BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 763
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Leno |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |4/6/2015 |Hearing |4/29/2015 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Rachel Machi Wagoner |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Juvenile products: flame retardant chemicals
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1. Establishes the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair,
Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (Bureau) within the
Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA).
A. Authorizes the Bureau to administer and enforce the Home
Furnishings and Thermal Insulation Act (HFTI Act) that
provides for the licensing and inspection of businesses
that manufacture and sell upholstered furniture, bedding
and thermal insulation.
B. Requires, pursuant to the HFTI Act, mattresses and box
springs manufactured for sale in this state to be fire
retardant and also requires all seating furniture sold or
offered for sale in this state to be flame retardant.
C. By Bureau regulation, beginning January 1, 2015,
requires all filling materials and cover fabrics contained
in upholstered furniture sold in California to meet certain
smolder resistant testing standards, and to be labeled as
specified. Specifically, the Bureau regulations require
filling materials and cover fabrics contained in any
article of upholstered furniture and added to reupholstered
furniture to be tested and meet the requirements of
Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 2 of
?
D. Authorizes the Chief, subject to the approval of the
Director of DCA, to exempt items of upholstered furniture
which are deemed not to pose a serious fire hazard from the
fire retardant requirements. Bureau regulations exempt
eighteen juvenile products from meeting the flammability
requirements of Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013. (Article
13, Division 3, Title 4, CCR §1374.2)
2. Prohibits the manufacturing, processing, or distributing in
commerce a product, or a flame-retarded part of a product,
containing more than 1/10 of 1% pentaBDE or octaBDE (AB 302,
(Chan) Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003).
3. Requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer
or birth defects or other reproductive damage, pursuant to the
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
(Proposition 65).
4. Authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
to identify chemicals of concern and evaluate, assess
alternatives to, and regulate consumer products that contain
chemicals of concern.
This bill:
1. Requires a manufacturer of juvenile products to indicate
whether or not a product contains added flame retardant
chemicals, by including a specified statement.
2. Outlines the list of juvenile products requiring a flame
retardant chemical statement.
3. Requires a manufacturer of juvenile products sold in
California to retain documentation to show whether flame
retardant chemicals were added. Provides that a written
affidavit by the supplier of each component of a juvenile
product attesting that flame retardant chemicals were added or
not added shall be sufficient documentation.
4. Requires, within 30 days of a request by the Bureau, a
manufacturer of a product sold in California to provide the
SB 763 (Leno) Page 3 of
?
Bureau with the documentation establishing the accuracy of the
flame retardant chemical statement on the label.
5. Requires the Bureau to provide the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) with samples of the product or
components of the product sold in California from products
marked "contains NO added flame retardant chemicals" for
testing for the presence of added flame retardant chemicals.
Requires DTSC to provide the results of all testing to the
Bureau.
6. Authorizes the Bureau to issue citations and assess fines for
violations of the above provisions, as specified.
7. Provides that a manufacturer of juvenile products and
component suppliers shall be jointly and severally liable for
violations of these provisions, as specified.
8. Specifies that it shall be the duty of the Bureau to receive
complaints from consumers regarding juvenile products sold in
California.
9. Authorizes the Bureau to adopt regulations to carry out the
provisions of the bill.
10.Codifies the current fire retardant regulatory exemption
applicable to certain juvenile products.
Background
1. Technical Bulletin 117.
In 1975, California adopted Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117),
which required that each component material (such as
polyurethane foam) used to fill furniture be able to withstand
a small open flame, equivalent to a candle, for at least 12
seconds.
The Bureau was responsible for publishing and enforcing TB
117. This performance-based standard did not prescribe the
use of flame-retardant chemicals, manufacturing methods, or
specific materials to meet the standards. However, according
to the Green Science Policy Institute, furniture manufacturers
typically met TB 117 with additive halogenated organic flame
SB 763 (Leno) Page 4 of
?
retardants. California is the only state to have established
such a standard, and since California provides such a large
portion of the national market, many manufacturers chose to
meet the requirements of TB 117 in products that they
distribute across the United States.
The Bureau requires manufacturers to make upholstered
furniture and bedding products sold in California
flame-retardant. The Bureau encouraged the industry to use
innovative solutions and products to achieve flame resistance
without compromising the environment. Manufacturers are
required to strictly adhere to state and federal laws
governing the manufacture and sale of upholstered furniture
and bedding products.
