HB 27-REGULATION OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS  1:04:16 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." 1:04:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 27, labeled 31-LS0198\S, Bannister, 4/30/19, [Version S] as the working document. 1:04:49 PM CO-CHAIR LINCOLN objected for discussion purposes. 1:05:10 PM KARLA HART, Staff, Representative Geran Tarr, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased from a prepared statement on proposed HB 27, which read [original punctuation provided]: Flame retardants are throughout our homes and offices. In keyboards, furnishings, mattresses, electronics, and toys. Loosely bound in plastics and foam, they are spread as dust. The dust is inhaled and ingested. Children playing on the floor ingest a disproportionate amount as their little hands capture dust that is transferred to their mouths. When you eat finger food while at your keyboard or in your car, you are almost certainly eating microscopic particles of flame retardants with your chips or fruit. These toxins go into your bloodstream. Evidence suggests exposure to flame retardants and PFAs before birth may impair children's cognitive and behavioral development. I shared a Neuroscience News article from January 14 with you on Tuesday. Their summary: "Exposure to flame retardants and pesticides resulted in more than a million cases of intellectual disability in children between 2001 and 2016. However, adverse outcomes from exposure to mercury and lead fell significantly during the same period." Mercury and lead harm decreased because of restriction placed into law. While we cannot (and should not) experiment on humans to isolate risks and dangers in a rigorous scientific manner, studies on animals have disturbing findings. Perinatal exposure (for humans perinatal is the 20 to th 28 weeks of gestation up to a month after birth) in rats and mice permanently reprograms liver metabolism, often leading later in life to insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. There are far more studies than I have time to read or list. I'm happy to get information to you in response to specific questions. Widespread use of smoke detectors, improved building codes, fire safe cigarettes, and a reduction in indoor smoking all happened in the same timeframe as the introduction of flame retardants beginning in the late 1970s. While the chemical industry would like to take credit for reductions in fire deaths, there is strong evidence that is not where credit is due. Why have are firefighters so keen to ban flame retardants? Firefighters experience their colleagues battling and succumbing to cancers that are directly linked to breathing smoke from burning flame retardants. Individual firefighters across the state and the Alaska Fire Chief's Association have written letters of support for HB 27. Retired Anchorage firefighter Carol Bacon testified before you last April. She has a rare blood cancer and is one of many Anchorage firefighters who have been diagnosed with cancer. Senator Lisa Murkowski sponsored the Cancer Registry Act in response to the cancer death of Anchorage firefighter Andy Mullen, whose death was linked with exposure to toxins from burning electrical wires. Right here at home our firsts responders are getting sick. Last spring you heard from Dr. Vytenis Babrauskas, a leading global expert on fire protection engineering. His 14-page resume of professional accomplishments and scientific publications was shared and is on BASIS. He summarized: "The plethora of harm and the lack of benefits make conclusions quite obvious. We should not be putting flame retardant chemicals into consumer goods that end up in the household and are likely to adversely affect your children. Last spring the Anchorage Assembly unanimously adopted a municipal ban on flame retardants, which went into effect on January 1 of this year. HB 27 is the ninth flame retardant bill before the Alaska legislature since 2008. The chemical industry launched aggressive and dishonest campaigns in state houses across the country, including Alaska, to stop these bills until being exposed by Chicago Tribune in 2012. A doctor who had testified in Alaska and other states lost his license for lying on the record. State legislatures and local governments are taking action over the past decade plus because the federal government is not. Industry claims that federal rulemaking is in the works and a better solution than a fragmented system of laws. This is true; however, until there is federal rulemaking, which may be never, you have the opportunity to reduce the harm to Alaskans throughout the state by adopting a law that is quite similar to that of Anchorage's. In Alaska, we spend more time indoors and are at higher risk for exposure, as our our kids. We need to be leaders! Alaskans' support for passing a flame-retardant bill is wide and strong. You'll find letters from the Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education, the Cancer Action Network in Alaska, the Alaska School Nurses Association, Scan Home, an Anchorage furniture dealer, the Alaska Children's Trust, the Learning Disabilities Association of Alaska, the Alaska Public Interest Research Group. In 2011-12, the supporting letters have included a resolution from