals used in
products [slides 6-7]. She explained that chemical exposure
occurs in three ways - absorption, inhalation, and eating.
Absorption occurs when personal care products are applied
directly to the skin. Inhalation occurs when flame retardants
in furniture break down and become dust in the home that is then
inhaled. Eating occurs when pesticides are applied to fruits
and other foods. She further explained that firefighters are
exposed to inhaling flame retardants when a home catches fire
and the furniture burns. Inhalation, she noted, is the primary
route for chemical exposure that is talked about [under HB 27].
CO-CHAIR TARR discussed slides 8-9. The chemical components of
flame retardants are polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), she
explained. The first bill on this issue was introduced 10 years
ago, she continued, and there has been more and more evidence of
the health impacts since then, as well as more and more
incidents of rare cancers among firefighters. This has been the
catalyst to make change at the state level, she added.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that PBDEs are structurally similar to
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). She explained that these
chemicals are problematic because they bio accumulate in blood,
breast milk, and fat tissues. Northern residents have increased
exposure to these chemicals, she further explained, because
global wind and water patterns help chemicals migrate to the
poles; this movement and intensification of chemicals is called
the "grasshopper effect." Tests show, for example, that the
breast milk of mothers in [Canada's] Northwest Territories
contains many chemicals even though the chemicals are
manufactured very far away. She pointed out that global wind
and water patterns expose Alaskans to chemicals from Southeast
Asia and further noted that [flame retardants] are a leading
cause of cancer in firefighters.
2:06:48 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR addressed why flame retardant chemicals are used
[slide 10]. Before self-extinguishing cigarettes, she said,
many home fires occurred because of people falling asleep [while
holding] a burning cigarette. In response during the 1970s,
flammability standards were passed that required furniture to be
able to be exposed to a certain amount of fire without
combusting, the idea being to give a person enough time to get
out of the home before it became engulfed in fire. While self-
extinguishing cigarettes resolved this problem, she stated, the
use of flame retardants in furniture was continued. In recent
years, she noted, many states have passed laws in response to
the evidence about the adverse health impacts.
CO-CHAIR TARR reviewed places in the home where chemical
exposure occurs [slides 11-12] and pointed out that children are
more exposed because they crawl on the floor, put their hands in
their mouths, and chew on things. Exposure occurs from
upholstered furniture, plastic casings of electronics, dust in
carpet padding, [and foam products], she noted, and this is why
firefighters are so exposed to these chemicals when a home burns
and all these exposure routes are in flames.
2:09:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked when self-extinguishing cigarettes
started to be made and whether it is a chemical that does that.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her belief that it was in the 1980s and
that rather than the addition of a chemical it was a change in
the design of the cigarette, which put an air space between the
tobacco and the edge of the cigarette.
2:10:23 PM
VICE CHAIR HOPKINS inquired whether the flammability standards
of the 1970s are still in use today or have been updated.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded that in some cases the standards have
been changed. For example, she explained, in 2014 California
abandoned the rule that compelled furniture manufacturers to use
flame retardants and some furniture makers began to drop the
chemical. The economy dominating the West Coast of the U.S. is
California, she continued, and the saying is, "How California
goes so goes the rest of the West Coast." She noted that Alaska
receives the products that are manufactured for the West Coast,
but cautioned that as states make the change, Alaska must be
careful to not become the dumping ground for products that don't
meet the standards elsewhere.
CO-CHAIR TARR addressed why HB 27 is called the children's and
firefighters bill [slide 12]. For firefighters, she said, the
concern for exposure is cancer and for children the concern for
exposure is endocrine disruption and reproductive damage. These
chemical products were previously used in children's pajamas,
she noted, but this was stopped once they were found to be
harmful. It represents what has been learned in the intervening
time, she added, and doing the best that can be done with what
is known at a particular time and "we know better now."
2:12:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked what year the chemicals were
removed from pajamas.
CO-CHAIR TARR answered that she would get back to the committee
with the dates.