Significant concerns were raised in recent years with the TB
117 standard and the environmental and health impacts of the
chemicals that are used by manufacturers to meet the standard.
2. New Technical Bulletin 117-2013 Regarding the Flammability
Standard.
In 2012, Governor Brown directed the Bureau to revise
flammability standards for upholstered furniture sold in the
state. The Governor asked the Bureau to review the state's
four-decade-old flammability standards outlined in TB 117 and
recommend changes to reduce the use of toxic flame retardants
while continuing to ensure fire safety. At the time, the
Governor stated that "toxic flame retardants are found in
everything from high chairs to couches and a growing body of
evidence suggests that these chemicals harm human health and
the environment. We must find better ways to meet fire safety
standards by reducing and eliminating wherever possible
dangerous chemicals."
In recognition of TB 117's perceived inadequacy in addressing
the flammability performance of upholstery cover fabric and
its interactions with underlying filling materials, as well as
in response to health concerns raised about the use of these
chemicals, the Bureau published TB 117-2013 which establishes
a smolder standard that does not require the use of flame
retardant chemicals for a manufacturer to be in compliance
SB 763 (Leno) Page 5 of
?
with the standard. Now, rather than performing an open flame
method of testing a product, under TB 117-2013, a smoldering
test is utilized. These test methods consist of four tests
used to evaluate the cigarette ignition resistance of
upholstery cover fabrics, barrier (interliner) materials,
resilient filling materials, and decking materials (used for
support under loose seat cushions) used in the manufacture of
upholstered furniture.
TB 117-2013, which became effective on January 1, 2014,
supersedes the original TB 117 and the new TB 117-2013
standard applies to upholstered furniture sold in California.
Bedding products such as mattresses, comforters, mattress
pads, bed pillows as well as decorative pillows are not
subject to TB 117-2013. These products, however, carry a
label as required by law. According to the Bureau, the TB
117-2013 standard incorporates smoldering tests for several
components of upholstered furniture. However, none of the
components are tested by themselves as was previously the case
under TB 117. TB 117-2013 serves as a "semi-composite" test
in which components are combined with standard test materials
to construct a test specimen.
Manufacturers were provided one year to complete the
transition to be in compliance with TB 117-2013 and were
required to come into full compliance by January 1, 2015.
While it is ultimately the responsibility of the furniture
manufacturers to ensure products meet TB 117-2013 as well as
labeling requirements, wholesalers, importers, and retailers
are also required to ensure products that they sell in
California meet all applicable requirements. Retailers in
California may continue to sell furniture that meets the old
standard until their stock is depleted, but as of January 1,
2015, California retailers must purchase products that meet
the new TB 117-2013 standard. California Business and
Professions Code Section 19072 states: "Responsibility for
compliance with this chapter rests not only with the
manufacturer but also with the importer, wholesaler, retailer,
or any person having in his or her possession with the intent
to sell."
However, new regulations which became effective on January 1,
2014 added more juvenile products to the exempt list as they
SB 763 (Leno) Page 6 of
?
meet the flammability standards set forth in TB 117-2013.
Now, a total of eighteen juvenile products are exempt from
having to undergo testing to determine if they meet the
standards: bassinets, booster seats, car seats, changing pads,
floor play mats, highchair pads, highchairs, infant bouncers,
infant carriers, infant seats, infant swings, infant walkers,
nursing pads, nursing pillows, play yards, playpen side pads,
portable hook-on chairs and strollers. The products now
exempt from the TB 117-2013 flammability standard are no
longer required to carry a disclosure label indicating that
they are not in compliance with TB 117-2013.
In addition to the eighteen juvenile products, this bill also
seeks to add a disclosure statement on three other products:
a baby carrier worn by an adult, children's nap mat, and
infant foam crib mattress. The Author wishes to add these
additional juvenile products to the list, since they fall
under the umbrella of juvenile products. Also, under the
Bureau's criteria, these are similar to the existing exempt
products and are not subject to the flammability standards.
