A proposal from Gov. Jay Inslee to overhaul the regulation of toxic chemicals in Washington state drew high praise and withering criticism in its first hearing in the House Environment Committee Monday afternoon.

The main thrust of the legislation would take the Legislature’s authority to possibly ban chemical use in consumer products, manufacturing and other industrial processes, and cede it to the Department of Ecology. It would require Ecology to come up with a list of 150 chemicals, cull it to 20, and then identify a handful that would be targeted for phasing out if safer alternatives exist over the next decade.

The legislation is moving forward hand-in-hand with the governor’s rule on the fish consumption rate, which would mean stricter application of about 70 chemicals in Washington state with the goal of improving water quality.

The state is currently undergoing the rule making process on fish consumption; a draft rule has been issued, and it sets up a series of public meetings on the proposed rule in March. But, as the Department of Ecology announced on the first day of the legislative session last month, the rule on fish consumption moves forward in tandem with toxics reduction.

It was clear on Monday that some business trade groups are not willing to accept that approach. Mark Greenberg, a lobbyist with the American Chemistry Council, called the legislation “unprecedented” in its scope.

“There’s no governor who would give this power back to the Legislature,” Greenberg said. “The power to ban any product found in a home in Washington is a very potent power. This puts the Department of Ecology in every home.”

Brandon Houskeeper, a lobbyist for the Association of Washington Business, said he supported some measures in the governor’s program, such as developing more environmentally friendly chemistry methods, or addressing the pollution in stormwater runoff. That makes for a huge source of pollution, he said. “It’s us, the public, predominantly,” Houskeeper said.

Tying the toxics reduction legislation to fish consumption broadens the scope of the measures well beyond water quality. “This proposal is not a prerequisite for EPA approval on fish consumption,” Houskeeper said.

Rob Duff, a policy adviser in the governor’s office, testified that this would mark a new phase in toxic chemical regulation, building on past efforts to address lead in paint and in fuel tanks, as well as copper in brake pads.

The Legislature is also considering banning a series of six chemical flame retardants this session, which was heard in the House Environment Committee last month. It has its next hearing in the committee on Thursday.

The Legislature’s push to ban a flame retardant in 2007 called PBDEs prefaced much of the fights going on currently; the legislation was enacted, but led manufacturers to use a riskier alternative, which is now subject to the new ban.

Duff said the governor’s legislation addresses the alternative assessment requirements, which sets up a process whereby manufacturers or businesses have to identify the alternatives if they exist.

He called the legislation an effective means of addressing chemicals that would lead to harm to the development of children’s brains or reproductive organs, and are found present in house dust tests in Washington state.

“It’s going to address the problematic chemicals,” Duff said. “With these tools, we also get away from these ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions.”

While the legislation would use findings and studies determining that the chemicals could pose a harm, the proposal would not require findings on actual exposure, and actual risk of harm, to trigger the process that could lead to the ban, according to AWB.

Laurie Valeriano, executive director of the Washington Toxics Coalition, said the legislation’s proposal to give Ecology the authority to ban chemical usage is a necessity to addressing them in a timely manner. The proposal over flame retardants, for example, has been considered in the Legislature for the last three years without action.

“When the agency that is charged with cleanup of toxics doesn’t have the ability to prevent a significant source of pollution, it doesn’t make sense,” Valeriano said. “We shouldn’t have to wait for the state to take action to stop harmful chemicals in our homes.”

Grant Nelson, speaking for the Toy Industry Association, and Holly Chisa, representing the Northwest Grocery Association, also opposed the bill. Chisa said grocers would be swept under the legislation’s provisions, and are already finding difficulties with how to manage distribution of products that are bound for Alaska, Oregon, and other states with the supply chain of products for Washington state stores. Current law requires they be kept separate, under the Children’s Safe Products Act.

“We are already struggling under the Children’s Safe Products Act,” Chisa said.

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.