2:13:03 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR resumed her presentation. She pointed out that
disruption of the endocrine system is caused by even small
amounts of exposure to flame retardants [slide 13]. The
endocrine system is the hormone system, she explained, and
because it operates like an on-demand system the production of
hormones is only wanted when those hormones are needed. In
endocrine disruption, she further explained, the chemical that a
person is exposed to becomes the key that fits into the lock of
a receptor within the body, and this isn't wanted. The body is
confused because this [chemical] key looks like the other key
and this can result in too much or too little of the hormone
being produced or the hormone being produced at the wrong time.
She related that recent research is showing early maturation for
females, a cause of concern related to endocrine disruption. A
chemical shouldn't be used without confidence that it doesn't
have an impact, Co-Chair Tarr opined, and therefore moving
forward with a change is the appropriate thing to do. She
pointed out that endocrine disruption is very far reaching
[slide 14], affecting the reproductive system as well as the
pancreas, thyroid, and other endocrine organs.
CO-CHAIR TARR presented four policy solutions [slide 15] as they
relate to HB 27 - restricting the use of known chemicals of
concern, restricting the use of known possible substitutes,
conducting Alaska research, and collaborating with other states.
In the past, she noted, a chemical of known concern was slightly
modified only to later learn that the modified chemical also has
problems.
2:16:24 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained that page 2 of HB 27 addresses classes
of chemicals, thereby providing a more comprehensive approach
[than naming just one chemical of known concern in a class of
chemicals]. She said page 3 provides that once the bill is in
effect, products would need to be labeled whether they do or
don't have the flame retardant chemicals. A civil penalty would
be set up for failure to comply with the law. The penalty would
not be too burdensome, she added, but also not so low that the
fine would just be considered the cost of doing business. She
noted that [page 3] would also provide for [voluntary]
participation in an interstate chemicals clearinghouse. Since
it is very difficult to conduct research on these individual
chemicals, she continued, this provision would allow for working
with other states and building on what they have learned and the
research that has been done. Also provided [on page 3] are
definitions, she said. "Child" means "a child who is under 12
years of age" and "consumer product" means "clothing, toys,
detachable car seats, nursing pillows, upholstered furniture,
bedding, mattresses, crib mattresses, nap pads and changing
pads, or other products used in the home primarily for or by a
child or the parent or guardian of a child.
CO-CHAIR TARR drew attention to the committee packet and noted
it contains letters and statements of support from citizens and
professional firefighters from across the state. She shared
that last fall the federal government passed a cancer registry
bill and that U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski had the bill named
after Anchorage firefighter Andy Mullen who died of a rare
cancer caused by exposure to toxins. She added that HB 27 is
trying to be preventative. She further added that the Anchorage
Assembly passed an ordinance that is very similar to HB 27.
2:20:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to the definitions on page 3 of
the bill and inquired whether it relates to household items as
they pertain to children under the age of 12 or whether it
relates to all household items.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied that the focus is on children's products
since children are more vulnerable to the exposure because they
are still developing. The flip side, she continued, is that
firefighters are exposed to the chemicals should these products
burn during a fire.
2:22:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN observed that the bill's narrative
[Section 2] speaks to firefighters, while Section 3 appears to
focus on children's products. Therefore, she surmised, the bill
gives some de facto protection to firefighters if a house full
of new children's products versus old children's products
catches fire. However, she posited, other than that the bill
doesn't actually give any additional protection to firefighters;
it only elevates the concern and educates the public.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded that once the bill is passed and
implemented, a manufacturer wouldn't be able to sell those
products in Alaska. The bill doesn't require people to give up
any products, she continued, so these products won't be gone the
next day, but the bill would start the process of transitioning
these products out and eventually these products would no longer
be there and creating exposure.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the bill deals only with
children's products or also with the next couch she might buy.
CO-CHAIR TARR answered that the bill includes upholstered
furniture and therefore covers the next couch that a person
might buy under the definitions starting on line 24 of page 3.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether the bill would cover the
transporting of furniture into Alaska when a person makes online
purchases.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied that that becomes trickier because of the
federal constitutional prohibition on interstate commerce
issues. "You can prohibit things from being sold in your state;
you cannot prohibit things from being sold at the state level
across state lines," she explained. "We do what we can with the
tools that we have," she added.
