[Senate Hearing 112-705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-705
ARE CONSUMERS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM FLAMMABILITY OF UPHOLSTERED
FURNITURE? HEARING ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FURNITURE FLAMMABILITY
STANDARDS AND FLAME-RETARDANT CHEMICALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
JULY 17, 2012--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-478 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MARK KIRK, Illinois
JACK REED, Rhode Island DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BEN NELSON, Nebraska MARK KIRK, Illinois
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex
officio) officio)
Professional Staff
Marianne Upton
Diana Gourlay Hamilton
Melissa Zimmerman
Dale Cabaniss (Minority)
Ellen Beares (Minority)
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
Administrative Support
Nora Martin
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin................... 1
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin.............. 4
Roles of Witnesses............................................... 4
Summary of the Issues............................................ 5
Statement of Senator Jerry Moran................................. 6
The Utility of California Technical Bulletin 117: Does the
Regulation Add Value?.......................................... 7
Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg......................... 20
Statement of Inez M. Tenenbaum, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety
Commission..................................................... 22
Prepared Statement of Inez M. Tenenbaum...................... 24
Statement of James J. Jones, Acting Assistant Administrator,
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention,
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 25
Prepared Statement of James J. Jones......................... 27
Background on the Toxic Substances Control Act................... 27
Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management
Legislation.................................................... 28
Work Plan Chemicals.............................................. 28
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant Chemicals.......... 28
Efforts on Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether Flame-Retardant
Chemicals...................................................... 29
Statement of August ``Gus'' Schaefer, Sr., Vice President and
Chief Safety Officer, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc........... 38
Prepared Statement of August ``Gus'' Schaefer, Sr............ 39
Fire Risk Associated with Upholstered Furniture.................. 40
Underwriters Laboratories Research Exploring the Fire Safety of
Upholstered Furniture.......................................... 41
Phase 1: Material, Mockup, and Full-Sized Furniture Testing...... 41
Phase 2: Comparison of Upholstered Furniture on Living Room
Flashover...................................................... 42
Phase 3: Comparison of Upholstered Furniture on Occupant
Tenability and Survivability................................... 42
Statement of Andy S. Counts, CEO, American Home Furnishings
Alliance....................................................... 43
Prepared Statement of Andy S. Counts......................... 45
The National Discussion.......................................... 46
The Upholstered Furniture Action Council......................... 46
Small Open-Flame Research........................................ 47
Research and Regulation of Flame Retardants...................... 47
Other Trends Shaping Fire Statistics............................. 48
Statement of Peter Van Dorpe, Chief, Training Division, Chicago
Fire Department................................................ 49
Prepared Statement of Peter Van Dorpe........................ 52
Prepared Statement of San Francisco Firefighters Cancer
Prevention Foundation.......................................... 60
Prepared Statement of the United States Fire Administration...... 62
Additional Committee Questions................................... 64
Questions Submitted to Inez M. Tenenbaum......................... 64
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin................. 64
Consumer Product Safety Commission's Upholstered Furniture
Flammability Standard.......................................... 64
California Technical Bulletin 117................................ 64
Response to American Home Furnishings Alliance Recommendations... 65
Flame-Retardant Chemicals........................................ 66
Questions Submitted to James J. Jones............................ 67
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin................. 67
Flame-Retardant Chemicals........................................ 67
Future Efforts Regarding Flame Retardants........................ 68
Europe Bans or Greatly Restricts Flame Retardants................ 68
Toxic Substances Control Act..................................... 69
Questions Submitted to Gus Schaefer.............................. 69
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin................. 69
Underwriters Laboratories Testing on Upholstered Furniture
Flammability................................................... 69
Response to Testimony From the American Home Furnishing Alliance. 69
Questions Submitted to Andy S. Counts............................ 71
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin................. 71
Consumer Product Safety Commission Flammability Standard......... 71
ARE CONSUMERS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM FLAMMABILITY OF UPHOLSTERED
FURNITURE? HEARING ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FURNITURE FLAMMABILITY
STANDARDS AND FLAME-RETARDANT CHEMICALS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Financial Services
and General Government,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Lautenberg, and Moran.
opening statement of senator richard j. durbin
Senator Durbin. Good afternoon. Today, I am pleased to
convene this hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Financial Services and General Government to discuss standards
for the flammability of residential upholstered furniture and
the use of flame-retardant chemicals, and whether efforts to
date are adequately protecting American consumers.
I am going to be joined later by Senator Jerry Moran, my
ranking member, and possibly Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, and
other colleagues. I thank them all for their interest in this
issue.
I welcome the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), Inez M. Tenenbaum, and the acting Assistant
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, James J.
Jones. I also welcome our second panel of witnesses we'll hear
from a little later.
Why are we holding this hearing? According to national fire
loss estimates for 2005 to 2009, upholstered furniture was the
first household item to ignite in an average of 7,040 reported
home structure fires every year. These fires caused an
estimated annual average of 500 deaths, 890 injuries, and $442
million in direct property damage.
Once upholstered furniture is ignited, it burns extremely
rapidly, because of the fuel in the upholstery filling
materials. Lighted tobacco products or smoking materials remain
the leading cause of upholstered furniture fires and associated
losses. One out of every six such fires started by smoking
materials resulted in death.
In May, the Chicago Tribune published a four-part series on
flame-retardant chemicals. It was an eye-opener. It explored
the role of the major tobacco companies, which sought to shift
focus away from cigarettes as the cause of fire deaths, and
chemical companies, which wanted to preserve a market for their
products.
Tobacco industry efforts with State fire marshals steered
policymakers away from developing a fire-safe cigarette and
instead toward rules requiring furniture flammability
standards. That, in turn, led to the widespread use of flame-
retardant chemicals.
The Chicago Tribune articles also highlighted research
showing that flame-retardant chemicals escape from household
products and settle in dust, causing infants and toddlers to
have higher levels of these chemicals in their bodies than
their parents. American newborns have the highest recorded
concentration of flame-retardant chemicals than any infants in
any other country.
This led Graco, one the Nation's largest children's product
manufacturers, to ban the use of some toxic flame retardants in
their products. Graco has recently announced that they will
begin eliminating four of the most toxic flame-retardant
chemicals from their products, including car seats and
strollers.
The list of banned chemicals includes Firemaster 550, a
chemical mixture that the current research and even the Tribune
articles have shown to accumulate in humans and the
environment.
The chemical industry points to research justifying the use
of fire retardants. The Chicago Tribune exposes that research
many times is distorted and based on manipulated data.
Finally, the series discusses the toxicity of flame
retardants and the difficulties that EPA faces in restricting
the use of flame-retardant chemicals in furniture.
What we will learn today is a little more about fires,
furniture, fire-retardant chemicals, and, maybe as important,
the role of the Government when it comes to these issues.
On our first panel, we are going to hear from CPSC, an
obvious first stop in this conversation. They have been
working, as you will find, for many years on a proposed
standard for the flammability of upholstered furniture.
Upholstered furniture that catches fire is a leading cause
of death in residential fires from consumer products. In recent
years, CPSC has been working on a standard that would require
upholstery to resist smoldering cigarettes, which are by far
the leading cause of furniture fires.
To complete an upholstered furniture flammability standard,
CPSC must comply with the Flammable Fabrics Act passed by the
Congress, which sets the standards for testing. They are wide-
ranging and lengthy, the standards.
As part of them, CPSC conducted testing to establish the
effectiveness of different strategies on reducing furniture
flammability.
I expect that CPSC will provide an update on this research,
the status of the rulemaking, the remaining steps to finalize a
rule, and any outstanding issues.
Also on the first panel, we will hear from EPA. They
regulate the manufacture and use of flame-retardant chemicals
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Recent
scientific research has demonstrated these chemicals accumulate
in the environment and can cause cancer, neurological
disorders, and impaired reproduction.
During this hearing, we hope to learn more about the public
health and environmental effects of flame-retardant chemicals
used in furniture. Additionally, we hope to hear what authority
TSCA gives EPA to regulate these potentially dangerous
chemicals and any recent actions taken by EPA with respect to
them.
With the next panel we are going to hear from is an
Illinois-based company well known to most, Underwriters
Laboratories (UL). It's an independent, not-for-profit
standards developer that tests products and certifies those
that are consistent with public safety and those that are not.
Over time, the company has built a brand that reassures
consumers the products they are purchasing are safe. In 2008,
UL initiated testing on different methods of reducing
upholstered furniture flammability and reducing the fire growth
rate of upholstered furniture.
Some of their findings will likely have us taking a second
look at the furniture we have in our homes. They are here today
to discuss the results of their testing on furniture
flammability.
We are going to also hear from the American Home
Furnishings Alliance, representing the manufacturers and
importers of residential furniture that include upholstered
furniture. Much like CPSC, the manufacturers have been involved
in developing upholstered furniture flammability standards.
They will share their insights regarding current standards and
ongoing work with CPSC to determine a new standard.
Finally, we are going to hear from a veteran firefighter
and fire-safety expert to discuss the changes that have taken
place in America affecting home fire safety and the factors
leading to home fires. He will also tell us about the human
cost associated with fires and very simple steps, including
creating effective flammability standards, that we can take to
help reduce this risk for consumers and firefighters alike.
After reading the Chicago Tribune articles, I was struck by
several disturbing things. First, the intentional distortion
and manipulation of research in order to deceive Americans into
thinking that the use of flame-retardant chemicals in furniture
provided additional protection in home fires even though the
data do not support the claim; the extensive lobbying and
significant funding spent by chemical companies and the tobacco
industry to ensure that flame-retardant chemicals were used in
furniture and to suppress opposition to their inclusion; and
the growing awareness that flame-retardant chemicals in
furniture may not add any benefit, and, in many cases, may
cause harm to public health and the environment.
Generations of Americans have been asked to tolerate what
may be an unsafe level of exposure to potentially toxic
chemicals in their furniture in the name of fire safety. If the
scientific evidence suggests this solution is not justified, we
must move quickly to update our upholstered furniture
flammability standards and limit our exposure to these
dangerous chemicals.
Today, we'll attempt to gain a clear understanding of
whether consumers are protected from flammability furniture, a
leading cause of house fires. We'll explore what's been
happening with residential upholstered furniture flammability
standards and the effectiveness of these chemicals.
We'll start by exploring CPSC's process for finalizing a
standard, and then move to EPA for their statements on the
actual chemicals involved.
prepared statement
I'd like to say, as a matter of record, we have a vote
scheduled at 3 o'clock, which will probably go until about 3:15
or 3:20 p.m., so my ranking member, Senator Moran, and I will
try to accommodate that vote and be sure that we make it and
not interrupt this hearing indefinitely.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Good afternoon. Today, I am pleased to convene this hearing of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government to discuss standards for the flammability of residential
upholstered furniture and the use of flame-retardant chemicals, and
whether efforts to date are adequately protecting consumers and the
public.
I welcome Senator Jerry Moran, the ranking member, Senator Frank R.
Lautenberg, and possibly other colleagues are joining me today. I
welcome the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Inez M. Tenenbaum, and the Acting Assistant Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention, James J. Jones. I also welcome our second panel
of witnesses who we will hear from a bit later.
According to national fire loss estimates for 2005-2009,
upholstered furniture was the first household item to ignite in an
average of 7,040 reported home structure fires per year. These fires
caused an estimated annual average of 500 deaths, 890 injuries, and
$442 million in direct property damage. Once upholstered furniture is
ignited, it burns extremely rapid because of the fuel in the upholstery
filling materials. Lighted tobacco products (or smoking materials)
remain the leading cause of upholstered furniture fires and associated
losses. One out of every six such fires started by smoking materials
resulted in death.
