BILL ANALYSIS
AB 706
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Mike Eng, Chair
AB 706 (Leno) - As Amended: April 9, 2007
SUBJECT : Fire retardants: toxic effects.
SUMMARY : Bans the use of brominated fire retardants (BFRs) and
chlorinated fire retardants (CFRs) in all seating furniture,
mattresses, box springs, mattress sets, futons, other bedding
products, and reupholstered furniture to which filling materials
are added, commencing January 1, 2010. Specifically, this bill :
1)Bans BFRs and CFRs from seating furniture, mattresses, box
springs, futons, and bedding products, including, but not
limited to, pillows, comforters, blankets, and sleeping bags,
and reupholstered furniture to which filling materials are
added, that are sold or offered for sale in California by
January 1, 2010.
2)Requires a label, specifying any chemical(s) added to achieve
fire or flame retardancy, to be permanently attached to the
items listed in 1), above. The label shall be in a form
specified by the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation (Bureau), but shall not include the proportions of
fire or flame retardant chemicals so that proprietary concerns
are not threatened.
3)Requires the Bureau, by March 1, 2009, to modify Technical
Bulletins 116 and 117 by using product performance standards
for furniture that achieve fire retardancy properties
comparable to existing standards, sufficient to protect human
health and safety, but without BFRs or CFRs and without
significant increases in costs to the consumer.
4)Provides that the Bureau, in consultation with the California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, may adopt
regulations prohibiting the use of a chemical in products
under its jurisdiction if the chemical may pose a threat to
human or animal health.
5)Makes several findings and declarations regarding the negative
impacts on environmental and human health by BFRs and CFRs.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 706
Page 2
1)Pursuant to the Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation Act
(Act), requires mattresses and box springs manufactured for
sale in this state to be fire retardant. The Act also
requires all seating furniture sold or offered for sale in
this state to be flame retardant.
2)Defines a "fire retardant" product as a product that meets the
regulations adopted by the Bureau. This does not include
furniture used exclusively for the purpose of physical fitness
and exercise.
3)Prohibits a person from manufacturing, processing, or
distributing in commerce a product, or a flame-retarded part
of a product, containing more than 0.1% pentaBDE or octaBDE.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Background: BFRs & CFRs : Manufacturers of consumer products
commonly add flame-retardant chemicals to plastics and other
flammable materials to reduce the risk of fire. BFRs are
chemicals that reduce the spread of fire in a variety of common
products such as electronic casings, polyurethane foam, and
commercial textiles. 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.
These chemicals escape into the environment during manufacture,
use, and disposal of products containing this flame retardant.
CFRs are mainly used in plastics. Chlorine is used for the
production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). PVC is used in many
applications including construction and furnishings. The
chlorine in the PVC makes the material flame retardant. Like
BFRs, CFRs accumulate in the environment.
PBDEs, a type of BFR, are closely related in structure and
behavior of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are known to
have neurotoxic and carcinogenic action and were banned by
Congress in 1976. Such similarity of the chemicals' molecular
structures raises concern about potential biological hazards.
According to the author, BFRs and CFRs may cause reproductive,
developmental, neurological or other health problems, including
cancer, birth defects, learning disorders, and mental
retardation.
Purpose of this bill . According to the author, this bill "will
reduce the threat from fires and health impacts caused by toxic
AB 706
Page 3
chemical fire retardants." The author maintains that BFRs and
CFRs cause many health problems, particularly in children, and
that California can achieve a similar level of fire retardancy
without using these chemicals. In addition, the author asserts
that there are viable, "green chemistry" alternatives to BFRs
and CFRs such as phosphates, boric acid, silicon, or fire
resistant materials. The author also notes that when BFRs and
CFRs do burn, they emit a dark smoke that can reduce the
visibility of fire fighters and can be converted into dioxin and
furans, thereby exposing firefighters to extremely toxic and
cancer-causing chemicals. Finally, the author contends that,
though California is the only state with a furniture
flammability standard, a comparison of fire deaths in the other
most populous states done by the National Fire Prevention
Association "showed California was statistically equal to states
without the tough furniture standard."
Support . The Bluewater Network supports this bill arguing that
it will require the Bureau "to modernize fire safety standards
for furniture based on the performance characteristics of a
composite of the component parts of the furniture tested. The
new standard would replace outdated standards that require
separate furniture components, such as fabric and foam, to be
tested independently." As a result of the current standard,
Bluewater Network argues furniture manufacturers use BFRs and
CFRs that expose children to high levels of toxicity and our
marine wildlife and ecosystems to extremely harmful levels of
chemical pollution. Bluewater Network contends that,
"California can achieve similar or even superior fire safety
without the use of brominated or chlorinated fire retardants.