2:25:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN stated she would like to have an
awareness program come out so parents can look into it. She
expressed her concern that proper alternatives might not be
available.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded that HB 27 tries to address those
concerns via its labeling section. As to where to put the
burden, she continued, the bill says the change is wanted at the
manufacturing level so when it changes there will be
alternatives that are known. Then there is the question of
whether to ask retail outlets to do something about education,
she noted, and while she isn't opposed to requiring retail
outlets to do that, she is trying to find a balance in
responsibility and how burdensome it would be. The labeling
provision in the bill is one way of trying to address that, she
explained. She added that the same kind of innovation it took
to develop these products can be the same kind of innovation to
develop new products, and therefore she is looking at it as a
business opportunity rather than an adversarial frame.
2:28:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in regard to labeling, asked whether
the onus would be on the retail store or on the product coming
from outside [the state].
CO-CHAIR TARR answered that the onus would be on manufacturers
to implement - to state on the label whether the product does or
does not contain those chemicals.
2:29:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ recalled that the Toxics Substances
Control Act was updated in 2016 with the Frank Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. She surmised the
update didn't incorporate labeling requirements or exclusions
for these chemicals specifically.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ inquired whether there are other states
that have already passed or have introduced similar legislation.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded, "Yes, to both." She said she would
provide the committee with the list of approximately 12 states
that have already passed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated she would appreciate getting the
list because she has heard concerns about whether [Alaska] can
accomplish this on its own. However, she continued, it is known
that states are often incubators for what becomes federal laws
and if [Alaska] is part of a movement that is moving across the
nation, that could then set precedent and allow for federal law
to be enacted as well. It is clearly important, she added, that
[Alaska] update its practices with new information about
chemicals.
CO-CHAIR TARR concurred and said that that is often the thinking
when states are working on this. From a manufacturing point of
view, she noted, it is easier to have a consistent nationwide
policy rather than a patchwork, and in that regard she has tried
to make the language of HB 27 similar to that of the Anchorage
ordinance so there aren't two sets of rules in the state.
2:31:31 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
[VICE CHAIR HOPKINS returned the gavel to Co-Chair Tarr.]
2:31:38 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened invited testimony.
CAROL BACON testified in support of HB 27. She said she is
retired Anchorage firefighter who had a rewarding 25-year
career. However, she continued, shortly after retiring she was
diagnosed with a rare blood cancer, making her one of many
Anchorage firefighters who have been diagnosed with cancer.
MS. BACON explained that flame retardants generate excessive
smoke and toxic chemical byproducts that expose firefighters to
a toxic soup when a structure is burning. Despite their
training and protective gear, she continued, firefighters are
exposed to toxins that have been linked to cancer. Protective
gear doesn't completely protect firefighters because [the
toxins] can accumulate inside the protective gear and enter
firefighters' bodies through dermal contact.
MS. BACON said firefighters are diagnosed with cancers at a much
higher rate than the general public. She related that a survey
conducted with the San Francisco Fire Department found that the
rate of breast cancer among female firefighters aged 40-50 is
six times the national average. The estimated cost of her bone
marrow transplant, she reported, was close to $1 million. She
spent six weeks in the hospital and four months living near the
hospital in Seattle, she continued. Although her treatment was
mentally and physically taxing, she said she fortunately didn't
have to cover the cost, instead the burden fell on taxpayers.
Cancer is the biggest killer of America's firefighters, she
stated, and toxic flame retardants are one of the leading
culprits contributing to firefighter cancer. She expressed her
support for HB 27 and urged the state be more pro-active in
banning flame retardants for the safety of its firefighters and
communities. It is a preventative step to address the cancer
epidemic that has become the fate of her occupation, she added.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS thanked Ms. Bacon for her testimony in
support of HB 27.