In May, the Chicago Tribune published a four-part series on flame-
retardant chemicals. It explored the role of Big Tobacco, which sought
to shift focus away from cigarettes as the cause of fire deaths; and
chemical companies, which wanted to preserve a lucrative market for
their products. The tobacco industry's efforts with State fire marshals
steered policymakers away from developing a fire-safe cigarette
standard and instead toward rules requiring furniture flammability
standards. That, in turn, led to the widespread use of flame-retardant
chemicals.
In addition, the Chicago Tribune articles highlight research
showing that flame-retardant chemicals escape from household products
and settle in dust, causing infants and toddlers to have higher levels
of these chemicals in their bodies than their parents. American
newborns have the highest recorded concentrations of flame retardants
than infants from any other country.
This has led Graco--one of the Nation's largest children's product
manufacturers--to ban the use of some toxic flame retardants in their
products. Graco has recently announced that they will begin eliminating
four of the most toxic flame-retardant chemicals from their products,
which include car seats and strollers. The list of banned chemicals
includes Firemaster 550, a chemical mixture that the current research
and Chicago Tribune articles have shown to accumulate in humans and the
environment.
The chemical industry points to research justifying the use of fire
retardants. The Tribune exposes that research as distorted and based on
manipulated data. Finally, the series discusses the toxicity of flame
retardants and the difficulties that EPA faces in restricting the use
of flame-retardant chemicals in furniture.
roles of witnesses
Today, on our first panel, we will hear from CPSC, which has been
working on a proposed standard for the flammability of upholstered
furniture.
Upholstered furniture that catches fire is a leading cause of death
in residential fires from consumer products. In recent years, CPSC has
been working on a standard that would require upholstery to resist
smoldering cigarettes, which are by far the leading cause of furniture
fires.
To complete an upholstered furniture flammability standard, CPSC
must comply with Flammable Fabrics Act requirements, which are wide-
ranging and lengthy. As part of the standards process, CPSC conducted
testing to establish the effectiveness of different strategies on
reducing flammability. I expect that CPSC will provide an update on
their research, the status of the rulemaking, the remaining steps to
finalizing the rule, and any outstanding issues yet to be resolved.
Also on the first panel, we will hear from EPA, which regulates the
manufacture and use of flame-retardant chemicals under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Recent scientific research has
demonstrated that these chemicals accumulate in the environment and
that they can cause cancer, neurological disorders, and impaired
reproduction.
During this hearing, we hope to learn more about the public health
and environmental effects of flame-retardant chemicals used in
furniture filling. Additionally, we hope to hear what authority TSCA
gives EPA to regulate these potentially dangerous chemicals and any
recent actions EPA has taken with respect to flame-retardant chemicals.
On our second panel, we will hear from Illinois-based Underwriters
Laboratories (UL), an independent, not-for-profit standards developer
and product testing and certification organizer dedicated to public
safety. Over time, the company has built a brand that reassures
consumers that the products they are purchasing are safe. In 2008, UL
initiated testing on different methods of reducing upholstered
furniture flammability and reducing the fire growth rate of upholstered
furniture. Some of their findings will likely have us all taking a
second look at the furniture we have in our homes. They are here today
to discuss the results of their testing on furniture flammability.
We will also hear from the American Home Furnishings Alliance,
which represents manufacturers and importers of residential furnishings
that include upholstered furniture. Much like CPSC, the manufacturers
have been involved in developing upholstered furniture flammability
standards. They will share their insights regarding current standards
and their ongoing work with CPSC to develop a new nationwide furniture
flammability standard.
Finally, we will hear from a veteran firefighter and fire-safety
expert. He will discuss the changes that have taken place affecting
home fire safety and factors leading to home fires. He will also tell
us about the human cost associated with fires and the simple steps--
including creating effective flammability standards--that we can take
to help reduce this risk for consumers and the firefighters responding
to these hazards.
summary of the issues
After reading the Chicago Tribune articles, I was struck by several
disturbing aspects such as:
--the intentional distortion and manipulation of research in order to
deceive Americans into thinking that the use of flame-retardant
chemicals in furniture provided additional protection in home
fires even though the data do not support this claim;
--the extensive lobbying and significant funding spent by chemical
companies and the tobacco industry to ensure that flame-
retardant chemicals were used in furniture and to suppress any
opposition to their inclusion in furniture;
--the growing awareness that flame-retardant chemicals in furniture
filling may not add any benefit, and may, in fact, cause harm
to public health and the environment.
Generations of Americans have been asked to tolerate what may be an
unsafe level of exposure to potentially toxic chemicals in their
furniture in the name of fire safety. If the scientific evidence
suggests this solution is not justified, we must move quickly to update
our upholstered furniture flammability standards and help limit
exposure to these chemicals.
Today, we'll attempt to gain a clear understanding of whether
consumers are adequately protected from flammability of upholstered
furniture--a leading cause of house fires. We'll explore what's been
happening with residential upholstered furniture flammability standards
and the effectiveness of flame-retardant chemicals.
We'll begin by exploring the CPSC process for finalizing such a
standard. And then, we'll examine whether EPA has the necessary
authority to ensure the safety of flame-retardant chemicals prior to
their entry into the marketplace.
Senator Durbin. At this point, I'd like to turn over the
floor to my ranking member, Senator Jerry Moran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JERRY MORAN
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank the
witnesses for appearing before our subcommittee today. And I
look forward to their testimony.
As you indicated, there have been a series of articles
written in the Chicago Tribune, which have elevated interest in
flame-retardant chemicals. These chemicals are found in
products we encounter throughout daily life--cars, automobiles,
plastics, electronics and other household goods, and
upholstered furniture, which is the primary focus of your
hearing today.
Flame retardants are one of many safety tools that we have
at our disposal, such as sprinklers and smoke detectors. And,
collectively, these tools have made a difference in reducing
fire injuries and death, even as fuel loads and potentially
flammable materials have increased dramatically in households
and office buildings.
This has been acknowledged by a variety of manufacturing
sectors, which rely upon flame retardants to help meet
Government-mandated or voluntary flammability standards for
products and component parts.
This is a complex issue involving State standards, Federal
standards, and industry standards, which, from electronics to
construction to automotive and also home furnishing products,
these technical standards are often developed through a
consensus approach and there is often careful thought given to
ensuring the standards do not favor one method of compliance
over another, but focus on meeting a fire-safety test.
In some instances, manufacturers voluntarily decide to meet
a particular product fire-safety standard, while in other cases
product components must meet fire-safety tests as a regulatory
prerequisite for sale in a market like California's standard
117 for furniture sales.
We must let the safety experts, like CPSC and EPA, work
within their regulatory framework to address the safety of
these products. Changes to the authorizing statutes at these
agencies should be made by the Senate Commerce Committee, which
has jurisdiction over the Consumer Product Safety Act and the
Flammable Fabrics Act, and the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over TSCA. And that
Committee will have a hearing on the reauthorization of that
act with EPA on July 24, later this month.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I'd like to ask unanimous consent a report from Dr. Matt
Blais, the director of Fire Technology Department at Southwest
Research Institution, be included in the record.
And I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
Senator Durbin. Without objection, that statement will be
included.
[The statement follow:]
The Utility of California Technical Bulletin 117: Does the Regulation
Add Value?
The implementation of California Technical Bulletin 117 (CA TB 117)
set minimum performance standards for furnishings in incipient fire
situations. The intent was to protect life and property from fires
initiated by small sources such as matches, cigarettes, lighters, and
candles. The standard was not intended to prevent ignition of a
furnishing in a large fire where it would contribute to the fuel load
of a room but not be the point of initiation.
Urethane foam-filled furnishings have the potential for
contributing tremendous energy to a fire and when not protected with
flame retardants can lead to rapid transition from incipient fire to a
free-burning condition. The time to reach flashover (spread to the rest
of the room) in a recent study performed at Southwest Research
Institute (SwRI) by Janssens et al. \1\ was as short as 200 seconds
from time of ignition. The addition of flame-retardant covering over
the foam adds a layer of defense that delays transition to flashover to
almost 800 seconds from initiation. The additional use of CA TB 117
rated urethane foams prevented sustained burning when a small ignition
source was used. In cases where the CA TB-117 foams are used with
flammable coverings, significant reductions in both peak Heat Release
Rate (HRR) and total HRR were measured and a significant delay in
reaching the free-burning condition was observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reducing Uncertainty of Quantifying the Burning Rate of
Upholstered Furniture, No. 2010-DN-BX-K221, awarded by the National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice. December 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impact of adding flame retardants to the covering material and
urethane foams adds defense in depth to the furnishing that undoubtedly
saves lives. The fact that nonflame-retardant furnishings contribute to
flashover in a room in just a little more than 3 minutes severely
limits the potential for escape for a family in a fire situation. It
also would likely result in the total loss of the home before a fire
department could respond. Extending the time to greater than 13 minutes
increases the probability of escape for the family and allows for
greater response time and likely reduces the total damage sustained by
the structure.
The cigarette ignition source is less important today than in the
past due to a reduction in the number of smokers and changes in
cigarette technology. Cigarette wrappers are self-extinguishing when
there is not airflow for extended periods. However, ignition from a
small flame source is still a significant problem for homeowners with
small children. The following facts were obtained from U.S. Fire
Administration/National Fire Data Center:
--An estimated 20,200 residential structure fires in 2002, resulted
in 276 deaths, 1,445 injuries, and $322 million loss. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Fire Administration/National Fire Data Center, Residential
Structure Match- or Lighter-Ignited Fires, Topical Fire Research
Series, Volume 4--Issue 2, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The leading causes of residential structure fires are incendiary/
suspicious, open flame, and children playing with lighters and
matches fires. \2\
CA TB 117 uses ignition sources that mimic those found in the types
of fires described. The testing performed in Janssens' is directly
comparable to the CA TB 117 and CA TB 133 requirements. Three types of
ignition sources were used:
--a small match-like flame;
--a large gas burner, similar to a fire in a pile of newspapers; and
--a small liquid pool fire simulating the use of an accelerant.
Three ignition source locations were evaluated:
--exposing the seat from the top;
--exposing the furniture from the front bottom; and
--exposing the back.
Test Conditions
In most cases the small-flame ignition source was BS 5852 Source #1
simulating a match fire. In a few tests the item could not be ignited
with this source and BS 5852 Source #2 was then tried simulating a
lighter or candle. Both BS 5852 sources involve a diffusion burner
consisting of a steel tube, with 8 mm outside diameter and 6.5 mm
internal diameter and 200 mm in length, connected by a flexible tube
via a rotameter, fine control valve, an optional on-off valve, and a
regulator to a cylinder containing butane.
