FLAMING UNCERTAINTY

Television ads warning Maine residents that their homes could go up in flames if a fire retardant chemical is banned are over the top. So, too, however, are claims that banning a flame retardant called deca is one of the most important issues facing lawmakers this year. The Department of Environmental Protection can help return reason to this debate by partnering with other states to assess the risks from deca and analyze alternatives.

Three years ago, lawmakers banned two forms of brominated flame retardants and told the DEP to look for safer alternatives to deca. If such alternatives were found, the department was to return to the Legislature with a bill to ban deca.

In its required annual report to the Legislature, the DEP in January defined safer to mean “an alternative that, compared to decaBDE, has not been shown to pose the same or greater risks to human health or the environment.” This is the wrong standard because an alternative may not be shown to pose the same or greater risks simply because it has not been studied as much as deca. In fact, in its analysis of deca alternatives, the DEP noted that little information was available on the toxicity of several other chemicals. Still, the agency declared that alternatives were available and that deca should be banned in consumer electronics and furniture, a process that requires further legislative action, which is where the process now stands.

This has allowed the makers of deca to warn that the state is simply swapping one possibly dangerous chemical for another. It is also the opposite of what other states have found. Washington has banned deca in mattresses and is considering a wider ban. Last year, the Washington Chemical Action Plan concluded “there do not appear to be any obvious alternatives to decaBDE that are less toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative and have enough data available for making a robust assessment.”

A report by the Maryland Department of the Environment’s said deca should not be banned unless safer alternatives are identified, and-or new toxicological data shows that there is an unacceptable risk to public health and-or the environment.

To bridge these differing conclusions, Maine could partner with other states to test the toxicity and technical and economic feasibility of alternatives.

Supporters of the ban say that deca is bad because it is being found in the environment in increasingly large amounts. This may be because detection technology has vastly improved and more scientists are looking for it. Or, it could be because there is more of it around. Another unanswered question is whether the deca being found now is from products that were made and discarded years ago, when it was more widely used.

Despite dire warning about the dangers of deca, the legislation, LD 1658, does not ban the flame retardant’s use in wiring in cars, electrical facilities or major manufacturing facilities such as Bath Iron Works. Supporters of the bill say that eliminating deca in households will protect individuals. Industrial use of the chemical, however, is likely a larger reason for its presence in the environment.

Before enacting a ban, lawmakers need to know that a real harm will be avoided and that alternatives that are really safer exist.