On Tuesday, January 29, 2008 the Massachusetts Senate is scheduled to take up the Toxic Use Reduction bill. Senator Bruce Tarr is filing an amendment on behalf of GOAL that will exempt lead ammunition from the bill. GOAL is urging our members to contact their local Senator prior to 1:00 PM on Tuesday and ask them to support the Tarr amendment.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Toxic Chemical Bill Update
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
Just got the alert!
So, I called up my "old man" since he is usually a screaming Massachusetts liberal and asked him for his thoughts on the bill, knowing it would be a great argument with the old guy...
bad idea...
"Fish are eating bird shot and getting lead poison!!!, Why Can't hunters use non lead ammo!!!"
"It kills the condors in California!!!"
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
bad idea...
"Fish are eating bird shot and getting lead poison!!!, Why Can't hunters use non lead ammo!!!"
"It kills the condors in California!!!"
I sent a note to Marian Walsh. L.O.L. The only effect my note will have on her is it may cause her a slight tremor and a look of shock. Her campaign literature has the same effect on me.
Best Regards.
Best Regards.
I'm going to be at an environmental event on Wednesday, and my state senator, Pam Resor, is speaking. I'll try to get in a quick word with her.
Isn't bird shot was already lead free in Massacusetts?
Isn't bird shot was already lead free in Massacusetts?
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 13,393
- Likes
- 8,238
I wrote my senator (Antonioni) and mentioned that there was no NEED to have this in the Toxic bill as the DEP has been running a program for going on 10 years to help clean up the lead contamination at shooting ranges. Any further regulations or bans would most certainly ruin what has become a very workable program for all involved.
I also pointed out as an instructor we use thousands of rounds of .22 rimfire ammunition in training classes, junior rifle programs, Boy Scout outings, and competition every year. Since there is no lead-free alternative to the common .22, ammunition costs for these beginner programs would easily jump 1000% and entire inventories of training firearms would have to be replaced to use "approved" ammunition.
There are alternatives to some shotgun ammunition, but only in very common gauges and shot sizes. Many clubs have switched to non toxic shot on the skeet and trap fields, but shooters are not having an easy time finding ammo. Riverside, in fact, orders non-toxic shot by the truckload for use on the ranges just to make that problem less of an issue.
Just about every study I've seen shows that the lead in most ammunition does not pose a significant hazard as it doesn't break down, it simply falls and embeds in the bottom. There are far more toxic forms of lead from industry and consumer products like batteries where the lead is in a much more active state.
I also pointed out as an instructor we use thousands of rounds of .22 rimfire ammunition in training classes, junior rifle programs, Boy Scout outings, and competition every year. Since there is no lead-free alternative to the common .22, ammunition costs for these beginner programs would easily jump 1000% and entire inventories of training firearms would have to be replaced to use "approved" ammunition.
There are alternatives to some shotgun ammunition, but only in very common gauges and shot sizes. Many clubs have switched to non toxic shot on the skeet and trap fields, but shooters are not having an easy time finding ammo. Riverside, in fact, orders non-toxic shot by the truckload for use on the ranges just to make that problem less of an issue.
Just about every study I've seen shows that the lead in most ammunition does not pose a significant hazard as it doesn't break down, it simply falls and embeds in the bottom. There are far more toxic forms of lead from industry and consumer products like batteries where the lead is in a much more active state.
pdm
NES Member
Tell her you've talked with many others in her district (includes me) and they all oppose the bill.
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
Called again to try and speak with Senator Baddour - the receptionist took all my information but could not tell me what his stance was on this subject. I asked for a callback before 1pm to get a definitive answer from his office.
Senate Votes on Chemical Bill
Senate Votes on Chemical Bill
The Massachusetts Senate took up S.2406 “An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals” today. The bill was replaced with a new version S.2481. It will take some time to go through the new language and report to our members where we stand. We can tell you that from an initial reading, the list of elements including lead was removed and it appears that the original authority granted to TURI has been greatly diminished.