For Source #1, a flow rate of 45 ml/min at 25 C was used,
corresponding to a heat release rate of ca. 83 W and a flame height of
35 mm, measured from the top of the burner tube, when held vertically
upwards. For Source #2, a flow rate of 160 ml/min at 25 C was used,
corresponding to a heat release rate of ca. 295 W and a flame height of
145 mm, measured from the top of the burner tube, when held vertically
upwards. Butane gas was used as the fuel. The burner flame was applied
for 20 s for Source #1, or 40 s for Source #2. Source #1 has been shown
to have an intensity equivalent to a small match. The small-flame
source is shown in Figure 1 being applied to a chair mock-up.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1.--Small flame source
The propane burner described in CA TB 133 and American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) E-1537 was chosen as the large flame
ignition source exposing the seat from the top. This 250 250 mm
square burner consisted of 13 mm outside diameter stainless steel
tubing with holes pointing straight out, straight down, and inward at a
45 degree angle at various locations. Propane gas with a net heat of
combustion of 46.5 0.5 MJ/kg was supplied at a rate of 13
1/min for a total of 80 s. The burner was an approximate intensity of
19 kW. Figure 2 shows the large-flame source burner applied to a three-
cushion couch mock-up.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2.--Large burner ignition source
The 0.3 0.3 m sandbox burner described in National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 286 was chosen as the large-flame
ignition source for front bottom and back exposure. The burner was
supplied with propane at the same rate (19 kW) and for the same
duration (80 s) as the CA TB 133 burner. Figure 3 shows the application
of the large-flame sandbox burner to the bottom front of a three-
cushion couch mock-up.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 3.--Large-flame ignition source burner box
Finally, the liquid pool fire ignition source consisted of 59 ml (2
oz) of gasoline distributed over a seat cushion (top exposure) or 118
ml (4 oz) of gasoline distributed more than 25 mm thick ceramic fiber
blanket placed inside a 0.28 0.43 m metal cookie sheet (front,
bottom, and back exposure). Figure 4 shows the accelerant ignition
source for this series of tests applied to a center cushion.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4.--Accelerant ignition source
Test Items
Because of the questionable pedigree for used furniture items, most
of the tests were performed on furniture mock-ups with metal frames.
The mockup cushions were constructed with fabrics and padding materials
that are common in furniture items that are currently on the market.
Six different padding materials and two fabrics were selected. Chairs
(without armrests) and single-, double-, and triple-seat sofas were
included in the test matrix. Table 1 shows the matrix of materials used
to create the mock-ups for this series of tests.
TABLE 1.--MOCK-UP MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric ID Color Supplier Weight (g/m2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Nonflame-retardant) cotton.. Flame-retardant cotton....... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Padding ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LD polyurethane foam......... HD polyurethane foam......... CA TB 117 polyurethane foam.. Polychloroprene latex........ Polyester wrap............... Densified polyester.......... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flame-retardant cotton fabric was verified to meet the
requirements of NFPA 701. CA TB 117 tests were performed on specimens
of the six padding materials to verify compliance (or noncompliance)
with the standard. The test matrix used for this series of tests is
summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
TABLE 2.--DETAILS OF THE FRACTIONAL FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Seat Sofa (Fraction A)
3-Seat Sofa (Fraction B)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LD polyurethane padding............... 3
3
3
3
3
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HD polyurethane padding...............
3
3
3
3
3
3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA TB 117 foam polyurethane padding... 3
3
3
3
3
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small flame........................... 3
3
3
3
3
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large gas burner......................
3
3
3
3
3
3--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid pool fire...................... 3
3
3
3
3
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top................................... 3 3 3
3
3 3--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front bottom.......................... 3
3 3
3 3
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back..................................
3 3
3
3 3 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3.--ADDITIONAL ROOM CALORIMETER TESTS ON MOCKUPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairs
1-Seat Sofas
2-Seat Sofas
3-Seat Sofas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Nonflame-retardant) cotton.......................... 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flame-retardant cotton...............................
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LD polyurethane foam................................. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HD polyurethane foam................................. 3
3 3
3
3
3 3
3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA TB 117 polyurethane foam..........................
3
3
3
3
3
3 3 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polychloroprene latex................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polyester wrap.......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Densified polyester.................................. 3
3 3
3
3 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small flame.......................................... 3
3
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large gas burner..................................... 3
3
3
3
3
3 3 3 3 3
3
3 3
3 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid pool fire..................................... 3 3 3 3
3----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top center........................................... 3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top corner........................................... 3 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front bottom.........................................
3
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No gap (Chairs only)................................. 3
3
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gap (Chairs only)....................................
3
3
3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of replicates................................. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results and Discussion
A direct comparison of four conditions shows the applicability of
having an flame-retardant requirement for home furnishings. The heat
release rates measured of the duration of the test are shown in the
four pairs of graphs below. The conditions are:
--a flammable cover over urethane foam;
--a flame-retardant cover over urethane foam;
--a flammable cover over flame-retardant foam; and
--a flame-retardant cover over flame-retardant foam.
Table 4 provides the sample identification description dictionary
that defines the test performed and material types. This can be used to
show the materials of composition, test conditions, ignition source and
ignition location.
Table 4.--System for Composing and Deciphering the Test II) String
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A comparison of one cushion mockups with low-density nonflame-
retardant and flame-retardant urethane foams shows a reduction in the
heat released. These two examples both have flammable covers. Comparing
the time to fully involved fire environment, the peak HRR and the total
heat released (area under the curve), show that the fire-resistant foam
slows the onset of free-burning fire by more than doubling the time
from ignition to peak HRR (pHHR). The blue plot in both Figures 5 and 6
is the experimental data for these two conditions. All of the other
plots are fire-spread models attempting to predict the fire growth. The
nonflame-retardant foam seat ignites and reaches free burning in
approximately 400 s. The CA TB 117 foam requires 1,000 seconds to
achieve pHHR. The pHRR and total heat released are also one-half for
the CA TB 117 foam when compared to the nonflame-retardant foam. These
tests used the small-flame ignition source. There are several examples
of this exact relationship in Janssens work.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 5.--SRM131BB2--CA TB 117 Urethane Foam With Flammable Cover
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 6.--SR1V1111BS1--Low-Density Urethane Foam With Flammable Cover
Comparing the material cover of furniture mockups illustrates the
utility of using NFPA 701 rated fabrics as covers for foam-filled
furnishings. The blue plots in Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the impact of
using a flame-retardant fabric over high-density foam of the same
manufacturing lot using the same ignition source and location. Again
the time from ignition of the couch to the free-burning state is
significantly delayed. The unprotected foam goes to a free-burning
state upon ignition. The foam protected with the NFPA 701 fabric shows
a delay of 10 minutes to reach the same condition. It is also important
to note that the pHRR is half the intensity for the flame-retardant
case with 220 kW for the FR fabric compared to 440 kW for nonflame-
retardant fabric. The total energy released by both events is
approximately the same. This series of test used the large burner
igniter shown in Figure 2. Use of the small burner BS5852 failed to
ignite the flame-retardant test item.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 7.--SOM121CS4
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 8.--SOM221CS1
The defense in depth approach of using both an flame-retardant
fabric and CA TB 117 foam hugely impacts the fire event. Figures 9 and
10 compare the cases of three cushion couch mockups with and without FR
foams IAW CA TB 117 and NFPA 701 covers. These figures show that with
the large burner the protected couch failed to ignite while the
unprotected couch reaches free burning in 180 s. The unprotected couch
would cause the room to reach flashover in 4 minutes.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 9.--SRM233CS1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 10.--LRM113CF1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 11.--SOM231CS1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 12.--SOM111CS1
Figures 11 and 13 show the same comparison for a single seat chair.
The same no-ignition is seen for the CA TB 117 and NFPA 701 compliant
cushion compared to rapid ignition of the unprotected cushion. The
ignition time for the case was even more rapid for this unprotected
furnishing due to the location of the ignition source.
Conclusion
The best conclusion that can be drawn from the data presented here
is that the use of CA TB 117 foam increases the fire safety of home
furnishings by delaying the onset of free-burning conditions and
reducing the total energy released by the event. Using a NFPA 701
compliant cover over the flame-retardant foam prevents the furnishing
from becoming the point of initiation with numerous examples in
Janssen's paper self-extinguishing on removal of the ignition source,
videos of these comparisons are available on request. What CA TB 117
does not do is prevent the furnishing from burning where there is
already a free-burning environment but that is not the intent of the
regulation. The intent is to prevent the furnishing from becoming the
initiation point of a large, free-burning fire caused by a small
ignition source that could lead to trapping of occupants by preventing
escape.
Dr. Matthew S. Blais,
Director, Fire Technology Department, Southwest Research Institute.
Senator Durbin. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
Parents in this country expect their child to be safe when
sleeping on a baby mattress, feeding from a bottle, playing on
the furniture.
When parents buy products that their kids will use, they
assume that any chemicals in those products have been tested
and proven safe and effective.
In many countries around the world, chemicals are required
to be tested, but not in the United States. That's because a
35-year-old law that's supposed to assess and protect against
chemical health risks is broken.
The Government Accountability Office has placed that law,
TSCA, on its list of high-risk areas of the law. And the
President's cancer panel, led by experts appointed under
President Bush, said that TSCA, ``may be the most egregious
example of ineffective regulation of environmental
contaminants.''
Today, thank goodness, we're examining a prime example of
why our system for regulating chemicals needs to be updated.
This spring, the Chicago Tribune exposed how the chemical
industry has used dirty tricks and junk science to drive a
public misinformation campaign that keeps chemical flame
retardants in our homes.
The Chicago Tribune reported that many chemical flame
retardants are highly toxic. And while industry has promised
that flame retardants would stay put in our furniture, pose no
threat to health, those chemicals have ended up everywhere,
including in children's bodies. According to the Chicago
Tribune, ``a typical American baby is born with the highest
recorded concentration of flame retardants among infants in the
world.''
The series shows how the industry repeatedly bullied and
lied to the State legislatures to prevent common-sense reforms.
They've been accused of bankrolling so-called experts to invent
stories that spout the company line, all in the service of
protecting their profits, and all at the expense of our safety
and health.
But here are the facts: The average couch contains more
than 2 pounds of flame-retardant chemicals--chemicals linked to
cancer and other health risks.
And while we have filled our homes with toxic chemicals,
these flame retardants don't even do what they're meant to do,
and that's to prevent fires.
And that's why Senator Snowe and I recently sent a
bipartisan letter to EPA, signed by 24 of our Senate
colleagues, including Chairman Durbin, urging the agency to
take action on a class of flame retardants. Our letter also
called for real reforms to TSCA.
But I want to be clear: Flame retardants are just the tip
of the iceberg. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) scientists found 212 industrial chemicals, including 6
carcinogens, coursing through American bodies. In nearly 35
years, TSCA has allowed EPA to require testing of only 200 of
more than 80,000 chemicals on EPA's inventory.
What's more, EPA has been able to ban only five toxic
substances under the law. In essence, the American public has
become a living, breathing repository for chemical substances.
Our TSCA reform bill, the Safe Chemicals Act, will simply
require the chemical makers to establish product safety before
they end up in children's bodies.
And most of the thousands of chemicals we use every day are
safe, but this bill will separate those safe chemicals from the
ones that are not. That's what we have to look out for.
It will ensure that chemicals are tested, that EPA can take
unsafe uses of the chemicals off the market.
And I'm proud that Chairman Durbin and 20 other Senators
have cosponsored the bill. And I hope that all of our
colleagues will come together to finally fix this law to
protect our families and our kids from toxic chemicals.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Lautenberg.
First panel, Inez M. Tenenbaum, who is the Chairman of
CPSC, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF INEZ M. TENENBAUM, CHAIRMAN, CONSUMER
PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Ms. Tenenbaum. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Moran, and
Senator Lautenberg, I'm pleased to be here today to discuss
CPSC's current efforts to implement the performance requirement
to reduce the fire risk of residential upholstered furniture.
Reducing deaths and injuries in residential fires is a key
strategic goal of CPSC, and the flammability of upholstered
furniture has been an area of significant concern by the
commission staff.