Improved furniture design, the use of chemicals that are safer
for human health and the environment, and the implementation of
an integrated furniture performance standard to replace outdated
tests that currently test foam separately from fabric should
over time lead to further increases in furniture safety."
Making Our Milk Safe (MOMS) supports this bill, noting that
levels of PBDEs in American women are 10 to 100 times those
found in European women. MOMS asserts that "nursing babies take
into their bodies a higher proportion of toxins than other
living creatures because they ingest chemicals that have
accumulated at increasing concentrations up the food
chain?.PBDEs can interfere with the thyroid gland, which
controls metabolism and growth. Side effects of exposure to
PBDEs include impaired learning and memory, delayed onset of
puberty, (and) male and female reproductive defects." Due to
these health concerns, MOMS argues that it is necessary to ban
AB 706
Page 4
the use of BFRs and CFRs in furniture.
Opposition . The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF)
opposes this bill arguing that it "jeopardizes public health and
safety by forcing manufacturers to switch to unspecified
alternatives that do not have the same established history of
use and which must comply with an as yet undefined flame
resistance standard to be established by the Bureau" and that it
will "likely result in reduced levels of fire safety for the
citizens of California." In addition, BSEF contends that the
claims of the proponents of this bill are not supported
scientifically and do not differentiate between different types
of BFRs and CFRs. BSEF maintains that decisions regarding the
use of BFRs and CFRs should be made on a case-by-case basis that
are specific to the manner in which a chemical is being used; a
"one-size-fits-all" regulatory approach that bans two entire
classes of flame retardants is misguided. Furthermore, BSEF
cites a claim by the Polyurethane Foam Association that this
bill would ban more than 90 percent of the flame retardants
currently used in the production of foam and asserts that
"little is known about the flame retardant efficiency and/or
potential adverse environmental effects of the alternatives that
would be used to replace these substances." Finally, BSEF
maintains that BFRs and CFRs are effective at reducing the
threat of fires and that "California should not be moving in a
direction that could actually make its citizens less safe from
the threats of fire."
The Home Safety Council (HSC) opposes this bill contending that
it will roll back California's fire protection standards for
furniture and bedding. HSC notes that "the furniture
regulations have been in place for decades and according to the
National Association of State Fire Marshals, fatality rates in
California from furniture fires fell by 64% in the first years
after their adoption."
Related legislation . AB 513 (Lieber), this session, bans the
manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of a
product containing more than 0.1% of decabromo diphenyl ether
(decaBDE) on and after January 1, 2011. DecaBDE is a specific
type of BFR. AB 513 is currently pending in the Assembly Health
Committee
AB 2587 (Chan), Chapter 641, Statutes of 2004, prohibited a
person from manufacturing, processing, or distributing in
commerce a product, or a flame-retarded part of a product,
containing more than 0.1% pentaBDE or octaBDE on and after
AB 706
Page 5
January 1, 2006 [sped up implementation date of AB 302 (Chan),
see below].
AB 302 (Chan), Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003, prohibited a
person from manufacturing, processing, or distributing in
commerce a product, or a flame-retarded part of a product,
containing more than 0.1% pentaBDE or octaBDE on and after
January 1, 2008.
Dual-referral . This bill was heard in the Assembly
Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee on April 10,
2007 and passed on a vote of 5-2.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Bluewater Network (Co-Sponsor)
Making Our Milk Safe (Co-Sponsor)
MomsRising.org (Co-Sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
As You Sow
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
California Professional Firefighters
Center for Environmental Health
Coalition for a Safe Environment
Commonweal
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Federation of California
Diversified Health Services
The Episcopal Diocese of CA Commission for the Environment
Environmental Working Group
Get Able
Healthy Children Organizing Project
Natural Resources Defense Council
Oceana
The Ocean Conservancy
Planning and Conservation League
Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798
Sierra Club California
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Opposition
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
AB 706
Page 6
American Chemistry Council
Association of Woodworking and Furnishings Suppliers
Bromine Science and Environmental Forum
California Chamber of Commerce
California League of Food Processors
Chemical Industry Council of California
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
California Space Authority
Electronic Industries Alliance
Flicker of Hope Foundation
Home Safety Council
Industrial Environmental Association
International Sleep Products Association
The Center for Campus Fire Safety
1 individual
Analysis Prepared by : Pablo Garza / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301