3. Lawsuit by Chemical Industry Regarding the Revision of TB 117.
In January 2014, Chemtura Corporation (Chemtura) sent a letter
to Governor Brown regarding the new regulation revising TB
117. Chemtura contended the revised standard will harm
consumers by relaxing the open-flame resistance requirement
and requiring that the furniture only survive a cigarette-like
smolder. Chemtura also filed a lawsuit (Chemtura Corporation
vs. Denise D. Brown) filed January 16, 2014, in Sacramento
Superior Court, seeking a Writ of Mandate to overturn the
revised rules. Chemtura contended the lawsuit is necessary to
seek judicial review of the authority of the Bureau to
eliminate the essential requirements of the fire safety
standard. Ultimately, the Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento, denied Chemtura's petition for writ of
mandate, declaratory and injunctive relief. The company did
not appeal the superior court's decision.
4. Flame-Retardant Chemicals & Public Health Hazards.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 7 of
?
Manufacturers of consumer products commonly add flame
retardant chemicals to plastics and other flammable materials
to reduce the risk of fire. These chemicals are released into
the environment during manufacture, use, and disposal of
products. The following are the types of flame retardants
that were used (banned) or are currently used:
A. PCBs. The earliest flame retardants, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were banned in the United States in 1977
when it was determined that they are toxic. With the ban,
industries shifted to using brominated flame retardants.
B. PBDEs. The most studied of the brominated flame
retardants are the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs),
which were first introduced into the market over thirty
years ago. PBDEs are closely related in structure and
behavior to PCBs.
PCBs are known to have neurotoxic and carcinogenic effects and
were banned by Congress in 1977. Because of similarity of
the chemical's molecular structures, concerns were raised
about potential biological hazards of PBDEs.
Studies in laboratory animals and humans have linked PBDEs to
thyroid disruption, memory and learning problems, delayed
mental and physical development, lower IQ, advanced puberty,
and reduced fertility.
A 2009 in vivo animal study conducted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) noted that PBDEs
are particularly toxic to the developing brains of animals.
Peer-reviewed studies have shown that even a single dose
administered to mice during development of the brain can
cause permanent changes in behavior, including
hyperactivity.
A 1998 study in Sweden found the first evidence of potential
for breast milk contamination from PBDEs. In the Swedish
study, archived samples collected between 1972 and 1997 were
analyzed for the presence of PBDEs to get an overall summed
total of PBDEs in milk. The data from Sweden show a drastic
increase in the quantity of PBDEs detected in women's breast
milk from 1972 to 1997, with concentrations doubling every
five years.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 8 of
?
Sweden's voluntary phase-out of PBDEs by companies and
branches of the government began as early as 1990, and the
Swedish government strongly encouraged the European Union to
ban PBDEs outright.
Since Sweden's voluntary PBDE controls were established, a
number of changes have been noted. Total PBDE levels in
Swedish women's breast milk fell about 30% between 1997 and
2000. The European Union has banned several types of PBDEs
as of 2008; 10 years after the Swedish discovered that they
were accumulating in breast milk.
Sweden is the only nation with a comprehensive breast milk
monitoring program, so it has been difficult to track PBDE
concentration trends elsewhere. However, in regions where
bans and restrictions have not been established, available
studies are showing that PBDE concentrations in breast milk
have risen far past Sweden's 1997 peak.
The highest recorded PBDE levels in humans have been in the
United States. A 2002 study of PBDEs in San Francisco Bay
Area women's breast fat reported an average of 21.5 times
higher than Sweden's 1997 peak. Studies of PBDEs in
maternal blood and milk in Texas and Indiana from 2001 and
2002 reported levels similar to those found in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
In 2003, concerned about the hazards posed by two types of
PBDEs, especially to breast-fed infants, California enacted
a ban on these chemicals (AB 302 (Chan), Chapter 205,
Statutes of 2003).
C. Chlorinated Tris. Chlorinated Tris (TDCPP) has been in
use since the 1960s. TDCPP was banned from use in
children's pajamas in 1977, when it was found to be
mutagenic, but remains in use as a foam additive in
furniture, car seats, and other products. Its use has
increased in the United States following the 2006 ban on the
common flame retardant PentaPBDE.
According to studies conducted in rats, TDCPP is associated
with increased tumor rates in kidneys and testes, some of
SB 763 (Leno) Page 9 of
?
which were cancerous. Evidence further suggests that there
may be an impact on fertility by influencing hormone levels
and semen quality in men. A recently published study found
that TDCPP was a neurotoxin to brain cells. In an
assessment conducted by the Consumer Product and Safety
Commission (CPSC), TDCPP was found to pose a threat to human
health. Under Proposition 65, the State of California has
listed TDCPP as a chemical known to cause cancer.