On March 4, 2008, CPSC issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking for a standard for flammability of residential
upholstered furniture. The proposed standard would establish
two possible pathways for upholstered furniture to meet the
proposed standard: Manufacturers could either use an upholster
cover material that complies with the prescribed smoldering
resistance test, referred to as type one furniture, or use an
interior fire barrier that complies with specific smoldering
and open flame-resistance tests, known as type two furniture.
During the development of the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR), CPSC staff was highly cognizant of the concerns
expressed by many stakeholders over the use of flame-retardant
chemicals as a part of any standard.
While EPA has primary jurisdiction over flame-retardant
chemicals through TSCA, CPSC's proposed rule has a performance-
based standard as noted above. It does not specify any
particular materials or designs, and it does not require the
use of any flame-retardant chemicals to achieve compliance with
the proposed standard.
In this regard, the proposed rule's open-flame barrier
requirement is consistent with certain preliminary findings in
a CPSC staff report, conducted as part of the research on the
upholstered furniture rule, which reviewed the effects of
certain fire barriers on the flammability of upholstered
chairs.
The foam used under the fire barriers in those tests
represented both flame-retardant-treated foam and nonflame-
retardant-treated foam. At the conclusion of these tests, staff
noted that the addition of a fire barrier markedly increased
the safety of the furniture. As a part of the testing, staff
also noted that the fire-retardant foams did not offer a
practically significant greater level of open-flame safety than
the untreated foam.
Since issuance of the NPR in 2008, CPSC staff has worked
diligently with stakeholders and other interested parties to
finalize the rule and conduct associated testing. In doing so,
we have faced several significant challenges.
One substantial challenge CPSC staff has faced is the
development of reasonable and repeatable testing requirements
to ensure compliance with any new rule. Unlike other products,
such as mattresses, furniture comes in a multitude of sizes and
shapes, making representative and repeatable testing mechanisms
a substantial undertaking.
As part of this proceeding, staff has also been working
with other organizations to develop standard reference
materials, such as standard test cigarettes and standard test
foam, which can be part of a representative and repeatable
testing mechanism detailed above.
As Chairman, I have recently allocated substantial
additional resources to these efforts, and we're making
progress toward these goals.
The second and most significant challenge is the statutory
requirement that CPSC issue any flammability standards for
fabrics, related materials, or products, including interior
furnishing, pursuant to section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act
(FFA).
Like section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, section
4 of the FFA requires that CPSC make a series of very detailed
and onerous findings before a final rule can be issued.
In addition, if there's a relevant voluntary standard that
has been adopted and implemented, CPSC must determine that the
voluntary standard is not likely to adequately reduce the risk
of injury or that substantial compliance with it is not likely.
As part of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (CPSIA), the Congress recognized the burden that the CPSC
section 9 requirements placed on the Commission's ability to
issue mandatory rules protecting the public from a number of
potential hazards, and moved to ease this burden in several
areas.
One key example is section 104 of the CPSIA, where the
Congress gave CPSC streamline authority to adopt new mandatory
standards for durable infant and toddler products. Under
section 104, CPSC must adopt standards for certain infant and
toddler products that are substantially the same as relevant
voluntary standards, or more stringent than such voluntary
standards, if the Commission determines that more stringent
standards would further reduce the risk of injury associated
with those products.
This section has allowed CPSC to expeditiously adopt
standards protecting infants and young children in durable
nursery equipment.
Speaking personally in my capacity as Chairman, I believe
that an amendment to the FFA permitting this type of
flexibility for rules regarding flammability of upholstered
furniture would be very helpful and may allow for expedited
consideration of the proposed rule.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Chairman Durbin, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify on CPSC's ongoing efforts to address the flammability
of residential upholstered furniture.
I'm happy to answer any questions you or Senator Lautenberg
might have.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Tenenbaum. I'm sure we
will have some.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Inez M. Tenenbaum
Good afternoon, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Moran, and members
of the subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. I am
pleased to be here today to discuss the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's (CPSC) current efforts to implement performance
requirements to reduce the fire risk of residential upholstered
furniture.
Reducing deaths and injuries in residential fires where consumer
products play a contributory role is a key strategic goal of CPSC, and
the flammability of upholstered furniture has been an area of
significant concern by Commission staff. Upholstered furniture in a
home is often a major source of combustible fuel for a fire. Once this
furniture is ignited, it contains enough fuel to spread a fire very
quickly when the upholstery filling materials start to burn.
The most recent fire loss estimates for 2006 through 2008 indicate
that upholstered furniture was the first item to ignite in an average
of 6,500 residential fires attended by fire services during that
period. These fires resulted in more than 500 deaths, 860 injuries, and
$343 million in property loss each year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David Miller and Risana Chowdhury, 2006-2008 Residential Fire
Loss Estimates, Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate for
Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (released July
2011), available at http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/fire08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2008, CPSC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
for a ``Standard for the Flammability of Residential Upholstered
Furniture.'' \2\ The proposed standard would establish two possible
pathways for upholstered furniture to meet the proposed standard.
Manufacturers could either use upholstery cover material that complies
with a prescribed smoldering resistance test (referred to as Type I
furniture) or use an interior fire barrier that complies with specified
smoldering and open flame resistance tests (Type II furniture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Standard for the
Flammability of Residential Upholstered Furniture, 73 Federal Register
11702 (March 4, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the development of the NPR, CPSC staff was highly cognizant
of the concerns expressed by many stakeholders over the use of flame-
retardant chemicals as part of any standard. While the Environmental
Protection Agency has primary jurisdiction over flame-retardant
chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act, CPSC's proposed rule
has a performance-based standard, as noted above. It does not specify
any particular materials or designs, and does not require the use of
any flame-retardant chemicals to achieve compliance with the proposed
standard.
In this regard, the proposed rule's open-flame barrier requirement
is consistent with certain preliminary findings in a CPSC staff
report,\3\ conducted as part of the research on the upholstered
furniture rule, which reviewed the effect of certain fire barriers on
the flammability of upholstered chairs. The foam used under the fire
barriers in those tests represented both flame-retardant-treated and
nonflame-retardant-treated foam. At the conclusion of those tests,
staff noted that the addition of a ``fire barrier markedly increased
the fire safety of the furniture.'' \4\ As part of the testing, staff
also noted that ``the fire-retardant foams did not offer a practically
significantly greater level of open-flame safety than did the untreated
foams.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum from Shivanti Mehta to Dale R. Ray,
``Upholstered Furniture Full Scale Chair Tests--Open Flame Ignition
Results and Analysis'' (dated May 9, 2012), available at http://
www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia12/os/openflame.pdf.
\4\ Id. at 23.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposal also aligns with previous CPSC rules regarding the
flammability of consumer products, such as CPSC's 2006 final
flammability rule for mattresses and mattress foundation sets, which
also sets a performance-based standard that does not require the use of
flame-retardant chemicals.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Final Rule, Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of
Mattress Sets, 71 Federal Register 13472 (March 15, 2006); see also 16
CFR 1633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since issuance of the NPR in 2008, CPSC staff has worked diligently
with stakeholders and other interested parties to finalize the rule and
conduct associated testing. In doing so, they have faced several
significant challenges.
One substantial challenge CPSC staff has faced is the development
of reasonable and repeatable testing requirements to ensure compliance
with any new rule. One component of this is developing appropriate
scale tests that can account for the diversity of upholstered furniture
products. Unlike other products, such as mattresses, furniture comes in
a multitude of sizes and shapes, making representative and repeatable
testing mechanisms a substantial undertaking.
As part of this proceeding staff has also been working with other
organizations, such as the National Institute for Standards and
Technology, to develop standard reference materials, such as standard
test cigarettes and standard test foam, which can be part of the
representative and repeatable testing mechanisms detailed above. As
Chairman, I have recently allocated substantial additional resources to
these efforts and we are making progress towards these goals.
The second and most significant challenge is the statutory
requirement that CPSC issue any flammability standards for fabrics,
related materials, or products including interior furnishings pursuant
to section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA).\7\ Like section 9 of
the Consumer Product Safety Act, section 4 of the FFA requires that
CPSC make a series of very detailed and onerous findings before a final
rule can be issued, including determinations that the standard is
``needed to protect the public against unreasonable risk of the
occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or significant
property damage''; that expected benefits from the regulation bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs; and that the regulation is the
least burdensome alternative that prevents or ``adequately reduces''
the risk of injury. In addition, if there is a relevant voluntary
standard that has been adopted and implemented, CPSC must determine
that the voluntary standard is not likely to adequately reduce the risk
of injury or that substantial compliance with it is not likely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 1193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(CPSIA), the Congress recognized the burden that CPSA section 9
requirements placed on CPSC's ability to issue mandatory rules
protecting the public from a number of potential hazards, and moved to
ease this burden in several areas. One key example is section 104 of
the CPSIA, where the Congress gave CPSC streamlined authority to adopt
new mandatory standards for durable infant and toddler products.
Under section 104, CPSC must adopt standards for certain infant and
toddler products that are ``substantially the same as'' relevant
voluntary standards or ``are more stringent than such voluntary
standards, if CPSC determines that more stringent standards would
further reduce the risk of injury associated'' with those products.
This section has allowed CPSC to expeditiously adopt standards
protecting infants and young children in cribs, play yards, bath seats,
walkers, and toddler beds. Speaking personally in my capacity as
Chairman, I believe an amendment to the FFA permitting this type of
flexibility for rules regarding flammability of upholstered furniture
would be very helpful and may allow for expedited consideration of the
proposed rules.
Chairman Durbin, thank you again for the opportunity to testify on
CPSC's ongoing efforts to address the flammability of residential
upholstered furniture.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Durbin. And now let me introduce James J. Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention at EPA.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JAMES J. JONES, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
AND POLLUTION PREVENTION, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Jones. Good afternoon, Chairman Durbin and Senator
Lautenberg.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you on the reform
of chemicals management, and our authority to assess the safety
of flame-retardant chemicals.
Ensuring chemical safety, maintaining public confidence
that EPA is protecting the American people, and promoting our
global leadership in chemicals management remain top priorities
for EPA and Administrator Jackson.
Chairman Durbin and Senator Lautenberg, I want to thank you
both as well for your continued leadership on this important
issue and the efforts you've brought about to help reform TSCA.
I also want to thank Chairman Tenenbaum for her work on flame
retardants.
With each passing year, the need for TSCA reform grows.
Chemicals are found in most everything we use and consume, and
they're also essential for our health, our well being, and our
prosperity. It should be equally essential that chemicals are
safe.
But I'd also like to discuss a prime example of the
shortcomings of TSCA that stands as a clear illustration for
the need for TSCA reform.
So what are the key problems with TSCA? When enacted, TSCA
grandfathered in--without any evaluation--the 62,000 chemicals
in commerce that existed in 1976. The TSCA inventory currently
lists more than 84,000 chemicals, few of which have been
studied for their risks, especially to children.
Unlike the laws applicable to drugs and pesticides, TSCA
does not have any mandatory program where EPA must conduct a
review to determine the safety of existing chemicals.
Manufacturers do not need to demonstrate the safety of new
chemicals before they are introduced into the marketplace. When
EPA determines that a chemical poses a significant health
concern, taking action under TSCA to limit or ban a chemical is
challenging.
In September 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced
a set of administration principles to update and strengthen
TSCA. These principles include that manufacturers should
provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new
and existing chemicals are safe.
