Safer Products for Washington - Draft Report to the Legislature on Regulatory Determinations

245 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Mary Stamp

12/15/21 @ 10:57 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mary Stamp
1323 S Perry St Spokane, WA 99202-3571
marystamp@mac.com
No attachments

Comment From: Rene Dubay

12/15/21 @ 10:56 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ms. René Dubay
13740 36th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98125-3713
dubay.rene@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Brown

12/15/21 @ 10:54 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mr. Robert Brown
1443 Edwards Ave Fircrest, WA 98466-6640
larkbrown@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Marilyn Kimmerling

12/15/21 @ 10:53 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ms Marilyn Kimmerling
4414 N 34th St Tacoma, WA 98407-4728
mkimmerling8@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Walther Soeldner

12/15/21 @ 10:52 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mr. Walther Soeldner
13613 S Valley Chapel Rd Valleyford, WA 99036-9767
waltsoe@duck.com
No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Snyder

12/15/21 @ 10:50 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Nancy Snyder
5220 Puget Rd NE Olympia, WA 98516-9542
snyderoly@aol.com
No attachments

Comment From: Bruce Shilling

12/15/21 @ 10:49 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mr. Bruce Shilling
7120 Linden Ave N Seattle, WA 98103-5110
bruceshilling@yahoo.com
No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Heath

12/15/21 @ 10:48 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process. Again, thank you for your moving forward on this critical issue.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ms Elizabeth A Heath
2615 SW Barton St Apt 1-304 Seattle, WA 98126-3970
purrfull@aol.com
No attachments

Comment From: Lucy Johnson

12/15/21 @ 10:46 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Lucy JOHNSON
2933 Fairmount Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116-3403
littleru1@aol.com
No attachments

Comment From: E Ellis

12/15/21 @ 10:45 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ms. E Ellis
115 N K St Unit 1701 Aberdeen, WA 98520-6319
harborsolar1@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Ron DiGiacomo

12/15/21 @ 10:44 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ron DiGiacomo
12519 Greenwood Ave N Seattle, WA 98133-8001
mrdigiacomo@q.com
No attachments

Comment From: Christopher Buckley

12/15/21 @ 10:42 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mr. Christopher Buckley
6568 32nd Ave NE Seattle, WA 98115-7247
christopher_buckley@alumni.stanford.edu
No attachments

Comment From: Susan MacGregor

12/15/21 @ 10:41 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ms. Susan MacGregor
16911 NE 95th St Redmond, WA 98052-3748
seesue@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Carolyn Treadway

12/15/21 @ 10:40 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Carolyn Treadway
1951 Circle Ln SE Lacey, WA 98503-2561
cwt2014@planetcare.us
No attachments

Comment From: Judith Ryan

12/15/21 @ 10:39 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Sister Judith Ryan
620 Terry Abe # 2003 Seattle, WA 98104
jryansnjm@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Marilyn Cornwell

12/15/21 @ 10:37 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Rev. Marilyn Cornwell
9010 SE 47th St Mercer Island, WA 98040-4410
mmcornwell@live.com
No attachments

Comment From: Jim Young

12/15/21 @ 10:36 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

May God bless all that you do.

Jim Young
Spokane, WA

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mr. Jim Young
2436 E 8th Ave Spokane, WA 99202-4214
jy518493@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Dorothy Jordan

12/15/21 @ 10:34 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process. The sooner we can eliminate these toxins, the better.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Dorothy Jordan
1407 Abbott Rd Lynden, WA 98264-9401
dorrie.jordan@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Judith Wood

12/15/21 @ 10:33 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process. Washington has an opportunity to lead with this model!

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Judith Wood
6523 1st Ave NW Seattle, WA 98117-4826
judith.drake.wood@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Killeen

12/15/21 @ 10:32 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mr. Kevin Killeen
14224 SE 45th Pl Bellevue, WA 98006-2308
kevin.killeen@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Clark

12/15/21 @ 10:30 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Dr. Kevin Clark
834 San Juan Blvd Bellingham, WA 98229-6831
kevincrestline@aol.com
No attachments

Comment From: Ruth Mulligan

12/15/21 @ 10:29 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I hope that Ecology can capitalize on the momentum already achieved to phase out these toxic chemicals. These chemicals not only affect all of us, but the most vulnerable communities are affected so much more, and this is a serious injustice.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Ruth Mulligan
900 University St Apt 1X Seattle, WA 98101-2726
rmulligan@earthministry.org
No attachments

