CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES BILL CLEARS SENATE, PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS CITED

By Kyle Cheney
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, JAN. 30, 2008…..The state Senate forged ahead Tuesday with a bill to restrict manufacturers’ use of toxic chemicals, despite a failing grade from a key business advocate.

The bill, which underwent several revisions and had been delayed for months, was hailed by supporters as a compromise between business interests and the need to keep Massachusetts residents safe from harmful chemicals in everyday products.

The proposal, which passed on a voice vote Tuesday afternoon, authorizes the Toxics Use Reduction Institute to identify the most dangerous chemicals found in household products and mandate their removal from items sold in Massachusetts. To mollify businesses’ concerns, the bill allows TURI to grant waivers to companies for which replacing dangerous materials would be cost-prohibitive or otherwise unfeasible.

“This draft walks a very fine line between the competing interests – the environmental and public health interests and the industrial, manufacturing and business interests,” Sen. Steven Panagiotakos said during floor debate on the bill. “No Massachusetts business will be run out of the state because of this bill.”

But some commerce advocates were unmoved by the Senate’s overtures.

“Businesses were not consulted on this bill,” said Robert Rio, senior vice president of the Association Industries of Massachusetts. “We think it would actually result in businesses choosing not to locate here.”

Rio said that even with the bill’s safeguards, businesses would still incur extra costs. In a letter to the Legislature, AIM estimated that businesses will see $10 million or more in increase costs as a result of the law.

“Even filing for a waiver will cost them money that their competitors will not have to pay,” he said. “It will not result in safer products in the world. It will stifle the innovation economy.”

The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce is also opposing the bill, despite being involved in discussions about it throughout the revision process.

“Last year, leading into the end of December, we were in conversation with folks at the State House,” said the chamber’s director of public policy Tim Sweeney. “The changes that were made in this redrafted version did not ease the concerns.”

Sen. Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham) said the revised bill was fairer to businesses in her Western Massachusetts communities than earlier versions, however, she urged colleagues to consider “remedial legislation” should the law become problematic for companies in the commonwealth.

“If confronted they would have to prove their case that there are no safer alternatives,” Candaras said, adding that this process would involve hiring lawyers, consultants and scientists. Candaras warned of “government out of control” and said that the Legislature must be at the ready to assist businesses if they are overwhelmed trying to comply with the new law.

Senate Republicans, generally sympathetic to the interests of the business community, agreed that the “safer alternatives” bill was essential to ensure public safety. Calling the bill “realistic” and “workable,” Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei said his concerns remained about the effect on businesses.

“In so many other states the costs of doing businesses are much less than in Massachusetts,” he said. “We don't want to put new costs on businesses.”

Support for the bill was amplified last year amid concerns that China had been shipping poisonous products overseas and into the hands of children, who often play with Chinese-made toys. Although the bill would only apply to Massachusetts companies, supporters have said the China debacle exemplifies lax U.S. regulation and oversight.

“Products made in the United States have been pulled from the shelves in Europe,” said Sen. Steven Tolman, who sponsored the original bill, S 558. He and other supporters have argued that companies who implement safer alternatives would see profits rise because of the marketability of and demand for green products.

Calling his proposal “a consensus bill,” Tolman cited sharp increases in cancer and autism over the last few years as a major impetus for his bill.

“The incidents of childhood cancer increased nationally by 27 percent between 1975 and 2000,” he said. “Autism is increasing and now almost 10 times higher than what it was in the 1980s. There is a direct link between toxic chemicals and cancer, neurological conditions and countless other illnesses.”

These toxic chemicals can be found, he said, in products associated with dry cleaning, cosmetics, hardwood floors, and even toys and lunchboxes.

Sen. Pam Resor, co-chair of the Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture, told the News Service last Thursday that California has already implemented similar restrictions and that other states may soon follow suit. Resor, an architect of the revised bill, said at the time that she was working on a version that would get businesses “comfortable with the intent.”

The criticism from AIM comes at a time when legislators, especially in the House, have voiced concern over adding increased restrictions on businesses. Members have pointed to a faltering economy as a reason to avoid any additional burdens on companies.

The chemical bill is now on its way to the House where already a majority of its 160 members have signed on as co-sponsors.

-END-

Please help improve the News Service. Take our subscriber survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=qGtJ1zh5BZgSfMyx8ImyPg_3d_3d

http://www.statehousenews.com