2:34:52 PM
VYTENIS BABRAUSKAS, PhD, Fire, Science and Technology Inc.,
testified in support of HB 27. He spoke as follows:
I am Dr. Vyto Babrauskas. I hold the first Ph.D.
degree ever awarded in fire protection engineering and
have been a fire safety researcher since the 1970s. I
invented the Cone Calorimeter and the Furniture
Calorimeter, which have become the worldwide standards
for measuring how fast something is burning. During
my career, I have studied fire retardant chemicals
extensively, studying both the physics and the
toxicology of burning fire-retardant-treated
materials.
From decades of research, my conclusion is that fire-
retardant chemicals are ineffective if used in the way
that they normally are used in child-related products.
They do not result in such products becoming fire-safe
and do not result in consumers becoming safer. But,
the health research community has documented at great
length that such products are likely to harm the
health of children, harm the health of firefighters,
and adversely affect our environment, including the
wildlife, which we should treat responsibly.
The FR [flame retardant] manufacturing industry has
misrepresented at length my research, claiming that
some of it justifies the use of fire retardants. But
it does not, at least as concerns fire retardants used
in the way they are used in consumer goods in a normal
household environment. If you see some publication
claiming that I have found some safety benefits for FR
chemicals, you can be assured that the context was not
consumer goods as used in a normal household.
The plethora of harm and the lack of benefits make
conclusions quite obvious. We should not be putting
FR chemicals into consumer goods that end up in the
household and are likely to adversely affect your
children. As a result, I strongly support House Bill
No. 27, in efforts to make Alaska a healthier place
for its inhabitants.
DR. BABRAUSKAS further offered his support for the concept
of using classes [of chemicals] as the basis for
regulation, because doing otherwise is a losing situation
in terms of the "whack a mole game."
2:38:05 PM
EVE GARTNER, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice, testified in support
of HB 27. She spoke as follows:
I am an attorney at Earthjustice, which is a national
not-for-profit environmental law firm with two offices
in Alaska. ... It's well recognized that adding flame
retardants to consumer products does not meaningfully
improve fire safety, yet the chemicals find their way
into our children's bodies.
The main point I want to convey to you is that the
federal government has not adopted safeguards against
these exposures despite the well-known health risks.
Both the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission
[CPSC] and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[EPA] have clear authority to protect children from
toxic chemicals in consumer products. But neither
entity is likely to use this authority in the
foreseeable future and they have not done so in the
past.
... I'm lead counsel on a legal petition submitted in
2015 asking the CPSC to ban the sale of four
categories of consumer products if they contain any
organohalogen flame retardant. After several years of
consideration, the Commission granted our petition.
However, it is unclear when, if ever, the Commission
will finalize regulations that actually ban this class
of flame retardants. In fact, because the Commission
recognized that final regulations are not imminent,
and because the majority of commissioners were so
alarmed about the toxicity of this class of chemicals,
the CPSC issued a non-binding guidance to
manufacturers, retailers, and consumers which was
published in the Federal Register which states, "based
on the overwhelming scientific evidence presented to
the Commission to date, the Commission has serious
concerns regarding the potential toxicity of
organohalogen flame retardants, and the risks of
exposure, particularly to vulnerable populations."
The guidance went on to state that the Commission
requests, but does not require, that manufacturers
liminate the use of these chemicals" in the products
covered by the petition.
Since that guidance was issued in 2017, the CPSC has
not moved forward to finalize a binding prohibition on
the use of these chemicals, and it is unclear if it
will ever do so.
The federal EPA also has authority to protect
consumers from flame retardant chemicals, but it too
has not used that authority in a meaningful way.
Nearly fifteen years ago, EPA convinced U.S. chemical
manufacturers to voluntarily stop the domestic
production of a group of flame retardants known as
PBDEs ? polybrominated diphenyl ethers. These
chemicals are part of the organohalogen class, a group
of chemicals for which there is clear evidence of
serious health impacts.
