SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No:
Author:
Version:
Urgency:
Consultant:
SB 763
Leno
4/6/2015
No
Rachel Machi Wagoner
Hearing Date: 4/29/2015
Yes
Fiscal:
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.
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)
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 2 of 16
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 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.
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 3 of 16
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
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.
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 4 of 16
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 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
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 5 of 16
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 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.
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 6 of 16
4. Flame-Retardant Chemicals & Public Health Hazards.
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.
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.
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 7 of 16
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 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
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 8 of 16
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 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.
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 9 of 16
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 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 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
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 10 of 16
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.
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
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 11 of 16
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 7week-old burn victim and no candle fire or patient that he treated as a result of
fire where flame retardants 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.
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 12 of 16
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. 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
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 13 of 16
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.
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 763 (Leno)
Page 14 of 16
SB 1291 (Leno, 2010) would have required the DTSC to include, as a chemical
under consideration, any chemical that is used, 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
Center for Environmental Health
Clean Water Action
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 15 of 16
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 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.”
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 16 of 16
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:
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 --