the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska Nurses Association, the Alaska Mental Health Trust, the Alaska Professional Firefighters Association, the ARC of Anchorage, the Association of Village Council Presidents, and the Alaska Inter- Tribal council. Alaskans who are in the know, know that exposure to flame retardants is harmful. A fall off in letters of support is a sign of fatigue with the failure of legislatures to adopt protections, session after session. We have the household equivalent of a canary in a coal mine if only we had been paying attention. House cats. In 1972 feline hyperthyroidism didn't exist. In 1979 the first five cases of feline hyperthyroidism were presented at a veterinary conference in Seattle. By 1980 one in 200 cats were being diagnosed with feline hyperthyroidism. Various studies of blood levels and contact implicate flame retardants. I'll pause to let you consider what you think the rate is today?. None, 1972. 1 in 200 1980. ??.. It is estimated that one in 10 house cats are now afflicted. In the interest of respecting your time, and because a more substantive version of this bill has been heard twice before by this committee, we have not brought expert testimony. Pam Miller with Alaska Community Action on Toxics is online needed. The bill goes from here to Labor and Commerce where three members of this committee also serve and can continue the work. There are safe, affordable alternatives that exist to provide protections from fire while not inadvertently causing a plethora of far reaching and permanent harms to children, firefighters, and all other Alaskans. You've received letters from industry representatives with specific technical concerns. We have been responsive to those concerns and drafted amendments. I will share them with offices with the goal of addressing concerns and moving the bill forward. 1:12:35 PM MS. HART introduced the changes to the proposed committee substitute, Version S, [Included in members' packets] which read: The CS makes changes to 1) clarify that the act includes upholstered furniture used in all homes, not just those with children, 2) removes any labeling requirement, and 3) addresses reupholstered furniture in a manner consistent with the recently passed Anchorage law. Page 2, line 17 The title is changed to clarify that the Act includes upholstered furniture and child- related products. Line 20-21 changes "consumer product" to "covered product." Line 25-26 (b) of Ver A re resale is now addressed in Sec. 18.31.620 Page 3, Sec. 18.31.620 is changed. The labeling requirement in version U is removed from the bill. The section now more clearly addresses exemptions, including reupholstered furniture. Page 3, Sec. 18.31.630 Removes the penalty for violation of labeling. Page 3-4, Definitions (2) "consumer product" is changed to "child-related product," detachable car seats are removed, the word upholstered is dropped from furniture. MS. HART added that a proposed amendment had been prepared to address a concern by the industry for car seats. She continued with the discussion for the changes in the proposed CS. New (3) defines "covered product" to include all upholstered furniture used in the home and child- related products. New (4) defines reupholstered furniture (in alignment with Anchorage law). New (5) defines upholstered furniture (in alignment with Anchorage law) 1:14:07 PM CO-CHAIR TARR added that the effective date for the proposed bill would be amended to a later date to allow some lag time for retailers to respond to the changes. 1:14:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN acknowledged that, as she was not an expert on flame retardants, she had forwarded a letter of opposition from the American Chemistry Council, dated January 23, 2020, [Included in members' packets] to a family member who was a firefighter, for their thoughts. He had replied that fires now burn hotter than ever and with light weight construction there was less time for response. She expressed her concern for the protection of flame retardants versus the potential for negative consequences. She asked for in put from other committee members. 1:16:27 PM CO-CHAIR TARR, in reference to the letter from the American Chemistry Council, shared examples of some changes, which included: these chemicals had been removed from children's clothing; cigarettes were now self-extinguishing; and, there was greater enforcement on the use of fire alarms. She shared that a challenge for the use of the flame retardants was that although they provided a little delay, this was not a significant amount of time. She pointed out that there was strong support from the Alaska firefighting community, and the Alaska Fire Chief Association, to push for removal of these chemicals with replacement by safer alternatives. She pointed to the significant improvement to the number of available products, adding that "almost half the country that have passed some kind of legislation with these restrictions." She pointed out that, in response, the retailers and the manufacturers were making new products. She noted that once California consumers lead the way, the rest of the West Coast would follow. She expressed her hope to provide a transition time for retailers and inspire new product development. 