Our members can very proud of the impact they have had on this process. While GOAL's amendment did not make it into the next draft, our members had an enormous impact on the Senate debates.
A special thanks to the Northeastshooters posters who acted. Not a Senator in the building did not acknowledge how many calls and emails they received about our concerns. Thank you very much.
Senate Votes on Chemical Bill
The Massachusetts Senate took up S.2406 “An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals” today. The bill was replaced with a new version S.2481. It will take some time to go through the new language and report to our members where we stand. We can tell you that from an initial reading, the list of elements including lead was removed and it appears that the original authority granted to TURI has been greatly diminished.
Our members can very proud of the impact they have had on this process. While GOAL's amendment did not make it into the next draft, our members had an enormous impact on the Senate debates.
A special thanks to the Northeastshooters posters who acted. Not a Senator in the building did not acknowledge how many calls and emails they received about our concerns. Thank you very much.
Last edited:
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Thank you for bringing this to our Attention Jim!!
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
Great teamwork guys... Glad to hear we had some impact.
Please keep up the good work GOAL - I plan on acting on every issue that concerns the shooting community and your alerts have helped me to be able to do just that.
Please keep up the good work GOAL - I plan on acting on every issue that concerns the shooting community and your alerts have helped me to be able to do just that.
The "news" I just read...it isn't good. According to (I can't say) the Tarr amendment was REJECTED. I've e-mailed Senator Tarr for clarification on where we stand on this at the moment and whether this particular amendment he tried to put into the bill today in fact contained language to exempt lead ammo. Maybe Jim knows more, but ...
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/185/st02/st02479.htm
Great work guys..I also emailed and never heard anything back..
Ya know I used to help out some guys that were close and worked with the MMA..Mass Motorcycle Association, if they all worked together like this board just did, things would be alot easier for motorcycle rides..
Great job..
Ya know I used to help out some guys that were close and worked with the MMA..Mass Motorcycle Association, if they all worked together like this board just did, things would be alot easier for motorcycle rides..
Great job..
Senator Tarr's Office Responds
Hi, Ron; my name is Dan Pawson, and I'm Senator Tarr's legislative director. The lead amendments were withdrawn, and here's why: Jim Wallace and GOAL wanted them offered because the Toxic Use Reduction Institute, the body making decisions about what is and is not on the toxic chemical list, had issued a poorly-drafted report last year regarding lead ammunition, and in Jim's view, they could not be trusted to make a fair decision regarding lead ammunition. However, a new draft of the safer alternatives has greatly reduced the power of TURI in making these decisions, and so Senator Tarr and Jim agreed that the lead amendments were no longer necessary. Senator Tarr tells me that Jim is fine with the outcome of the bill, which was passed yesterday in the Senate.
I hope this answers your questions; please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Best,
Dan
Daniel Pawson
Legislative Director
Office of Senator Bruce E. Tarr
(617) 722-1600
Hi, Ron; my name is Dan Pawson, and I'm Senator Tarr's legislative director. The lead amendments were withdrawn, and here's why: Jim Wallace and GOAL wanted them offered because the Toxic Use Reduction Institute, the body making decisions about what is and is not on the toxic chemical list, had issued a poorly-drafted report last year regarding lead ammunition, and in Jim's view, they could not be trusted to make a fair decision regarding lead ammunition. However, a new draft of the safer alternatives has greatly reduced the power of TURI in making these decisions, and so Senator Tarr and Jim agreed that the lead amendments were no longer necessary. Senator Tarr tells me that Jim is fine with the outcome of the bill, which was passed yesterday in the Senate.
I hope this answers your questions; please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Best,
Dan
Daniel Pawson
Legislative Director
Office of Senator Bruce E. Tarr
(617) 722-1600
State House News Service Article of Chemical Bill
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
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
Similar threads
