Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Editorial: Chemical regulation worthwhile for kids, firefighter safety

Sat., May 2, 2015

The Washington House of Representatives has twice this session passed legislation that would stop the use of five toxic chemicals in household furniture and products for children.

The vote in the regular session: 95-3. In the special session: 92-3.

In the Senate? A March 17 hearing, followed – more than one month later – by a resolution to kick it back to the House Rules Committee, which turned it right around for the second floor vote, and second landslide.

The five chemicals the legislation would ban are a soup of acronyms – TBBPA, HBCD, etc. – considered potentially carcinogenic, or harmful to fertility, the nervous system, and the thyroid gland. Used in some foams and fabrics, over time they are released into household air and dust, where they are transferred into humans.

One of the ironies of new home construction, which reduces venting of interior air to the outside, is the extended exposure to these chemicals that results.

When these materials ignite – and in a hot fire they will – the resulting fumes are a menace to firefighters, who are among the strongest advocates for a ban. In the Senate hearing, a witness for the Washington State Council of Firefighters gave the simplest reason for discontinuing the use of retardants: They are unnecessary.

Rep. Kevin Van De Wege, D-Sequim, is a firefighter and prime sponsor of the bill, the Toxic-Free Kids and Family Act, E2SHB 1174.

Many of the major furniture outlets, including Ashley Furniture, Crate & Barrel, Lay-Z-Boy and Pottery Barn, have stopped using or are phasing out the use of fire retardants in their products.

Industry witnesses noted the often-picky European Union has no problem with fire retardant use, but the major complaint with state regulation was the difficulty complying with deadlines and other reporting requirements.

Those issues resonated with some legislators, who would prefer they make the final call on what should be banned and what should be allowed to stay on the market. Many distrust the Department of Ecology, which would have the authority to ban other chemicals.

Bill supporters say they would accept a compromise that puts that power in the Department of Health. They would also accept a provision that would sunset the law in five years.

If chemicals are identified for a state ban, whatever agency is charged with making that recommendation would have to have it available for review at the start of the legislative session.

All these steps would be positives.

The bill’s long prefix – E2SHB – reflects the compromises that brought it to, and off, the House floor. Efforts to regulate retardants have failed in earlier sessions. This bill is ready for Senate action.

Infants deserve better protection. Firefighters deserve better protection.