1:19:49 PM MS. HART offered to provide information on the amount of time [for combustion], adding that closed bedroom doors "can be life- saving." 1:20:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN expressed her concern at the number of homes, especially rental homes, without smoke alarms, even as there was a code for "one in every bedroom and then one in any living space." 1:21:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how the Anchorage ordinance was aligned and differed with the proposed legislation. She asked if there were any Alaska based manufacturers impacted by the proposed legislation. 1:22:23 PM MS. HART explained that snow machines would not be covered by the proposed legislation unless used as household furnishings. She stated that her office had not been contacted by anyone involved with manufacturing. She said that the proposed bill did not align perfectly with the Anchorage ordinance, noting that neither ordinance had "teeth" as there was no money for enforcement. She declared that it did "encourage and incentivize the industry to work at a national level to get one unified law that would cover all jurisdictions across the country without having to deal with a lot of different laws." She referenced proposals for national laws dating back to 2008 without any "near giving birth anywhere." She opined that "not being perfectly aligned is actually part of what makes this help to provide better protections in the future." She listed the most critical points of differentiation between the proposed legislation and the Anchorage ordinance, which included: the proposed legislation prohibits toys with flame retardants; the proposed legislation prohibits electronics, which included the casings on cell phones and computers; and an amendment had been drafted to align with the Anchorage ordinance to exempt the child restraint systems. 1:25:19 PM CO-CHAIR TARR directed attention to the proposed HB 27, page 3, line 22, "participation in the interstate chemical clearinghouse," which referenced work with other states to develop national policy. She declared that it would be better to have a consistent national policy. She shared that proposed amendments had been drafted to address the four specific concerns, including the electronics and toys, and that the House Resources Standing Committee could decide whether to adopt these for more comprehensive legislation. 1:26:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out that should the proposed legislation pass, the Anchorage ordinance which did not cover toys and electronics would be moot for the distribution of any manufactured goods that contained fire retardants. She noted that there was a local Juneau manufacturer of all wood toys. She asked if there were concerns for the interstate economics of technology, musing that, as there was no money for enforcement, it would be a moot point. 1:28:16 PM MS. HART pointed out that San Francisco, California, had enacted "quite a rigorous ban" which included electronics [containing fire retardants], although the State of California had not. She acknowledged that, as the boundaries of the city were "very porous" it was not a long journey to buy something. 1:28:47 PM CO-CHAIR TARR shared that she generally watched California, as that population demanded sufficient availability of a new product at an affordable price. 1:29:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted that states could impact policy at higher levels as states were often incubators for policies "that could then move up to the federal level," even though Alaska was a small market in terms of buying power. She asked about the length of time that flame retardants would delay incineration. 1:30:39 PM MS. HART replied that the delay was about 30 seconds, and she directed attention to a video igniting furniture with and without flame retardants in a laboratory setting. She questioned whether this would allow enough time to escape a burning building. She pointed out that, as the foam in furniture was made from petroleum products, "so they'd burn pretty well," flame retardant was included on the barrier to slow the burn. 1:31:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether the time would be any different in a room with most of the furniture treated with a fire retardant. MS. HART replied that she would get back to her with an answer. 1:32:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if there was a direct link between household pets and thyroid problems. 1:32:57 PM MS. HART replied that it was not ethical or legal to do studies on humans. She explained that house cats spent considerable time on the floor and grooming, so dust would collect on the fur and then be groomed into their system. She reported that initially there was not a link between flame retardants and hyperthyroidism. As studies were being done, it was realized that there was a disproportionate amount of flame retardants in cats with hyperthyroidism. Further tracking offered a link between these, as serious health effects were showing up more often and a strong correlation was suggested. 1:35:05 PM CO-CHAIR TARR asked that any proposed amendments be submitted by January 28. 1:36:28 PM CO-CHAIR LINCOLN removed his objection. There being no further objection, the proposed CS, Version S, was adopted as the working draft. [HB 27 was held over.]