Other than this limited action, EPA has not banned
domestic production or use of any flame retardants,
and it has not banned the import of consumer products
containing any flame retardants. ... EPA is now on
track to take some regulatory action under TSCA [Toxic
Substances Control Act] with respect to flame
retardants. Specifically, EPA is on track to regulate
it's unclear if it will ban them - two specific
flame retardants which are in a special TSCA category
for persistent bioaccumulative and toxic, or PBT,
chemicals. Under the law EPA must regulate these two
chemicals to the maximum extent practical to avoid
exposure. These ... two flame retardants are decaBDE,
which is one of the PBTs, and IpTPP, which is an
organophosphorus flame retardant. EPA is expected to
release proposed risk management rules in June of 2019
that would be finalized in June of 2020, but as I
indicated it's unknown if EPA ... will be proposing
bans on these substances, or a less protective form of
restriction.
2:42:53 PM
Under the TSCA statute, no federal regulation of those
two PBT substances would have preemptive effect for
state regulations of those two chemicals. So if
Alaska goes forward and EPA goes forward ... the two
laws can co-exist under TSCA.
In addition to those two PBT flame retardants, just
two weeks ago EPA announced that it is initiating a
process to conduct risk evaluations for three specific
flame retardant chemicals under TSCA. Under this
statute, if EPA finds unreasonable risk, it must
regulate those chemicals and the regulations could be
in the form of a ban, though the regulation could also
be something less restrictive. If EPA follows through
with the process that it announced a few weeks ago and
finds that those chemicals pose unreasonable risk,
which is not guaranteed by any shot, it will likely be
at least six years until a final rule limiting use of
these chemicals [goes] into effect, based on the
mandatory time frames in TSCA, and that doesn't take
into account any delays that might result from
lawsuits.
And at the end of that six years, even in the best
public health scenario, EPA would have banned only
three chemicals, opening the door to manufacturers
replacing those chemicals with nearly identical
substances with similar toxicity profiles; something
that Alaska would address through the class approach
in HB 27, which I strongly support.
Protecting the health and safety of residents has
always been one of the primary functions of state
government. Consistent with this role, several other
states have adopted bans on the use of classes of
flame retardant chemicals in consumer products similar
to HB 27. None of these state laws has been
challenged in court.
Based on my experience and familiarity with federal
law governing regulation of toxic chemicals, federal
law would not prevent or impede the implementation of
the HB 27. To the contrary, as the chair noted
earlier, due to the significant gaps in federal law,
it is imperative that Alaska adopt HB 27 to protect
the health of the children and firefighters of this
state.
2:45:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how many other states have already
instituted a similar ban and which states have the most
aggressive restriction or provide the most protection in Ms.
Gartner's opinion. She said her concern is that HB 27 doesn't
go far enough because she would like to see the whole class and
in all products.
MS. GARTNER replied that many states have adopted bans on
particular chemicals in particular products. The states that
now go the farthest are California, Maine, Rhode Island, and
Washington state. She said she would provide a description of
the legislation from each of those states in written form. To
date, she added, none of the states have banned all flame
retardants in all consumer products. She said HB 27 is an
aggressive first step to protect children and firefighters, and
while she agrees it would be better if it addressed all
products, it goes quite far and farther than some of the other
states have gone. The Rhode Island bill only covers furniture
and mattresses, she noted, and she further stated her belief
that the Maine bill only covers furniture.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested that when preparing the
aforementioned descriptions Ms. Gartner also cross-reference
whether those states passing the strong laws had major
firefighter lawsuits and liability. She offered her assumption
that liability created from firefighters suffering high rates of
cancer may have driven some states to make these considerations.
She said Alaska has had some individual cases, but not yet a
class action lawsuit.
MS. GARTNER agreed to do so.
2:48:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the buyer beware is
mostly overseas or still a problem from manufacturers in the
Lower 48. He surmised there might be enough protection in the
aforementioned states, which are predominantly the states
manufacturing.
MS. GARTNER responded she is unsure she has the data to speak to
that definitively, but she does know that many of these kinds of
children's products, both with and without flame retardants, are
manufactured overseas.
2:50:46 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that the next witness, Sara Hannon,
has the same name as Representative Sara Hannan [different
spelling of last name].