EPA should have the tools to quickly and efficiently obtain
information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining
the safety of chemicals. EPA should also have clear authority
to assess chemicals against the safety standard and to take
risk management actions when chemicals do not meet safety
standards. These are three of the key principles and there are
several others.
While the legislative reform process is underway, we are
not just standing by. EPA is utilizing the current authority
under TSCA to help protect human health and the environment.
Earlier this year, we developed a screening process to
identify chemicals for review based on their hazard, exposure,
persistence, and bioaccumulative characteristics. EPA
identified 83 chemicals for risk assessment with an initial 7
for assessment in 2012.
In June of this year, we identified an additional 18
chemicals that the agency intends to review and then develop
risk assessments in 2013 and 2014, including 3 flame-retardant
chemicals.
EPA's experience with one flame retardant in particular
highlights the limitations of TSCA. EPA first reviewed a new
flame-retardant component, TBB, in several products in 1995 for
use in foam and, at that time, was unable to identify that it
was persistent and bioaccumulative. We only learned of these
properties after the chemical was in commerce and was later
found in humans and the environment.
TBB is one of the flame retardants EPA will evaluate in
2013, 18 years after it was introduced into the market.
This is an example that highlights the critical need for
the agency to have greater evidence that new chemicals are safe
prior to commercialization and stronger tools to take action
after they are on the market to ensure safety.
The American public has the right to expect that chemicals
manufactured, imported, and used in this country are safe. And
the EPA needs an effective law that gives us the tools
necessary to provide the public with this assurance.
PREPARED STATEMENT
TSCA must be updated and strengthened, so that EPA has the
tools to do the job of protecting public health and the
environment. And the time to fix this badly outdated law is
now.
And I would be pleased to answer any questions you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James J. Jones
Good afternoon Chairman Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, and members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee today on the reform of chemicals management in the United
States and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to
assess the safety of flame-retardant chemicals under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Ensuring chemical safety, maintaining
public confidence that EPA is protecting the American people, and
promoting our global leadership in chemicals management remain top
priorities for EPA and Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.
Chairman Durbin and Senator Lautenberg, I want to thank you both,
as well as members of this subcommittee for your continued leadership
on this very important issue and your efforts to bring about reform of
TSCA. With each passing year, the need for TSCA reform grows--the
importance and prevalence of chemicals in our daily lives increases,
and yet there remain significant gaps in our knowledge and
understanding of many of these chemicals. The time to bring TSCA into
the 21st century is long overdue. Today, we also want to discuss a
prime example of the shortcomings of TSCA--the limited success and long
history of the EPA's work on brominated flame retardants--that stands
as a clear illustration of the need for TSCA reform.
Chemicals are found in most everything we use and consume, and can
be essential for our health, our well being, and our prosperity. It
should be equally essential that chemicals are safe. Compared to 30
years ago, we have a better understanding of the environmental impacts,
exposure pathways, and distressing health effects some chemicals can
have--especially on children. While our understanding of chemical
safety is constantly evolving, significant gaps in our scientific
knowledge regarding many chemicals remain. For these reasons, it is
critical that we close those knowledge gaps. Recent press reports on
flame retardants highlight the public health risks posed by certain
chemicals such as flame retardants. Public understanding of these risks
is growing, and that is why the public is increasingly demanding that
the Government provide an assurance about chemicals, even chemicals
like flame retardants that can also provide significant benefits. To
date, based on these concerns, EPA helped negotiate voluntary phase-
outs of several of the more toxic retardants, and has also initiated
regulatory actions; however, as explained in more detail below, TSCA
reform would have given EPA additional tools to address this serious
issue.
background on the toxic substances control act
EPA's chemical management authority is carried out under TSCA--a
law that when enacted in 1976 was an important step forward to protect
human health and the environment. But today, TSCA is the only major
environmental statute that has not been reauthorized. Over the years,
not only has TSCA fallen behind the rapidly advancing industry it is
intended to regulate, it has also proven an inadequate tool for
providing the protection against chemical risks that the public
rightfully expects and deserves.
When TSCA was enacted, it grandfathered in, without any evaluation,
the 62,000 chemicals in commerce that existed in 1976. The TSCA
inventory currently lists more than 84,000 chemicals, few of which have
been studied for their risks, especially to children. Unlike the laws
applicable to drugs and pesticides, TSCA does not have a mandatory
program where EPA must conduct a review to determine the safety of
existing chemicals.
And the process of requiring testing through rulemaking chemical-
by-chemical has proven time consuming. As a result, in the 35 years
since TSCA was passed, we have only been able to require testing on
approximately 200 of the 84,000 chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory.
EPA has also relied on voluntary programs to collect data, including
through the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program, which
resulted in the submittal of screening level data for 1,366 HPV
chemicals.
When EPA determines that a chemical poses a significant health
concern, taking action under TSCA to limit or ban a chemical is
challenging. For example, in 1989, after years of study and nearly
unanimous scientific opinion, EPA issued a rule phasing out most uses
of the cancer causing substance asbestos. Yet, a Federal court
overturned most of this action because EPA failed to clear the hurdles
imposed under TSCA before existing chemicals can be controlled.
Today, advances in toxicology and analytical chemistry are
enhancing our understanding of the implications of multiple pathways of
exposure, and a better understanding of the cumulative effects and
interactions between the chemicals in the products we use every day.
EPA is working to develop methodology to address potential health
effects of multiple chemical exposures and evaluate cumulative risks.
When TSCA was enacted, there was not the understanding of the subtle
effects chemicals may have on hormone systems, human reproduction, and
intellectual development and cognition, particularly in young children.
essential principles for reform of chemicals management legislation
In September 2009, EPA Administrator Jackson announced a set of
administration principles to update and strengthen TSCA. These include
that EPA should have the tools to quickly and efficiently obtain
information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the
safety of chemicals. EPA also should have clear authority to assess
chemicals against a safety standard and to take risk management actions
when chemicals do not meet the safety standard.
At the same time, Administrator Jackson also affirmed that, while
the legislative reform process is underway, EPA is committed to
utilizing the current authority under TSCA to the fullest extent to
protect human health and the environment.
work plan chemicals
Earlier this year, EPA developed a screening process to identify
chemicals for review based on their combined hazard, exposure, and
persistence and bioaccumulation characteristics. This process included
criteria specifically targeted at identifying chemical risks to
children. Following this initial screen, EPA identified 83 work plan
chemicals for risk assessment in the TSCA chemicals management program,
with an initial seven for risk assessment in 2012.
On June 1, 2012, EPA identified an additional 18 chemicals that the
Agency intends to review and then develop risk assessments in 2013 and
2014, including 3 flame-retardant chemicals--Bis(2- Ethyl hexyl)-
3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TB PH), 2-Ethyl hexyl-2,3,4,5-
tetrabromobenzoate (TBB), and Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP). EPA
is currently developing a strategy, scheduled for completion by the end
of this year that will address these three and a broader set of flame-
retardant chemicals. This effort will assist EPA in focusing risk
assessments on those flame-retardant chemicals that pose the greatest
potential concerns. EPA anticipates initiating the risk assessments on
this category of chemicals in 2013.
polybrominated diphenyl ether flame-retardant chemicals
EPA is concerned that polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the
environment. A critical endpoint of concern for human health is
neurobehavioral effects during development, which makes them a concern
for children's health. Various PBDEs have also been studied for
ecotoxicity in mammals, birds, fish, and invertebrates. In some cases,
current levels of exposure for wildlife may be at or near adverse
effect levels.
PBDEs are not chemically bound to plastics, foam, fabrics, or other
products in which they are used, making them more likely to leach out
of these products. Despite the U.S. phasing out the manufacture and
import of penta- and octaBDE in 2004, their component congeners PBDEs
are still being detected in humans and the environment. Some reports
indicate that levels are increasing.\1\ One potential source is
imported articles to which these compounds have been added. Another is
the breakdown of decaBDE in the environment to more toxic and
bioaccumulative PBDE congeners. In late 2009, the U.S. manufacturers of
decaBDE announced that they intend to voluntarily phase out most uses
of decaBDE by the end of 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shaw SD, Kannan K. 2009. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in
marine ecosystems of the American continents: foresight from current
knowledge. Rev Environ Hlth 2009, 24, 157-229
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
efforts on polybrominated diphenyl ether flame-retardant chemicals
In late 2009, EPA released an Action Plan for addressing concerns
with PBDE flame-retardant chemicals and recently issued proposed rules
that would require additional testing on these chemicals and require
EPA review any new uses of these chemicals, including imported
articles. EPA also helped facilitate an industry plan to phaseout
decaBDE and launched a multi-stakeholder partnership to assess
alternatives for this chemical to help move the market to safer
chemicals. This follows EPA's earlier facilitation of an industry
phaseout of two other widely used PBDE flame retardants, pentaBDE and
octaBDE in 2004 and an associated partnership to help identify safer
flame retardants for use in polyurethane foam.
In its 2009 Action Plan, EPA committed to support and encourage the
voluntary phase out of the manufacture and import of decaBDE. Developed
with public participation through EPA's Design for the Environment
Program, EPA will shortly release the draft alternatives assessment on
decaBDE for public comment. This assessment will profile the
environmental and human health hazards on 30 alternatives to decaBDE.
By providing a detailed comparison of the potential human health and
environmental effects of chemical alternatives, EPA can help
manufacturers identify and transition to safer alternative flame-
retardant chemicals.
EPA first reviewed a new flame-retardant component of several
products in 1995 for use in polyurethane foam and was unable to
identify that a component of flame retardants was persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic. Later, after the chemicals were in commerce,
information became available that showed the chemicals were being found
in humans and the environment. This is an example that highlights the
critical need for the agency to have greater evidence that new
chemicals are safe prior to commercialization and to be able to take
effective action after commercialization, when needed. Unfortunately,
taking the necessary steps to ensure that chemicals already in commerce
are safe can be a cumbersome, involved regulatory process that can take
years.
While the latest steps taken by EPA are clearly a step forward,
they must be viewed in the context of what has been a long history of
actions on flame retardants, a history that has stretched over the
course of two decades with a range of voluntary efforts and regulatory
actions on flame-retardant chemicals in both EPA's new and existing
chemicals programs. The long history of EPA's action on brominated
flame retardants is tied in no small part to the shortcomings of TSCA.
summary
Simply put, EPA may have made a different determination in 1995 if
TSCA required the submission of more robust hazard, exposure, and use
data needed to adequately assess risk, and EPA may have been able to
act more quickly and effectively on the risk information available if
TSCA provided more robust tools to deal with chemicals already
introduced into commerce. The American public has the right to expect
that the chemicals manufactured, imported, and used in this country are
safe and EPA needs an effective law that gives us the tools necessary
to provide the public with this assurance. The time is now to fix this
badly outdated law. TSCA must be updated and strengthened so that EPA
has the tools to do our job of protecting public health and the
environment.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much.
Chairman Tenenbaum.
Ms. Tenenbaum. Yes.
Senator Durbin. You mentioned that the NPR was announced in
March 2008, which was--what?--4 years ago. But, actually,
didn't CPSC begin the rulemaking process under the Flammable
Fabrics Act in 2003?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Yes, we have a long history of rulemaking in
this regard. And, really, it began even before then when CPSC,
at the time, asked the staff to develop an open-flame
upholstered furniture rule.
And then in 1999, the Congress asked CPSC to study flame-
retardant chemicals. We studied 16 chemicals. We worked with
the National Academy of Sciences, and eight of those flame-
retardant chemicals were found to be carcinogens.
