Once again, Washington state is considering a ban on flame-retardant compounds used in computer casings and other electronics. These fire-safety components would now be restricted by the Washington State Department of Ecology. And once again, the compounds that might be banned are the replacements for other chemical compounds that lawmakers had banned earlier. And the proposed replacements for the current compounds have their own environmental concerns and are in fact themselves banned in other states.

This is a familiar pattern. It is appropriate for Ecology Department staff to seek ways to reduce risks from chemical compounds but doing that while still making consumer electronics flame retardant has been a challenge. As they consider regulations under this new state law, Ecology officials should learn the lesson of recent history and take the time to make sure they don’t end up causing more harm than good.

In 2007, the Washington state legislature essentially banned flame-retardant chemicals known as PBDEs. At the time, the Director of the Department of Ecology and an environmental organization called “Toxic-Free Future” testified there were safe alternatives, although they did not identify what those alternatives might be.

Sure enough, a few years later, the Department and environmental groups were asking the legislature to ban the replacement chemicals. The Department of Ecology admitted that, in the absence of approved alternatives, the banning of PBDEs lead to “regrettable substitutions,” that were also toxic.

In 2019 the legislature passed the “Pollution prevention for healthy people and Puget Sound act” which promised to stop the cycle of replacing chemicals with replacement compounds that have similar risks. The law specifically requires the Department of Ecology to consider, “the availability and feasibility of safter alternatives” to compounds that may be restricted and to also consider whether proposed regulations are consistent with other jurisdictions.

As Ecology staff begin implementing that law, they are already running into the problems they faced in their previous efforts to ban particular flame-retardants.

In fact a coalition of industry organizations are asking Ecology Director Laura Watson for exemptions from some of the new regulations enacted as part of the 2019 law. In particular, they are concerned that restrictions on flame retardants for batteries, including EV charging stations, would contradict requirements in other states. Ecology staff claim that the compounds they are banning can be replaced by alternatives that rely on an additive called PTFE, which is related to PFAS, and which Washington state has banned for several uses. The Department of Ecology notes, “PTFE does not meet our minimum criteria for safer.” Indeed, other states have banned PTFE.  So, a compound that would be acceptable in one jurisdiction would be considered toxic in another.

There is an additional irony. When the 2019 law passed, Toxic-Free Future said, “Washington state is leading the nation with this new law that tackles classes of chemicals, like PFAS, ending the chemical by chemical approach that does not solve the problem.” Not only does the 2019 law not solve the problem, it may end up encouraging some manufacturers to switch to using a PFAS-related substance with Ecology’s blessing.

At the time we noted that, “Implementing the legislation, SB 5135, could prove to be challenging.” At the time we warned, “We have witnessed these tradeoffs here in Washington state, and past efforts to ban certain supposedly toxic flame-retardants led manufacturers to substitute chemicals rated as even more toxic. How the Department of Ecology chooses to implement the new legislation will make all the difference in how effective the new law is in truly protecting the public.”

As we predicted, that is precisely problem state officials face now.

There will certainly be pressure on Ecology staff to move forward with its proposed ban. Activists will argue that a delay will harm human health and the environment, and yet this could make things worse. That has been the rationale that resulted in the missteps that have occurred over the past 15 years since PBDEs were banned. It is the rationale that the 2019 law was supposed to make obsolete.

Given the history of flame-retardant bans, the uncertainty about alternatives, and the contradiction between jurisdictions, Ecology leadership should take the time to ensure they don’t make the same mistakes and end up having to fix things again with yet additional regulation or legislation.