SARA HANNON, Spokesperson, Alaska Nurses Association, testified
in support of HB 27. She said the ill effects of exposure to
chemical flame retardants are well documented in research. They
are found widely in the home environment, commonly used in
children's products, carpeting, and home furniture. Harmful
impacts, she continued, include developmental disabilities,
thyroid function impact, miscarriages, birth defects, and
cancer. She related that a national bio-monitoring program
conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) found that 97 percent of the people living in the U.S.
have measurable quantities of flame retardant in their blood.
This persistent exposure contaminates fish and wildlife as well
as people, she added, and simply put, flame retardants are
harmful to human health and the environment.
MS. HANNON pointed out that birth defects in Alaska are twice as
high as the U.S. as a whole and Alaska Native infants have a
doubled risk. She said HB 27 would protect children's health by
preventing exposure to known toxic chemicals and would be an
opportunity to make a difference to future generations in
Alaska's communities. The more scientists look, she continued,
the more they find negative impacts even at very low levels of
exposure to toxic chemical. Prenatal exposure to these toxic
chemicals at a level commonly found in households has been shown
to be associated with adverse neurodevelopmental effects in
young children. Safer economically viable alternatives are
available, she added, which means that many Alaskans won't have
to sacrifice their health and Alaska will be a healthier and
less toxic place to live to raise a family. She said both she
and the Alaska Nurses Association strongly support HB 27 and
urge that it be passed this legislative session.
2:53:45 PM
MAUREEN SWANSON, Learning Disabilities Association of America,
on behalf of the Learning Disabilities Association of Alaska,
based in Juneau, testified in support of HB 27. She paraphrased
from the following written testimony [original punctuation
provided]:
The Learning Disabilities Association [LDA] of Alaska
strongly supports HB 27, the Toxic-Free Firefighters
and Children Act. We are pleased that this bill has
been strengthened to address four categories of toxic
flame retardants - organohalogen, organophosphorous,
organonitrogen and nanoscale that can threaten
children's health and brain development. Addressing
all four categories of flame retardant chemicals helps
to ensure that product makers cannot remove one toxic
chemical only to replace it with another.
LDA of Alaska is headquartered in Juneau and directed
by Alison and Larry Talley, with their son Matthew.
Larry was a volunteer fire fighter in Juneau for 12
years. He and Alison are parents of three young adult
children, two of whom have problems with learning and
attention.
One in six children in the United States has a
reported learning or developmental disability
including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, and other learning and developmental delays.
Learning and developmental disabilities persist with
lasting impacts on children, families and society. On
average, it costs twice as much to educate a child
with a learning or developmental disability as to
educate a child without a disability.
Flame retardant chemicals are found in pregnant women
and in newborn babies. These chemicals cross the
placenta to the fetus and are detected in umbilical
cord blood and in breast milk.
Flame retardants migrate from products such as
furniture, baby and children's products, and
mattresses into household dust. The U.S. EPA
estimates that children ages 15 ingest approximately
four to five times more dust than adults. Flame
retardants in house dust get on children's hands and
objects such as toys, which they then put in their
mouths. In Alaska, we spend a lot of time indoors
during the long winters, so our children may be more
highly exposed to toxic chemicals in dust than
children in other parts of the country.
The developing brain, in utero and early childhood, is
extremely vulnerable to harm from even low levels of
toxic chemicals. The National Academy of Sciences
states that environmental factors, including toxic
chemicals, contribute to more than a quarter of all
learning and developmental disabilities in U.S.
children.
In July 2016, leading scientific and medical experts
published a statement naming PBDE flame retardants as
examples of toxic chemicals that are increasing
children's risks for neurodevelopmental disorders,
including ADHD [Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder], learning disabilities and autism. The
statement also outlines the scientists' concerns with
flame retardants that are replacing PBDEs. Some of
the replacement flame retardants are similar in
structure to PBDEs or to organophosphate pesticides,
and emerging evidence shows they are similarly
neurotoxic.
In 2015 researchers with the Endocrine Society
concluded that PBDE exposure interferes with thyroid
hormone and contributes to neurodevelopmental
disorders. Recent studies of halogenated flame
retardants that have replaced PBDEs show these
chemicals also can interfere with thyroid hormone and
alter brain development.