So this has gone on for some time with the work on
carcinogens. Now the new rule we're working on is a smoldering
ignition rule and not an open flame.
Senator Durbin. So let me just ask, the average person on
the street, if you said to them, we have a Government agency,
which is funded, with experts and laboratories, and we've asked
them to figure out how to keep our furniture safe so it is less
likely to catch fire, and less likely to kill us, they've been
at it now for 9 years, make that 4 years.
Ms. Tenenbaum. We've been at it, yes, for at least that
long.
Senator Durbin. And the obvious question from the person on
the street is, when does this end? At one point you said to me
that the cigarette you were using, Pall Malls, were no longer
made, so you had to start over or find a new standard
cigarette.
I think here's the way I'm coming at it. I look at UL. I
subscribe to ``Consumer Reports''. They're testing constantly.
And they apparently come up with timely results.
Is the Congress the problem here? Have we created obstacles
for you in this testing process, where you can't come to a
timely finding that might be of value to consumers across
America?
Ms. Tenenbaum. I think that the Flammable Fabrics Act
places an onerous burden on CPSC with cost-benefit analysis.
Not only do we have to look at and analyze what we're going to
put in a rule, we have to analyze the alternatives and why they
won't work.
So we did have a setback with Pall Mall, because they
stopped manufacturing the filterless cigarette, when they were
required by law to manufacture self-extinguishing cigarettes
and stop making the filterless cigarette that we used as
standard reference material.
So we worked with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) for 2 years, and now they have a standard
cigarette. The next thing we had to do----
Senator Durbin. Two years.
Ms. Tenenbaum. Two years.
During this time period, they were also working on standard
foam. A rule requires a test that's repeatable. So NIST has
been working on standard foam, and they have finished that
work. And we're looking at whether we should use small-scale
tests vs. full-scale tests. This model is small-scale testing.
This is how we test. This is the foam. You put the cigarette
right here. You cover it up.
You have to determine: Is this repeatable with this size or
do you have to do full scale? You must test the number of
furniture designs, the number of different fabrics, and you had
to have a standard cigarette, and standard foam. So we have now
completed all that work.
But let me say one thing----
Senator Durbin. I want to make a point here, if I might.
Ms. Tenenbaum. Please.
Senator Durbin. I guess the obvious question most people
would ask is, how can we have reached the point where Europe
has figured this out, or at least believes they have, and we
are still testing away here?
Many European countries have taken steps to ensure
flammability standards. The United Kingdom has banned the use
of conventional flexible polyurethane foam in the manufacture
of upholstered furniture.
[The information follows:]
While it is true that in the United Kingdom, there are furniture
and bedding flammability standards, flexible polyurethane foam has not
been banned in the United Kingdom or anywhere in the world. Complying
with U.K. standards requires the addition of substantial amounts of
flame-retardant chemicals to polyurethane foam, usually in the form of
melamine with a chlorinated ``carrier'', such as Tris (1-chloro-2-
propyl) phosphate. Nonflame-retardant foams do not work in testing
standard applications such as British Standard 5852. Other European
countries do not have similar flammability standards. Some of the
Scandinavian countries, such as Norway, are pursuing development of a
flammability standard; however, none has adopted one yet.
At the most recent EUROPUR meetings in Budapest, Hungary in June
2012 (EUROPUR is the European equivalent of the Polyurethane Foam
Association), flammability issues were discussed with representatives
from many European countries and heard a presentation regarding the
efforts in Scandinavian countries to address the impact of adopting
upholstered furniture flammability standards. It was in this
presentation that the discussion took place regarding the efforts in
Norway to establish a furniture flammability standard and the
difficulties faced in deciding whether to adopt a standard. European
countries are struggling with the same issues as we are in the United
States regarding upholstered flammability furniture standards.
Senator Durbin. In addition, many European countries have
banned the use of PDBEs and greatly restricted other flame-
retardant chemicals.
It appears that there is a body of study and investigation
that is taking place in other countries, leading them to change
the products that consumers have available, and the United
States just keeps studying away.
Now I know from the congressional side of this that the
industry will come in whenever there's an effort to regulate
and have oversight, and create what they consider to be
safeguards for their products.
But ultimately, at the end of the day, it seems to me that
the losers are the American consumers. They don't know what's
right, what's safe, and we're not doing our job for them.
Ms. Tenenbaum. CPSC does not require flame retardants for
any of the textiles or furniture that we oversee.
We do not advocate for flame retardants. We don't require
flame retardants to meet any of our standards. So comparing us
to Europe or to California is really not a fair comparison,
because we don't require flame retardants to meet any of our
standards.
Senator Durbin. But, Chairman Tenenbaum, what I did note
was that there was a change in the type of furniture that is
sold in Europe, too, beyond the flame-retardant chemicals.
I see my time is up, and I want to give Senator Lautenberg
a chance to ask.
We're going to face a rollcall vote soon.
Go ahead.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks.
Ms. Tenenbaum, nice to see you here and listen to what each
of you have said.
And, Mr. Jones, Senator Snowe, and I recently, as I
mentioned, sent a letter to EPA signed by 24 of our Senate
colleagues, applauding EPA's current actions on polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). The letter also expressed concern that
EPA's authority to address PBDEs is limited under our current
chemical safety law, TSCA.
[The information follows:]
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, July 9, 2012.
Hon. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Jackson: We are writing to express our support
for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) actions to address a
class of flame retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl
ethers (PBDEs). These flame retardant chemicals are found in a number
of everyday consumer products, including furniture, plastics, and even
baby products. According to the EPA, these toxic chemicals are
suspected to cause cancer and have been linked to serious neurological
and reproductive diseases. We urge the agency to move forward as
quickly as possible with its current efforts to protect American
families from the toxic effects of PBDEs.
PBDEs are mixed into a number of household products in order to
raise the temperature at which they burn, purportedly making the
products more flame resistant. However, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission found that these chemicals do not provide any significant
protection against the risk of fires. Instead, it has become clear that
PBDEs can increase human health risks and that the chemicals easily
spread and accumulate in the environment and living organisms,
including people.
We are deeply alarmed that peer-reviewed research has found that a
typical American baby is born with the highest recorded concentrations
of flame retardants among infants in the world. This is a serious
threat to our children's health because PBDEs interfere with the body's
hormone systems, and studies in animals suggest they can cause
cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other developmental disorders.
Researchers have found that children's exposure comes primarily through
household dust, making babies and toddlers particularly vulnerable
since they spend a significant amount of time playing on the floor.
Despite the danger to public health, a recent investigative report
by the Chicago Tribune revealed that flame retardant manufacturers may
have misled the public for decades regarding both the risks and
efficacy of these chemicals. Due to industry opposition to common sense
reforms at both the Federal and State level that would limit the use of
these chemicals, PBDEs and other flame retardants continue to be used
in a significant number of everyday products.
In response, EPA has adopted an action plan for PBDEs using its
existing authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This
plan reflects the agency's assessment that PBDEs are persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment.
Currently, the agency is accepting public comment on two paired
rulemakings related to PBDEs. The first action would amend the current
Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) to require any manufacturer, importer,
or processor of seven different PBDEs, or articles containing them, to
submit a notification to EPA at least 90 days before beginning new
activities involving these chemicals. The second rulemaking would
require those insisting on continuing to use these chemicals to develop
the data EPA would need to fully evaluate the health and safety effects
of this class of toxic chemicals. We support these efforts and urge EPA
to finalize and implement these rulemakings as quickly as possible
following the public comment period.
While we commend the EPA for taking steps to address PBDEs, it is
concerning that the agency must undertake lengthy rulemaking processes
merely to secure additional health and safety data on a chemical of
concern and to receive notifications regarding expansions of its uses.
Further, EPA is not evaluating steps to actually restrict existing
unsafe production and uses of these toxic flame retardants. This
reinforces why there is broad agreement that TSCA must be reformed to
protect American families from dangerous chemicals in a cost-effective
way and we urge you to continue to work with Congress to enact
consensus reforms.
Americans deserve to know that the chemicals used in everyday
consumer products are safe. EPA's current action to address the health
risks of PBDEs is an important first step towards protecting Americans
from the risks posed by these pervasive chemicals and we look forward
to working with you to enact these reforms.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg; Olympia J. Snowe; Richard J.
Durbin; Lisa Murkowski; Charles E. Schumer;
Susan M. Collins; Ron Wyden; Bernard
Sanders; Richard Blumenthal; Al Franken;
Joeseph I. Lieberman; Patrick J. Leahy; Tom
Harkin; Dianne Feinstein; Sheldon
Whitehouse; Kirsten E. Gillibrand; Jeff
Merkley; Jon Tester; Jack Reed; Tom Udall;
John F. Kerry; Amy Klobuchar; Maria
Cantwell; Michael F. Bennet; Daniel K.
Akaka; Sherrod Brown.
Senator Lautenberg. What additional steps might EPA take to
protect American families on PBDEs, if the Congress enacted
TSCA reform?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
We appreciate the letter of support for the actions that
we're taking on the PBDEs. These are a group of flame
retardants that are being phased out in the United States, and
we're putting into place a backstop, we hope, known as the
significant new use rule, that hopefully will keep new
manufacturers of PBDEs from potentially other parts of the
world from sending those chemicals into the United States.
One of the limitations under existing TSCA is that somebody
from another country could bring a significant new use notice
to EPA without any data supporting the safety of those
compounds. And we, again, at EPA would be confronted with
making judgments around these chemicals without any evidence of
safety.
Closing that loophole under TSCA reform would be very
helpful, which I think has been considered in your Safe
Chemicals Act.
It also raises the question of all of the other flame
retardants and the provisions that previous versions of the
Safe Chemical Act have included, which involve manufacturers
having data demonstrates safety of those compounds so that the
agency can evaluate their safety, and the tools necessary to
manage risks, if risks are unacceptable, would be very useful
as well.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, in your written testimony, you say
EPA would like to do more to protect the public from the risks
of flame retardants, but it is limited, again, by its current
authority.
Would additional authority provided--you've looked at my
Safe Chemicals Act--allow EPA to better address those risks?
Mr. Jones. Absolutely. The example that I described earlier
of TBB, where the manufacturer is not required to provide any
information to EPA demonstrating safety, which is a hallmark
under the Safe Chemicals Act, would be very important to
ensuring that new chemicals are safe.
Giving EPA the authority to get health and safety data for
existing chemicals is critically important for our ability to
demonstrate the chemicals are safe. And then the tools
necessary to effectively manage risks from chemicals when risks
are identified is also very important.
So I think all of those elements, which are in the Safe
Chemicals Act, are critically important to EPA being able to
demonstrate that we have safe chemicals in the United States.
Senator Lautenberg. A number of States have banned the use
of some toxic flame retardants because of public health
concerns. Other States are considering similar actions. Now, if
EPA had greater authority under TSCA to address these
chemicals, do you think that the States would continue pursuing
efforts to ban flame retardants and other chemicals?
Mr. Jones. Thanks, Senator. When I speak with my
counterparts in State agencies, those in particular who are
active in regulating chemicals, they are hopeful that EPA is
more active in assessment and regulation of chemicals.
They are very constrained in their resources. They are
responding to the people of their States. But they really wish
EPA would, in my words, occupy the space more effectively.
And I think their sense is that, if we did that, that they
would not have to be as active as they have been.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I'll ask one more
question.