Comment From: Celeste Maris

12/15/21 @ 10:26 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Celeste Maris
2418 Woodfield Loop SE Olympia, WA 98501-7512
omaris@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Vandenberg

12/15/21 @ 10:24 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Nancy Vandenberg
5021 134th Pl SE Snohomish, WA 98296-5214
nancyvan9604@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: David Ketter

12/14/21 @ 5:34 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process. As a practicing Buddhist, I believe it is my moral obligation to address the suffering of others and I choose to do so through supporting you in making this change. I can virtually guarantee that a majority of other Buddhists in WA (there are more than you think!) believe likewise and encourage you to accelerate this timeline as described above.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
David Ketter
4294 King Ave Apt A Bellingham, WA 98226-7710
dketter@whidbey.com
No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Ferree-Clark

12/14/21 @ 5:32 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Nancy Ferree-Clark
3008 N 33rd St Tacoma, WA 98407-6421
earthministry@nancyfc.us
No attachments

Comment From: Arthur Ungar

12/14/21 @ 5:30 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Arthur Ungar
612 W 36th St Vancouver, WA 98660-1834
ajungar@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Wakil David Matthews

12/14/21 @ 5:29 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

We can no longer afford to ignore the suffering of health issues and the destruction of our planet caused by these toxic chemicals. If you care at all about the planet or your children and community, you will act to put these restrictions in place and enforce those restrictions.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Rev Wakil David Matthews
546 Walnut St Apt 102 Edmonds, WA 98020-3604
drmatthewsusa@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Kathryn Lafond

12/14/21 @ 5:28 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.
The earth can't take anymore and humans/animals can't either.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ms Kathryn Lafond
6685 Kojima Ave NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1699
kelafond@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Pamela Rains

12/14/21 @ 5:26 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

As a grandmother, I'm particularly concerned about the effects of these toxic products for growing children. These regulations cannot be put into action soon enough.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ms. Pamela Rains
22776 SE 43rd Ln Issaquah, WA 98029-6272
raindance427@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Lorraine Johnson

12/14/21 @ 5:25 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Ms. Lorraine Johnson
13716 Lake City Way NE Apt 415 Seattle, WA 98125-2603
lorraine.d.johnson@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Nimmons

12/14/21 @ 5:23 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thanks for trying to do the right thing!!!!!

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Rebecca Nimmons
6345 138th Pl SE Bellevue, WA 98006-4807
raintalk@nwlink.com
No attachments

Comment From: Loretta and Gerard Jancoski

12/14/21 @ 5:21 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Loretta and Gerard Jancoski
14511 272nd Pl NE Duvall, WA 98019-8332
jancoski@seattleu.edu
No attachments

Comment From: Deirdre Gabbay

12/14/21 @ 5:19 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Deirdre Gabbay
120 W Smith St Seattle, WA 98119-2319
deirdre@gabbay.org
No attachments

Comment From: Suzanne Scollon

12/14/21 @ 5:17 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Scollon
1510 Bismark Ln Freeland, WA 98249-9408
suzie@geosemiotics.net
No attachments

Comment From: Richard Johnson

12/14/21 @ 5:16 PM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

Thank you for your work to protect communities and the environment through the Safer Products for Washington process, and for producing a strong proposed report to the legislature. I'm proud to live in a state with the s...↓

As a person of faith, I believe that we have a moral obligation to restrict use of toxic chemicals in common and heavily used products, especially since the studied products are often sources of exposure to children, people of childbearing age, and highly impacted communities, which are often communities of color.

I am glad to see that the draft report proposes restrictions on PFAS, organohalogens and organophosphate flame retardants (OFR and OPFRs), phenolic compounds (bisphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates), phthalates, and PCBs. Thank you for doing the scientific detective work of finding safer alternatives for nearly all of the studied product categories.

I support the strongest possible restrictions of these toxic chemicals in consumer products and believe it is essential that the draft protections not be watered down during this process. The faith community will be looking for strong final proposed restrictions and we hope to see our shared values of safety, responsibility, and stewardship maintained in the final report.

I also urge Ecology to do whatever you can to speed up the Safer Products for Washington program. As retailers continue to voluntarily phase out the use of these chemicals in products, it makes sense to accelerate the timeline for the second round of the Safer Products process.

Thank you again for your dedication to protecting Washington from toxic chemicals through this prevention-based process of stopping contamination at the source.