In September 2017, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety
Commission (CPSC) issued a landmark ruling that
recognized the need to protect people, especially
pregnant women and children, from the entire class of
halogenated flame retardants. CPSC banned the sale or
import of furniture, mattresses, children's products
and electronics enclosures if they contain any
halogenated flame retardants.
The Commission stated, "The known adverse health
effects of these chemicals include?neurological
impacts, (such as) decreased IQ in children, impaired
memory, learning deficits, altered motor behavior and
hyperactivity" and concluded, "These chemicals have a
disproportionately negative health effect on
vulnerable populations, including children.
Organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) such as TDCPP
and TPP, offer another example of dangerous
"replacement" flame retardants. OPFRs are
structurally similar to the organophosphate pesticide
chlorpyrifos, which can impair brain development, and
increase children's risks for learning and attention
disorders. Laboratory studies of OPFRs have shown
neurobehavioral toxicity, including hyperactivity and
impaired exploratory behavior. The effects of OPFRs
such as TDCPP on brain development and behavior, are
observed at the same doses at which chlorpyrifos
affects brain development and behavior.
It is important to understand that even tiny amounts
of these toxic chemicals can affect children's brains
at the level of parts per billion. Researchers have
identified "critical windows of vulnerability" during
fetal development and early childhood, when the brain
is especially at risk from toxic chemicals, even at
extremely low exposure levels.
Consider chemicals that are designed to alter
behavior, like Ritalin. The prescribed dose of
Ritalin for a child with ADHD affects the child's
brain at about the same level as the level of flame
retardants found in children. Both the prescribed
behavior-altering chemical, Ritalin, and the behavior-
altering toxic flame retardant chemicals are active in
the child's body and brain at levels of parts per
billion.
The scientific evidence is clear. Beginning in utero,
children are regularly exposed to toxic flame
retardants, in part because these chemicals migrate
from products into house dust and are ingested. These
flame retardant chemicals are active in children's
bodies at levels that can disrupt brain development
and function. The resulting harm to our children's
minds can be permanent.
LDA of Alaska urges the House to adopt the Toxic Free
Fire-Fighters and Children Act, to protect Alaska's
vulnerable youngest citizens from toxic flame
retardants that put them at higher risk for problems
with learning, attention and behavior.
MS. SWANSON, in response to Co-Chair Tarr, stated she would
be providing her testimony in writing and that it contains
the references to the studies she cited.
3:01:43 PMS
DAVE CAVITT, Owner, Furniture Enterprises of Alaska, Inc.,
testified regarding HB 27 and offered a suggestion. He
stated he owns 13 furniture stores in Alaska and his
company is 100 percent Alaska based. He said he checked
with all of the manufacturers that he carries in his stores
and none use flame retardants in the manufacture of their
products, including the items from China, Vietnam, Mexico,
and the U.S. Of the upholstery manufacturers, he added,
one believed it was compliant but couldn't certify it. He
noted that all of the products his company carries are
already labeled with the California standards. He said it
is important to him as a local person that his company can
comply with California's standard because, as stated by a
prior witness, California has one of the strongest
standards, if not the strongest, in the nation. He
suggested that furniture and mattresses be separated from
the current bill, with that bill mandating the California
standard or the federal standard, whichever is stronger.
He posited that all the manufacturers would move to the
California standard because of California's population size
and [his company] would be able to comply with that.
CO-CHAIR Tarr urged Mr. Cavitt to contact her office to
explore his idea further.
MR. CAVITT agreed to do so.
3:04:03 PM
EMILY NEENAN, Director, Alaska Government Relations,
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACSCAN),
testified in support of HB 27. She stated that primary
prevention is a key focus of her organization. While much
is heard from her organization about tobacco prevention,
nutrition, and physical activity, she continued, it also
includes minimizing cancers from exposures to toxic
substances such as in HB 27. Regarding an earlier question
from Representative Rauscher, she stated that 2007 was the
year Alaska passed the self-extinguishing cigarette law.