Ms. Tenenbaum, CPSC has done extensive testing on the
flammability of different products. Based on this analysis, do
you think that the addition of flame retardants in furniture
foam has provided Americans with any significant protection
from household fires?
Ms. Tenenbaum. Our tests that we conducted on foam that was
treated with flame-retardant chemicals and foam that was not,
showed that there was no difference in terms of retarding the
flame.
However, if you put a barrier behind the furniture, that
has a much more significant result in stopping the fire and
retarding the growth of the fire.
So the answer is no.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Durbin. Senator Lautenberg, you've hit the nail on
the head, because if these chemicals don't make our homes
safer--and that's what Chairman Tenenbaum has said; I think the
UL testimony will back that up as well--the obvious question
is, is exposure to these chemicals a danger?
And I think it goes back to a point you made in your
opening, Senator Lautenberg: Most Americans incorrectly,
falsely, assume that if a product is for sale in the United
States, someone who cares for their interest--not an economic
interest, but cares for the health interest of Americans--has
taken a look at it and said it's safe to sell.
So let's get on the record, here, Mr. Jones. In terms of
chemicals used throughout our economy--in this case, furniture
in particular--there's no pre-clearance through EPA of these
chemicals, is there?
Mr. Jones. Thanks, Senator Durbin.
The manufacturers for a new chemical--a new chemical, not
one that was manufactured before 1976--must bring to EPA a
notice prior to going to market. They are not required,
however, to submit to EPA or to generate any health and safety
data unless they already have.
And so EPA uses what knowledge we have to make judgments
about whether or not we believe that chemical is going to be
safe.
We are significantly limited by what is provided to us by
the manufacturers.
Senator Durbin. So let's do a sharp contrast with another
role of our Federal Government.
When it comes to prescription drugs, in order for a company
to legally sell prescription drugs in America, they must
establish that that compound, that chemical compound, is both
safe and effective, safe to the consumer and effective for the
purpose sold. And until they establish that, they cannot
legally sell that pharmaceutical in America.
Now, in your world of chemicals, and let's deal with post-
1976 after the 67,000, did you say?
Mr. Jones. Right.
Senator Durbin. That were grandfathered in, when it comes
to new chemicals, is there a legal burden on those who
introduce them into commerce to establish that they are safe
for exposure to human beings, and effective for the purpose
stated?
Mr. Jones. There is no legal burden on the manufacturer to
demonstrate to EPA or to anyone else that the products that
they are going to be selling are safe. They need to submit the
name of the chemical and a few other pieces of information to
EPA, and the burden is on us to demonstrate that it is not
safe.
Senator Durbin. And you're dealing with 13,000 or 14,000
chemical compounds?
Mr. Jones. There have been more than 26,000 new chemicals
since TSCA was originally passed.
Senator Durbin. And according to Senator Lautenberg and
things that I've read, you've been able to look at several
hundred. Is that correct?
Mr. Jones. Of existing chemicals, we have required testing
of several hundred. We have looked at the 26,000 new chemicals
that came to us.
But again, they do not need to submit any health and safety
data, unless they already generated it, to EPA. And so we are
trying to use our judgment, often in the absence of data, to
determine whether or not there's some reason to be concerned.
I think often we do a good job of that. I think TBB is an
example of where we missed it. We missed an issue that
ultimately----
Senator Durbin. TBB being a flame retardant.
Mr. Jones. TBB being the flame retardant in Firemaster.
Senator Durbin. So the premise is, from Chairman Tenenbaum
and later from UL, these chemicals do not make us any safer.
Number two, these chemicals in and of themselves could cause
some health problems.
It's my understanding that scientific data says exposure to
flame-retardant chemicals can lead to liver, thyroid problems,
cancer, and other developmental defects. Is that not correct?
Mr. Jones. That's correct.
Senator Durbin. There is no evidence, or there is no
requirement, I should say, under the law that they be proven
safe before they're introduced into commerce. And now we are
finding concentrations in our babies and infants, unlike any
other country in the world.
Now, if this isn't a call to arms across America from
families, including families with grandparents like me, who
have little toddlers now bouncing around on the floor when I'm
sitting on these cushions and spraying these chemicals out, I
don't know what is.
So at this point, the TSCA law that Senator Lautenberg has
introduced, and I'm cosponsoring, would give you new authority
in this area, if you could describe it.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator.
The authorities that we would get under the Safe Chemicals
Act are the manufacturers would need to have information to
demonstrate the safety of the chemicals that they would submit
to EPA, and EPA would make a judgment about the safety. So the
burden would shift to the manufacturers to demonstrate safety.
For chemicals already on the market, the agency would be
able to compel the generation of health and safety data in a
way that isn't so burdensome. And then we would also have tools
that would allow us to quickly and efficiently remove unsafe
uses of compounds from the market.
Senator Durbin. And just one point I'll make before we
break--I think we have to vote, Frank.
One point I'll make is that Firemaster 550, one of these
flame-retardant chemicals mentioned in the Chicago Tribune
articles, originally developed as an environmentally friendly
alternative to PBDEs, the fire-retardant chemicals.
However, new research on Great Lakes fish shows the
chemical is accumulating and causing DNA damage to the fish in
the Great Lakes.
When TBB, a component of Firemaster 550, was first
submitted in 1995, EPA then identified possible negative health
impacts of using this chemical. Is that not correct?
Mr. Jones. In 1995, the mistake that the agency made was
that we hadn't figured out that that chemical was going to be
persistent or bioaccumulative. Those are the properties that
have ultimately led TBB to be in the environment in places we
never thought it would have been. So it was missing those
characteristics, because we had no basis to determine
otherwise. That has led to the exposures that you've described.
Senator Durbin. So it would seem to me interesting that
when it comes to the regulation of furniture, products before
CPSC, we have created this rigorous set of tests that need to
be done by the Government, which make your job that much more
difficult and takes that much longer.
And yet when it comes to the chemicals presented by
industry to use in American commerce, our standards are very
slight reporting of the chemicals themselves and any evidence
they've collected. There's a sharp contrast here.
I'm going to ask this subcommittee to stand in recess for
about 10 or 15 minutes. We're going to leave and vote and come
back.
And Chairman Tenenbaum and Mr. Jones, thank you both for
your testimony very much.
We'll have the second panel when we return.
Thank you.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Senator Durbin. On our second panel, we're going to hear
from three witnesses involved in different parts of the
flammability question.
Our first witness is August ``Gus'' Schaefer, Sr.--vice
president and chief safety officer of Underwriters Laboratories
(UL), in Northbrook, Illinois, responsible for maintaining and
building UL's public safety mission, including planning,
directing, and coordinating public safety activities within
UL's operations all around the world.
Mr. Schaefer also acts as UL's public safety guardian,
ambassador, and advocate inside and outside the company to
ensure that public safety remains a key part of UL's
relationship with clients and constituents. In this role, he
leads the UL Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative.
He's been with them for more than 39 years, holds a
bachelor's degree in industrial engineering from NYU School of
Engineering and Science and a certificate in management from
Long Island's Adelphi University.
Next we're going to welcome Andy S. Counts. He's the CEO of
American Home Furnishings Alliance. The American Home
Furnishing Alliance is the Nation's largest trade association
for home furnishings manufacturers, importers, and suppliers.
He's provided a voice on the development and implementation of
consensus-based environmental regulations and product safety
standards that impact their industry.
He has a degree in industrial engineering from the Georgia
Institute of Technology, and he's served in a number of private
sector posts, as well as with the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality.
And finally, our third witness is Peter Van Dorpe. He's the
chief of the Chicago Fire Department's Training Division. Glad
he's here. He is a 32-year veteran of the Chicago Fire
Department with a bachelor degree in fire science management
from Southern Illinois University.
In addition to his work as field instructor for Illinois
Fire Service Institute, he's the lead instructor for the
Chicago Fire Department's Fire Officer School, teaches building
construction for the Fire Service at Harold Washington College
in Chicago, and recently participated as a subject-matter
expert for research conducted by both UL and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Mr. Schaefer, you have the floor, followed by Mr. Counts,
and Mr. Van Dorpe.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF AUGUST ``GUS'' SCHAEFER, SR., VICE
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF SAFETY OFFICER,
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and members of the
subcommittee, for this opportunity to share UL's research and
expertise on the subject of furniture flammability.
UL is a global, independent, voluntary standards developer,
and product-testing and certification organization dedicated to
public safety. We have been based in Illinois since our
founding in 1894 and have about 1,600 employees at our
Northbrook headquarters.
UL is driven by our safety mission, which promotes safe
living and working environments by the application of safety
science and hazard-based safety engineering.
UL recently concluded furniture flammability research, and
we'll be showing video excerpts from our testing.
The first video shows a side-by-side comparison of a room
filled with legacy furniture you would expect to find in a home
in the 1960s and 1970s, and a room with modern day furniture.
During the past 30-plus years, petroleum-based materials
such as polyurethane foam and synthetic fabric covers, have
supplanted natural materials in furnishings. As you can see,
modern furniture typically ignites faster, burns more
intensely, releases energy faster, and produces greater amounts
of smoke.
As a result, the amount of time available for a safe escape
from a home fire is much shorter today than in the past and
results in a disproportionately higher number of home fire
deaths.
These results are confirmed through related studies by NIST
and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
As part of UL's safety mission, in 2008, we began a self-
funded research project to determine how fire-retardant-treated
foams and fire barriers can affect fire growth. UL focused our
research on open-flame testing to complement the smoldering
ignition research undertaken by the CPSC and the furniture
industry.
Our research consisted of material, mockup, and full-size
furniture tests. We tested a variety of materials, including
foams treated with and without fire-retardant chemicals,
polyester microsuede cover fabric, and various barrier
materials. Using a standard flame and ignition source, we
measured for heat release rate and mass loss rate.
While we don't have video footage of flame-retardant-
treated versus nontreated furniture to show you today, our
tests found that, when compared to untreated contemporary
furniture, contemporary furniture with flame-retardant foam
shows a measurable, but not a meaningful difference in time to
flashover or when the gas is emitted from burning materials
actually ignite.
Furniture constructed with a flame barrier has flashover
times 20 minutes greater than furniture without barriers. This
would allow residents significantly more time to safely get out
of their homes.
We then expanded the scope of our research to understand
how the fire growth of different furniture materials affects
survivability for the occupants.
The second video shows a series of fires in identically
furnished living rooms. The only differences were the material
used in the chair and sofa.
In the four screens, the top left screen contains
contemporary or modern furniture. The top right screen contains
legacy furniture. The two bottom screens contain contemporary
furniture incorporating the fire barrier ignited in different
locations.
At 45 seconds, we already see that the flame size in the
modern furniture is growing at a faster rate. At the 1-minute
mark, the smoke alarm would have sounded. It takes a person
about 20 to 40 seconds to react.
At 1 minute 45 seconds, a fire extinguisher probably would
not put out the modern furniture fire and the occupant would
look to escape.
People take 60 to 90 seconds to gather belongings and
children, call 9-1-1, and evacuate.
The modern furniture room in the top left of screen reached
flashover at 4 minutes and 45 seconds.
Comparing this with the Chicago Fire Department's goal of
being on scene within 3 to 5 minutes after notification, we can
deduce that the rooms furnished with modern furniture often
reach flashover before the fire services can arrive at the
scene.
At 15 minutes, the fire started in the bottom left screen
with contemporary furniture incorporating a fire barrier
actually self-extinguished. And at 21 minutes and 45 seconds,
the barrier-modified furniture in the bottom right screen
flashes over.