On March 13, 2014, DTSC named TDCPP in children's foam padded
sleep products as a priority product to be evaluated in the
Safer Consumer Products Program for potential regulatory
action.
Other sources indicate that because of molecular similarity,
other flame retardants are similarly linked to cancer and
other above-listed adverse health effects. It has also been
noted that many flame retardants may degrade into compounds
that are also toxic. This could arguably make the chemical
a danger even after its useful life as a flame retardant is
over.
5. Exposure Pathways to Flame Retardant Chemicals.
According to the academic journal, Environmental Health
Perspectives, nearly all Americans tested have high levels of
flame retardants in their body. People can be exposed to
flame retardants through several routes, including diet,
inhalation of dust from consumer products in the home,
vehicle, or workplace, or environmental contamination near
their home or workplace. Infants and toddlers are
particularly exposed to flame retardants found in breast milk
and dust. Because many halogenated flame retardants are
fat-soluble, they accumulate in fatty areas such as breast
tissue and are mobilized into breast milk, delivering high
levels of flame retardants to breast-feeding infants.
As consumer products age, small particles of material become
dust particles in the air and land on surfaces around the
home, including the floor. Young children crawling and
playing on the floor frequently bring their hands to their
mouths, ingesting about twice as much house dust as adults per
day in the United States. Young children in the United States
tend to carry higher levels of flame retardants per unit body
SB 763 (Leno) Page 10 of
?
weight than do adults.
Some occupations expose workers to higher levels of
halogenated flame retardants and their degradation products.
Studies of foam recyclers and carpet installers, who handle
padding made from recycled polyurethane foam, often have shown
elevated levels of flame retardants in their tissues. Workers
in electronics recycling plants were also found to have
elevated body levels of flame retardants relative to the
general population.
U.S. firefighters also show elevated levels of PBDEs and high
levels of brominated furans, toxic degradation products of
brominated flame retardants.
6. Environmental Exposure.
Flame retardants manufactured for use in consumer products are
found in various environments around the world.
In 2009, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration released a report on PBDEs and found that, in
contrast to earlier reports, they were discovered throughout
the U.S. coastal zone. This nationwide survey found that New
York's Hudson Raritan Estuary had the highest overall
concentrations of PBDEs, both in sediments and shellfish.
Individual sites with the highest PBDE measurements were found
in shellfish taken from Anaheim Bay, California, and four
sites in the Hudson Raritan Estuary.
Watersheds that include the Southern California Bight, Puget
Sound, the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico off the
Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida coast, and Lake Michigan waters
near Chicago and Gary, Indiana also were found to have high
PBDE concentrations.
Communities near electronics factories and disposal
facilities, especially areas with little environmental
oversight or control, develop high levels of flame retardants
SB 763 (Leno) Page 11 of
?
in air, soil, water, vegetation, and people.
Organophosphorus flame retardants have been detected in
wastewater in Spain and Sweden, and some compounds do not
appear to be removed thoroughly during water treatment.
7. Efficacy.
Recent review of these chemicals by both the federal and
California governments has found that the use of these
chemicals for fire protection in compliance with TB 117
provide no "meaningful" protection.
In the past, advocates for the flame retardant industry have
cited a study from the National Bureau of Standards indicating
that a room filled with flame-retarded products (a
polyurethane foam-padded chair and several other objects,
including cabinetry and electronics) offered a 15-fold greater
time window for occupants to escape the room than a similar
room free of flame retardants.
However, critics of this position, including the lead author
of this study, Vyentis Babrauskas, argue that the levels of
flame retardant used in that 1988 study are much higher than
the levels required by TB 117 and the levels used broadly in
the United States in upholstered furniture do not provide
meaningful fire protection.
Several studies in the 1980s tested ignition in whole pieces
of furniture with different upholstery and filling types,
including different flame retardant formulations. In
particular, they looked at maximum heat release and time to
maximum heat release, two key indicators of fire danger. These
studies found that the type of fabric covering had a large
influence on ease of ignition, that cotton fillings were much
SB 763 (Leno) Page 12 of
?
less flammable than polyurethane foam fillings, and that an
interliner material substantially reduced the ease of
ignition. They also found that although some flame retardant
formulations decreased the ease of ignition, the most basic
formulation that met TB 117 had very little effect. In one of
the studies, foam fillings that met TB 117 had equivalent
ignition times as the same foam fillings without flame
retardants.