Alaska was the sixth or seventh state in the nation to do
that and by 2014 all states had that law in place. She
pointed out that it wasn't a problem for Alaska to do that
because there were a number of big states New York being
the first one to do so and manufacturers were already
creating those products for the larger population states.
She maintained the same would be true in regard to HB 27
and this is the trend that ACSCAN sees moving forward.
[HB 27 was held over and public testimony was kept open.]
HB 3-STATE LAND SALE; PFD VOUCHER AND ASSIGN.
3:05:59 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to
the purchase and sale of state land; relating to discounts for
veterans on state land purchases; and relating to the assignment
of permanent fund dividends to purchase state land."
{Before the committee was the sponsor substitute for HB 3,
introduced and referred to the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs, committee of first referral, on
3/13/19.]
3:06:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that Alaska has an abundance of
three things land, permanent fund dividends (PFDs), and
veterans and that HB 3 would bring these three together. The
bill would encourage the sale of state lands, he said, thus
creating growth and allowing the use of the individual's PFD to
purchase land. It would encourage veterans to use the statutory
discount in combination with their PFD assignment to purchase
land, he explained. Alaskans who have resided in the state for
at least one year immediately prior to the opening of the land
disposal and those who are 18 years of age could participate.
He noted the state regularly offers surplus lands for sale,
either by auctions or over-the-counter sales. The bill would
make these land sales more accessible to Alaskans by allowing
individuals to assign their PFD to pay for their purchases of
[state] land.
3:07:48 PM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher,
sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 3. He explained
Section 1 would make conforming changes to existing statute "to
include the changes that are made in this bill by removing
reference to a specific section to include the whole chapter,
which will include the changes that are added in the second part
of the bill."
MR. BREESE said Section 2 would make conforming change to
drafting style to work around changing "U.S Armed Forces" to
"United States armed forces" and would provide a definition of
the veterans who would be eligible for the discounts that are
offered in Sections 4 and 5.
MR. BREESE stated Section 3 would establish that the veterans
are entitled to a discount in subsection (a), which is a 25
percent discount that already exists in statute for veterans'
land purchases and to a new 33 percent discount if the veteran
assigns his/her PFD to purchase the land.
MR. BREESE explained that [Subsection (f)] of Section 4 is the
introduction and first major change in the statute - it would
offer a one-third discount to veterans who assign their PFD to
pay for the purchase of the land. Subsection (g) of Section 4
would provide that veterans could not combine multiple
discounts, he noted. This means veterans could not take the 25
percent discount and the 33 percent discount at the same time
and it also means that three veterans could not get together to
get the land for free by each applying the 33 percent discount.
MR. BREESE said Section 5 would allow both veterans and non-
veterans to assign their PFDs to help pay for the purchase of
land. It would require the Department of Revenue (DOR) to
include on the electronic PFD application a means for the
applicant to direct that all or part of his/her PFD for that
year be used to pay the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
for the land that has been purchased or will be purchased.
MR. BREESE noted that Section 6 would allow the Department of
Revenue to collect an administration fee for the processing of
these PFD dedications to purchase land.
[HB 3 was held over.]
3:11:16 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 27 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19.PDF |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Fiscal Note - Dept of Law 3.29.19.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - CDC - Skin Exposures and Effects.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Expert Testimony Vytenis Babrauskas.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Federal Register CPSC 9.28.17.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Flame Retardants - NIH Fact Sheet July 2016.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Knoblauch article 1.24.18.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Leg Research on FF health costs.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - School Nurses 3.12.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from ACS CAN AK 2.21.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letters of Support from Firefighters 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Past Support re Flame Retardants in AK.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Past Support re Flame Retardants in AK.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - GCDSE 4.1.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement 3.12.2019.pdf |
HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Ver M 3.12.2019.pdf |
HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Ver A 3.12.2019.pdf |
HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 DOR Fiscal Note.pdf |
HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB3 DNR Fiscal Note.pdf |
HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Explanation of Changes 3.12.2019.pdf |
HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 27 Flame Retardants Slide Presentation 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - American Chemistry Council Letter of Opposition 4.3.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association Letter of Opposition 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Consumer Technology Association Letter of Opposition 4.3.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |