Potential Ban of Flame Retardants in the US?
A possible ban for a trio of long-lived industrial chemicals used in TVs, computer and furniture.
15.04.2005 |Sascha Gabizon
Proposal would ban trio of toxins used in everyday products Proponents say flame retardants leak into bodies
By LISA STIFFLERSEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Lawmakers in Olympia have jumped into a searing debate about chemical flame retardants.
A proposed law would make Washington the first state in the nation to ban a trio of long-lived industrial chemicals commonly added to televisions, computers and other electronics.
Scientists have found the fire-proofing chemicals -- polybrominated diphenyl ethers -- in fish caught in the Columbia River, local women's breast milk and household dust in Seattle.
"It's a kids' issue," said Rep. Ross Hunter, a Medina Democrat who sponsored the legislation. "This is about having children who are healthy and don't have neurological damage."
Although there's no evidence that PBDEs have accumulated in people at levels that pose an immediate health threat, there are concerns that the flame retardants can harm brain and bone development and thyroid function. Beginning in July 2007, the legislation would prohibit the sale of numerous products containing PBDEs, such as electronics, mattresses, seat cushions, carpet pads and telephone handsets. Manufacturers would have to eliminate the chemicals from their production lines.
There's a major exemption for the "transportation industry," meaning Boeing and automobile distributors and dealers would largely be spared. Other businesses could apply for limited exemptions.
"It is complicated, because this stuff is everywhere, but the ban is a necessary part of solving PBDE contamination in our breast milk and our bodies," said Laurie Valeriano of the Washington Toxics Coalition, which is devoted to cleansing the environment of toxic chemicals. Critics say the proposed ban simply goes too far. With deadlines looming, the controversial legislation has a slim chance of passing this year.
"There's a lot of evolving science," said John Kyte, a Washington, D.C.-based spokesman for the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, an international industry group. "Our fundamental interest is to make sure decisions are based on good science and a full appreciation of the roll that PBDEs play."
The fireproofing of household and workplace products is well-intentioned. Each year, fires kill more than 600 children under the age of 15 and injure nearly 47,000 nationwide, according to a
Washington Department of Ecology study.
The use of PBDEs is so widespread that it would become a huge financial burden for industries to stop that practice overnight. "There are significant economic and fire-safety implications of banning it," Kyte said.
The Washington legislation is based in part on a "chemical action plan" released by the Ecology Department in December. It called for a ban on the production and sale of items containing the two most dangerous forms of the PBDEs and recommended developing a proposal for banning a third, called Deca-BDE.
Over time, the chemicals appear to escape out of the products to which they're added, leaching out of plastics and crumbling foam. But there has been international debate about the risks posed by the third form of the flame retardant.
Industry groups insist it is safe, while environmentalists and some government officials maintain there is cause for concern.
U.S. producers of the two more dangerous forms have already agreed to stop production of the chemicals this year. California, New York,Michigan, Hawaii and Maine have banned or severely restricted their use.
The European Union has also banned the chemicals. Leaders there also approved a ban on the use of Deca-BDE in electronics by next year -- a prohibition that has been challenged and could be postponed.
Lawmakers in Maine voted to ban Deca-BDE in 2008 if a safe and available alternative is found.
The Washington legislation includes a 2007 ban on Deca-BDE but contains a provision that would allow a one-year delay if the prohibition proves to be unfeasible or impractical.
It allows the Ecology Department to grant exemptions if safer alternatives are not available, and includes creation of a stakeholder group to examine substitute products for use in the transportation industry. The bill needs nearly $500,000 in funding to pay for the group, assistance for retailers and the exemption process. Some are asking for more time to explore the impacts of a ban.
"The problem with this particular proposal was it would have been impossible for us to implement," said Jan Teague, president of the Washington Retail Association.
Teague was concerned that retailers would have a difficult time identifying which products contained the chemicals. She wondered how Internet sales of PBDE-containing products would be controlled. Rep. Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, wanted to give state agencies more time to review the issue. "Everybody was rushing to get it done," she said. The two versions of the bill -- House Bill 1488 and Senate Bill 5515 --have languished in their respective houses.
The Senate budget, however, contains a provision that keeps the bill alive until the end of the session, which is April 24. Kessler and Hunter said yesterday the legislation might have to wait until next year. Ban or no ban, some Washington manufacturers already are taking action. Matsushita Kotobuki Electronics Industries, which makes Panasonic products at a Vancouver plant, has announced that they will be PBDE-free this year. Alternatives to the fire retardants "are creeping up fast now," said Dale Swanson, an environmental engineer with the company. "Everyone is seeing the handwriting on the wall."