In 2012, the Chair of the Federal Consumer Product Safety
Commission testified to Congress that "the fire-retardant
foams did not offer a practically significant greater level of
open flame safety than the untreated foams" and California's
bureau made similar findings.
In actuality, the chemicals pose additional risk because when
ignited by fire they burn and degrade into a dioxin compound
that is carcinogenic posing inhalation risk to residents and
firefighters.
8. Chicago Tribune Articles "Playing with Fire".
In May 2012, the Chicago Tribune (Tribune) published a series
of articles titled "Playing With Fire," which focused on the
use of flame retardant chemicals in the United States, and
considered the scientific evidence of the safety of flame
retardant chemicals and their effectiveness in reducing damage
from fire.
The series noted that furniture first became treated with
flame retardants because of the tobacco industry, according to
internal cigarette company documents examined by the Tribune.
A generation ago, tobacco companies were facing growing
pressure to produce fire-safe cigarettes, because so many
house fires started with smoldering cigarettes. The tobacco
industry worked with the chemical industry to advocate for
policies that would require furniture to contain flame
retardants rather than require fire-safe cigarettes.
The documents examined by the Tribune show that cigarette
lobbyists secretly organized the National Association of State
Fire Marshals and then guided its agenda so that it pushed for
flame retardants in furniture.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 13 of
?
The Tribune also found that the chemical industry established
an advocacy group called Citizens for Fire Safety. The
Citizens for Fire Safety described itself as "a coalition of
fire professionals, educators, community activists, burn
centers, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders." The
Tribune states, "the group's efforts to influence fire-safety
policies is guided by a mission to 'promote common business
interests of members involved with the chemical manufacturing
industry,' tax records show." According to documents obtained
from the California Secretary of State, the organization was a
trade association with only three members: Albemarle
Corporation, ICL Industrial Products, and Chemtura
Corporation. The Tribune article states, "Those three
companies are the largest manufacturers of flame retardants
and together control 40% of the world market for these
chemicals, according to The Freedonia Group, a Cleveland-based
research firm."
The Tribune reporters write: "These powerful industries
distorted science in ways that overstated the benefits of the
chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog group that stoked
the public's fear of fire and helped organize and steer an
association of top fire officials that spent more than a
decade campaigning for their [the tobacco and chemical
industries] cause."
According to the Tribune articles, Citizens for Fire Safety
paid a prominent Seattle physician, Dr. David Heimbach, the
former president of the American Burn Association, to testify
before California state lawmakers in a hearing of this
Committee against SB 147 (Leno, 2011). SB 147 would have
required the Bureau to modify TB 117 regarding product
standards for fire retardant furniture to provide an
alternative method of compliance that can be met without the
use of chemical fire retardants and that would not compromise
fire safety.
Dr. Heimbach testified that he treated a 7-week-old girl who
was burned in a fire started by a candle that ignited a pillow
that did not have flame retardant chemicals. The Tribune's
investigation found that Dr. Heimbach made-up his testimony
before the Committee. Their investigation found that there
was no 7-week-old burn victim and no candle fire or patient
that he treated as a result of fire where flame retardants
SB 763 (Leno) Page 14 of
?
could have prevented injury. After the Chicago Tribune
investigation, Heimbach told the Tribune his testimony in
California was "an anecdotal story rather than anything which
I would say was absolutely true under oath, because I wasn't
under oath."
In March, 2014, the State of Washington's Department of Health
Medical Quality Assurance Commission issued disciplinary
charges against Dr. Heimbach. The Statement of Charges
states, that from 2009 through 2012, Heimbach testified at
legislative hearings in Washington, California and Alaska.
The medical licensing authorities allege that Heimbach
fabricated testimony and failed to disclose his ties to the
chemical industry and falsely presented himself as an unbiased
burn expert when he was in fact collecting $240,000 from flame
retardant manufacturers. The charges state that "Most of
[Heimbach's] testimony, which he presented as documented
facts, was fabricated. [His] misrepresentations to
legislators, to burn experts and to other doctors is conduct
which harms the reputation of the profession . . . [T]his
conduct demonstrates an unfitness to bear the
responsibilities, or enjoy the privileges, of the profession."
