OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS

Legislative Office Building, Room 5200

Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 240-0200

http: //www. cga. ct. gov/ofa

sSB-210

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE USE OF BISPHENOL-A IN THERMAL RECEIPT PAPER.

As Amended by Senate "A" (LCO 8298)

House Calendar No. : 627

Senate Calendar No. : 214

OFA Fiscal Note

State Impact:

Agency Affected

Fund-Effect

FY 12 $

FY 13 $

FY 14 $

Consumer Protection, Dept.

GF – Potential Cost

None

None

60,576

Comptroller Misc. Accounts (Fringe Benefits)1

GF - Potential Cost

None

None

1,077

Note: GF=General Fund

Municipal Impact: None

Explanation

The bill results in a potential cost of $60,576 in FY 14 and FY 15 as it requires the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) to enforce the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, or offering for sale of thermal receipt or cash register receipt paper containing bisphenol-A (BPA) in Connecticut beginning October 1, 2013 if there is an identified safe alternative by June 30, 2013. The enforcement of the prohibition will require a one-quarter time Product Safety Inspector at a salary of $14,076 plus fringe benefit costs of $1,077 and associated other expenses of $1,500. Additionally, testing costs of $45,000 per year would also be required. Testing for BPA costs $150 per sample. An estimated 25 samples per month would be taken on a random inspection basis.

The cost identified above becomes definitive in FY 16 even if no alternative exists a ban would be in place on and after July 1, 2015.

Senate “A” (LC0 8298) added the provision regarding a ban if no alternative existed and potentially delayed the costs identified above.

The Out Years

The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future subject to inflation.

The preceding Fiscal Impact statement is prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for the purposes of information, summarization and explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose. In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety of informational sources, including the analyst's professional knowledge. Whenever applicable, agency data is consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any specific department.

1 The fringe benefit costs for most state employees are budgeted centrally in accounts administered by the Comptroller. The estimated non-pension fringe benefit cost associated with personnel changes is 23. 76% of payroll in FY 12 and FY 13. In addition, there could be an impact to potential liability for the applicable state pension funds.