Sincerely,
Mr Richard Johnson
PO Box 3138 Bellingham, WA 98227-3138
jazzpacnw@yahoo.com
No attachments

Comment From: Melna Skillingstead

12/13/21 @ 12:00 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Matthew Blais

12/10/21 @ 10:32 AM
A fire testing laboratory Perspective.
Over the last 12 years the Fire Technology Testing Laboratory at Southwest Research Institute has performed expensive testing in the flammability and toxic smoke generation of flame retardant and none flame retar...↓
We have performed thousands studies on urethane foam furniture, urethane foam insulation, whole-room furniture fires, television casing burns, battery burn testing, plastic fuel tank testing, maritime materials fire testing and many others. Few of our programs are large enough to publish and much of the data acquired is proprietary to the organization that sponsors the week. However the work we have published in peer reviewed journals are consistent in the conclusion that FR's measurably improve the fire performance of consumer products by reducing ignition or reducing the rate of combustion based on large ignition sources. Reducing the rate of burning reduce the heat release rate and reduces the probability of ignition of the next nearest item resulting in a small fire or no fire if there is no ignition.
With this knowledge in hand, the development of new, non-halo FR are always benchmarked on the performance of halo-organic FR. The halogenated FR systems are the comparison point because they are so effective. In cases where fire does result for FR protected materials ignition it is usually do to other large items acting as a large ignition source. Of interest in these cases is the fact that the smoke produced for the FR protected items is less toxic because they slow the rate of burn so that the fire has sufficient oxygen to burn more completely. We have published the acute toxicity data in our fire journal peer reviewed papers and have also published chronic toxicity results in toxicology journals. In all cases, we have seen less toxic smoke from fire where the halogenated FR protected items were directly compared to their non-FR counterparts. All smoke from fire is toxic, we can quantify the components of smoke by direct measurement and by exposure of human cell assays and assess relative toxicity quite easily. The evidence is unequivocal, the smoke is less toxic from halogenated FR protected items because they burn more slowly or not at all.
In Conclusion, Halogenated FR are the benchmark for performance for FR in plastics, all others are compared to them because they perform so well. Peer reviewed references are available upon request to validate these claims. If additional information is required, please feel to contact me at mattew.blais@SwRI.org. or 801-541-5705. Video evidence of testing is also available. Our testing Laboratory is a part of a Non-profit Research Foundation and we do not individually benefit from the Fire retardant Industry. We do provide professional assistance to this industry.
Sincerely,

Dr. Matthew S. Blais
Director, Department of Fire Technology
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio TX.
No attachments

Comment From: Can Manufacturer Institute (Derek Swick)

12/08/21 @ 12:00 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Gary Jones

12/02/21 @ 12:55 PM
Request for comment deadline extension.
Attachments:

Comment From: Patricia Carroll

11/30/21 @ 10:19 AM
please limit this exposure to these forever chemicals. They can be behind lower male sperm counts, increased certain cancer rates and help accelerate many disease processes.
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

11/22/21 @ 3:45 PM
The section on Personal care products is badly flawed. First, though DEP, diethyl phthalate, has a similar name to other phthalates, it HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE HARMFUL TO HUMANS.

Second, it's a mistake to take advice from the Environmental Working Gr...↓

EWG are thus not trustworthy nor unbiased and a poor choice to make legislation upon.

And third, the supposed alternative you list, DPG, is incompatible with wide swaths of personal care products.

It is unusable in soap for example, wrecking batches it's used in. Any fragrance oil would become unusable if it were used instead of DEP. You should have involved stakeholders who actually utilize DEP before deciding to dictate what to use as alternatives. ANNE MARIE FAIOLA of Brambleberry, a Washington State soapmakers' supplier, could explain seizing to you and the harmless products she'd have to discontinue as none of her customers will be able to use them if she has to switch to DPG.

So by following insincere, faulty advice from millionaire advocacy groups with zero science background, this law would severely damage the artisan soapmakers and their suppliers of Washington state without protecting consumers' health, for no reason, as DEP is not shown to be harmful.

You really should have had people advise you who understand the science and aren't giving misleading, incorrect information. Perry Romanofsky would be a great source for scientific accuracy. He's not going to make money either way so he's neutral.

This is a case of those seeking financial gain leading the unknowing, and bad rulemaking.
No attachments

Comment From: Sherry Willis

11/22/21 @ 7:41 AM
Please ban all substances known to negatively effect our health. If the products cannot all be banned yet, PLEASE require a PROMINENT label on every product advising of it's toxicity. These actions are long overdue.
Thank you
No attachments

Comment From: Association of Washington Busi... (Peter Godlewski)

11/19/21 @ 4:19 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: American Coatings Association (David Darling)

11/19/21 @ 11:10 AM
Attachments:

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]