He faces numerous charges, including unprofessional conduct
and violating patient privacy.
After the Tribune's expose of the coalition, the group
eventually shuttered and elected to conduct all advocacy and
communications efforts through the American Chemistry
Council's (ACC) North American Flame Retardant Alliance.
This series of articles raises serious questions as to whether
false information and testimony provided to California's
Legislature influenced the failure of prior legislation.
Comments
1. Purpose of Bill.
According to the Author, "SB 763 requires manufacturers of
certain products for infants and children to disclose on a
label whether these chemicals have been added. Due to the low
fire risk of many children's products and health concerns
associated with flame retardant chemicals, manufacturers have
the ability to design these items without added chemicals.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 15 of
?
However, without SB 763, consumers have no way of knowing
which ones are free of flame retardant chemicals. This bill
empowers parents and other consumers to make educated
decisions at the point of purchase and gives businesses a
uniform way to communicate important information about their
products." The Author further adds, "The Bureau has found
that the children's products included in SB 763 do not pose a
serious fire hazard. In addition, a growing body of evidence
suggests that the flame retardant chemicals found in these
products harm both the environment and human health. They are
associated with a variety of health concerns, including
cancer, decreased fertility, hormone disruption, lower IQ and
hyperactivity. The cancer-causing smoke created by the
chemicals also puts firefighters at increased risk."
2. Juvenile Products.
This bill seeks to build off of the revised technical bulletin
(TB 117- 2013) by providing greater transparency about the
chemical content of juvenile products. Historically, to
evaluate the potential for a serious fire hazard of juvenile
products, the Bureau examined the fuel load content of a large
number of juvenile products and determined that most
strollers, infant carriers, and nursing pillows available in
the market contain a much lesser amount of resilient filling
materials (e.g. foam, batting) than average adult seating
furniture. Moreover, it was found that most of these items
contain little or no polyurethane foams which are often the
most flammable component of upholstered seating furniture.
The Bureau determined that in many instances nearly all inside
filling materials contained in these products are comprised of
synthetic batting that met the TB 117 standard without the
need for any fire retardant treatments. These juvenile
products, therefore, were determined by the Bureau to not
cause or sustain a large fire if ignited with a small open
flame, comparable to the size of a match or charcoal lighter
flame. In addition, these products were determined less
likely to be ignited (come in contact with an open flame)
under the exercise of great care and supervision of adults.
The Bureau concluded in 2010 that three proposed items,
strollers, nursing pillows, and infant carriers will not pose
a serious fire hazard to infants and children if they were
exempt from TB 117 flammability requirements.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 16 of
?
3. Related/Prior Legislation.
SB 1019 (Leno), Chapter 862, Statutes of 2014, required an
upholstered furniture manufacturer to indicate on the product
label whether or not a product contains added flame retardant
chemicals, by including a specified statement; required
manufacturer to retain documentation, as specified, of whether
or not flame retardant chemicals were added to the product,
and provide that documentation to the Bureau of Electronic and
Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation upon
request; and authorized the Bureau to assess fines for
violations of the above provisions, as specified.
AB 127 (Skinner), Chapter 579, Statutes of 2013, required the
State Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Bureau, to review
the flammability standards for building insulation materials,
including whether the flammability standards for some
insulation materials can only be met with the addition of
chemical flame retardants and requires, if deemed appropriate
by the State Fire Marshal based on this review, the State Fire
Marshal to, by July 1, 2015, propose, for consideration by the
Building Standards Commission, updated insulation flammability
standards.
SB 147 (Leno, 2011) would have required the Bureau, on or
before March 1, 2013, to modify TB 117 regarding product
standards for fire retardant furniture to include a smolder
flammability test to provide an alternative method of
compliance that can be met without the use of chemical fire
retardants and does not compromise fire safety; required the
Bureau, in developing the smolder flammability test, to
consider the draft smolder standard proposed by the federal
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to take into consideration
the cost to manufacturers and consumers, and amend existing
label specifications to identify any products meeting that
adopted standard. The bill further authorized the Bureau
Chief to additionally exempt polyurethane foam from the fire
retardant requirements, as specified. Note: the provisions
of this bill have been largely implemented through the
revision of TB 117 in TB 117-2013. (Status: SB 147 failed
passage in Senate BP&ED Committee.)
SB 1291 (Leno, 2010) would have required the DTSC to include,
as a chemical under consideration, any chemical that is used,
SB 763 (Leno) Page 17 of
?
or is proposed to be used, as a flame retardant, in accordance
with the review process (Green Chemistry Process) under the
current chemical of concern regulations. (Status: SB 1291
was placed on the inactive file on the Senate Floor and died
on file.)
SB 772 (Leno, 2009) would have exempted "juvenile products,"
as defined, from the fire retardant requirements pursuant to
federal law and the regulations of the Bureau, except that the
Bureau could have, by regulation modified this exemption if
the Bureau determined that any juvenile products posed a
serious fire hazard. The provisions of SB 772 have been
largely implemented through regulation by the Bureau effective
December 29, 2010. ( Status : SB 772 was held under submission
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.)
AB 706 (Leno, 2008), commencing July 1, 2010, would have
required bedding products to comply with certain requirements,
including that they not contain a chemical or component not in
compliance with alternatives assessment requirements as
specified, and required the DTSC to develop and adopt
methodology for the coordination and conduct of an alternative
assessment to review the classes of chemicals used to meet the
fire retardant standards set by the Bureau and to meet other
requirements as specified. ( Status : AB 706 failed passage on
the Senate Floor.)
AB 302 (Chan), Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003, banned the use
of penta and octa PBDEs after January 1, 2008.
SOURCE:
California Professional Firefighters
Center for Environmental Health
Consumer Federation of California
SUPPORT:
Alliance for Toxic Free Fire Safety (ATFFS)
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
CAL FIRE Local 2881
California League of Conservation Voters
Californians for a Healthy & Green Economy
CALPIRG
SB 763 (Leno) Page 18 of
?
Center for Environmental Health
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air
Consumer Attorneys of California
Dignity Health
Earthjustice
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Friends of the Earth
Grant David Gillham, Inc.
Health Care Without Harm
Instituto de Educación Popular del Sur de California
International Association of Fire Fighters
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Naturepedic
Pesticide Action Network North America
Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility (SF
Bay Area PSR)
SoCalCOSH
Trauma Foundation
OPPOSITION:
American Chemistry Council
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association
National Federation of Independent Business
ARGUMENTS IN
SUPPORT:
The California Professional Firefighters Association (Sponsor)
states, "SB 763 provides consumers a pathway to exercise a choice
in purchasing safer juvenile products, which, in turn, creates a
direct and positive impact on the reduction of toxic exposures to
firefighters."
The Consumer Federation of California (Sponsor) writes, "SB 763
will ensure that the public is able to make informed choices, as
consumers currently have no way of knowing whether a child's
product contains fire retardant chemicals."
The Center for Environmental Health (Sponsor) underscores that
"juvenile products are routinely handed down to family and
SB 763 (Leno) Page 19 of
?
friends as well as donated to thrift stores, so the ability of
these second-hand users to identify products that do or do not
contain family retardant chemicals is essential. It will also
provide businesses a standard format to communicate the
information to families."
A number of supporters, including California League of
Conservation Voters, Earthjustice, and San Francisco Bay Area
Physicians for Social Responsibility underscore that "flame
retardant chemicals migrate out of products into the air and into
household dust. Young children, who often crawl on the floor and
put their hands in their mouths, have some of the highest levels
of flame retardants in their blood. These chemicals are
associated with a variety of health concerns, including cancer,
decreased fertility, hormone disruption, lower IQ, and
hyperactivity. Families have a right to know if the products they
purchase for young children contain flame retardant chemicals."
ARGUMENTS IN
OPPOSITION:1.
A joint letter of opposition by the American Chemistry Council,
California Manufacturers and Technology Association, California
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association, and National Federation of Independent Business
argues that "these new requirements lack scientific
justification, conflict with existing California consumer product
and chemical safety laws and regulations, and as proposed, would
mislead consumers about the safety of products that contain flame
retardant chemicals."
DOUBLE REFERRAL:
This measure was heard in Senate Business, Professions and
Economic Development Committee on April 13, 2015, and passed out
of committee with a vote of 5-2.
-- END --