The living room with legacy furniture finally flashes at 34
minutes and 15 seconds.
Based on the data drawn from earlier tests, we sought to
evaluate smoke alarm response and occupant survivability in
full-scale homes. We constructed two homes in UL's large-scale
fire facility, a one-story, 1,200-square-foot home, and a two-
story, 3,200-square-foot home.
We then repeated the previous experiments inside the homes.
And though we are still analyzing the results, the preliminary
data supports our original findings.
Based on the research we conducted, UL believes, first,
modern furniture, whether treated or untreated with flame-
retardant chemicals, does not provide sufficient egress time.
Second, for furniture with a flame barrier, the time to
flashover is increased to greater than 20 minutes, allowing
significantly more time for safe evacuation and fire service
response.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With the convergence of flammability and human health
impact concerns, UL is beginning to research the nexus of the
two.
UL appreciates the opportunity to share our findings, and
we look forward to working with you and other stakeholders
moving forward.
Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of August ``Gus'' Schaefer, Sr.
Thank you Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Moran, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to share Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc.'s (UL) research and expertise on the subject of
furniture flammability. My name is August ``Gus'' Schaefer--Senior Vice
President and Public Safety Officer at UL.
UL is an independent, not-for-profit standards developer and
product testing and certification organization dedicated to public
safety. Since our founding in 1894, UL's engineers and staff have
helped develop safety standards and product-testing protocols,
conducted independent product safety testing and certification, and
inspected manufacturing facilities around the world. UL is driven by
our global safety mission, which promotes safe living and working
environments by the application of safety science and hazard-based
safety engineering. The application of these principles manifests
itself in the evaluation of tens of thousands of products, components,
materials, and systems for compliance to specific requirements. Through
these activities, UL actively engages the U.S. Government in its
development and administration of Federal regulations and conformity
assessment programs at the Federal, State, and local levels. UL works
with all participants as a neutral party to ensure the safest possible
outcome for those who work with and rely on the products at issue.
fire risk associated with upholstered furniture
According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), more
home fire deaths resulted from fires beginning with upholstered
furniture and mattresses/bedding than any other cause. During the 5-
year period of 2005-2009, these fires accounted for 19 percent and 14
percent of the deaths and 7 percent and 10 percent of the injuries,
respectively. They also accounted for $824 million in direct property
damage.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NFPA ``Home Structure Fires'', August 2011; http://
www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/os.homes.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the past 30+ years, residential interiors have changed
dramatically. Homes have increased in size, the number and amount of
furnishings and possessions have grown, and petroleum-based synthetic
materials have supplanted natural materials in furnishings and home
construction products. The combination of these factors has changed the
smoke and gas characteristics of residential fires and in some cases,
accelerated the speed of fire growth.
For a variety of reasons, manufacturers of home furnishings are
turning away from materials like wood and natural fibers in favor of
high-performance, lower-cost synthetic materials. For example, most
upholstered furniture available today utilizes polyurethane foam for
padding and synthetic fabric covers, replacing natural padding
materials like cotton, down and feathers, and cover materials made of
cotton, wool, linen or silk. While these material changes can lead to
products that are easier to clean and more resistant to normal wear and
tear, they also react differently when exposed to an ignition source.
Studies by UL researchers have found that synthetic materials typically
ignite faster, burn more intensely, and release their fire-enabled
energy faster creating greater amounts of smoke than natural materials
posing a more ominous threat to occupants and their homes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fabian, T.Z. and Gandhi, P.D., ``Smoke Characterization
Project: Technical Report'', UL, April 2007 (Available at http://
www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/Smoke
Characterization.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The video that will be playing first will show a side-by-side
comparison of a room filled with legacy furniture, or furniture you
would expect to find in a home in the 1960s and 1970s, and a room with
modern furniture purchased at a national department store chain. Both
rooms were ignited by placing a lit stick candle on the right side of
the sofa and the fires were allowed to grow until flashover. As you
will see, the room with modern furniture achieves flashover conditions
in a significantly shorter time.
The seemingly insignificant change from natural to synthetic
materials in home furnishings has led to residential fires that grow
faster and lead to the more rapid onset of untenable conditions. As a
result, the amount of time available for safe egress from a home fire
is much shorter than in the past. These results corroborate the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) findings for
shorter available safe escape times in residential smoke alarm studies
conducted in 2003 \3\ versus 1975 \4\ which they attributed in part to
faster fire growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Indiana Dunes II: Bukowski, RW. et al, ``Performance of Home
Smoke Alarms--Analysis of the Response of Several Available
Technologies in Residential Fire Settings'', NIST, January 2008
\4\ Indiana Dunes I: Bukowski, RW. et al, ``Large-Scale Laboratory
Tests of Smoke Detectors'', NIST, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
underwriters laboratories research exploring the fire safety of
upholstered furniture
As part of UL's safety mission, in 2008 we set out to conduct a
self-funded research project to determine if commercially available
products such as fire-retardant foams and fire barriers (interliners)
can retard and/or reduce the fire growth rate of upholstered furniture
exposed to small open flames. Polyurethane foams are highly cellular
materials that provide flexibility and comfort. Unfortunately, the
physical design and chemistry (polyurethane chemical structure) is
highly vulnerable to ignition, flaming liquefaction, and further
burning. Flame retardants (most notably bromine and phosphorous) are
used to quench the progressing fire growth. Because of the cellular
foam structure, the quantities of flame retardants necessary to
accomplish this task are extremely high, some as high as upward of 30
percent by weight. Fire barriers are complex woven structures that have
both polymeric fibers and inorganic coatings that develop a protective
char on burning. When they are exposed to high-temperature flames, the
organic polymers burn with the inorganic compounds and form combustion
products that are brittle and have mechanical strength (rather than
powdery ash). The creation of an inorganic ``crust'' is a way of
slowing down or even preventing the high-temperature flames from
impinging on the polyurethane foam. There are many other examples of
intumescent or char-forming materials, such as intumescent coatings for
steel beams, and polymeric jacketing materials used in plenum cable.
UL decided to focus our research on open-flame testing as we
believed that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the
Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC) were already addressing
smoldering ignition. The scope of the project later expanded to fully
understand the impact upholstered furniture materials play in fire
growth and subsequent occupant tenability and survivability. Thus,
apart from the ignition of upholstered furniture, our research sought
to understand the dynamics of fires that include various constructions
of upholstered furniture.
Our research can be divided into three phases. Phase 1 of our
research consisted of material-level tests, furniture mock-up tests,
and full-size furniture tests, the original scope of the study. Phase 2
compared various upholstered furniture configurations in a living room
environment Finally, Phase 3 included a series of full-scale house fire
experiments to determine smoke alarm response and occupant tenability
and survivability related to upholstered furniture fires.
phase 1: material, mockup, and full-sized furniture testing
Materials utilized in this investigation included 11 commercially
available barrier materials constituting different chemistries and
physical structures (including flat weaves, knits, and high lofts). Two
comparable density polyurethane foam materials were also used: a
nonfire retardant foam commonly used in upholstered furniture and a
California Technical Bulletin (CA TB) 117 compliant fire-retardant
treated foam. UL also utilized the most popular cover fabric from the
largest upholstered furniture cover fabric supplier in the United
States (CPSC 16 CFR part 1634 Type I compliant beige polyester
microsuede).
Tests were conducted on three scales of combustibility:
--material-level tests;
--furniture mock-up tests; and
--full-size furniture tests.
The combustibility behavior of the individual sample materials and
combinations of materials (i.e., foam/barrier liner/cover fabric) under
well-ventilated, early stage flaming fire conditions was characterized
using a cone calorimeter (ASTME 1354). In the furniture mock-up tests,
cushions of the foam and barrier liner combinations evaluated in the
material-level test phase were arranged to replicate an interior corner
formed by the seat, back, and arm of a chair or sofa. The furniture
mock-ups were ignited at the interior intersection of the three
cushions using a BS 5852 Flaming Ignition Source 1 (match-flame
equivalent). For the full-size furniture test, three of the foam and
liner barrier combinations were compared to typical residential
materials. Furniture pieces were ignited at the seat-back-arm interior
corner, center of the seat-back cushions, and at the back leg area
using the same BS 5852 Flaming Ignition Source 1 (match-flame
equivalent) as for the furniture mock-ups. Heat release rate and mass
loss rate were measured in both instances.
The results of Phase 1 indicated that contemporary furniture
constructed with CA TB 117-compliant fire-retardant-treated foam show
measurable difference in the time to flashover, but not a meaningful
difference compared to contemporary furniture constructed with a
nonfire-retardant foam commonly used in upholstered furniture. In
addition, when a flame-suppressant technology such as a flame barrier
is used between the decorative fabric and the foam, then this furniture
(manufactured to UL specifications with polyurethane foam) behaves
closer to ``legacy'' furniture. Specifically the time to flashover is
increased to greater than 20 minutes--which would allow residents
significantly more time to safely get out of their homes.
The results of these experiments provide knowledge on the potential
fire-growth reduction for the different investigated strategies,
implementation feasibility, the interaction between different
chemistries and components, and the influence of test scale and sample
design on fire performance. Collectively, this information can be used
by researchers, manufacturers and industry associations, and regulators
such as CPSC and California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation (CA BEARHFTI) to establish appropriate technical
requirements, and a corresponding compliance program, for upholstered
furniture akin to the CPSC program for mattresses.
phase 2: comparison of upholstered furniture on living room flashover
As you will see in the second video, in Phase 2 we conducted a
series of fires in a living room environment to better understand the
impact upholstered furniture materials have in fire growth. The room
environments were identically furnished with an engineered wood
television stand, book case, coffee table, and end tables purchased
from a national department store chain. In addition, the rooms had
other fuel loads such as a 37-inch flat panel display television,
plastic toy bins, stuffed toys, and polyester curtains. The only
differences in the rooms were the materials used in the upholstered
chair and sectional sofa. The top left screen contains contemporary
upholstered furniture with polyester wrap covered polyurethane foam
cushions, and polyester microsuede cover fabric. The top right screen
is furniture constructed in legacy materials such as cotton batting
around metal spring cushions and cotton cover fabric. The two bottom
screens consist of barrier modified contemporary upholstered furniture
with high-loft fire barrier covered polyurethane-foam cushions and
polyester microsuede cover fabric. The fires were ignited by placing a
lit candle on the right side of the sofa and allowed to grow until
flashover. One of the barrier modified sets of furniture was ignited in
the center of the sofa where the seat and back cushions for two spots
meet.
At 45 seconds we can already see that the flame size on the
contemporary furniture is growing at a faster rate than the other
furniture pieces. At the 1-minute mark, the smoke alarm would have
activated to notify the occupants. We can assume it would take an
occupant at the earliest about 20-40 seconds to recognize the danger
and to take appropriate actions, such as finding a fire extinguisher.
At 1 minute and 45 seconds, the fire in the contemporary furniture
environment would be difficult to handle with a fire extinguisher and
the occupant would then look to escape. On average, people take 60-90
seconds to dress, call 911, gather personal belongings, and awaken two
children. Once a call is placed to 911, a dispatcher will alert the
local fire department to head to the scene. The Chicago Fire Department
is the Nation's second-largest fire department and their goal is to be
on-scene within 3-5 minutes after dispatch. Other departments may take
longer such as those servicing rural areas. Additionally, this is just
the time for the fire service to arrive; once at the scene, they still
have to assess the scene.
The room furnished with contemporary upholstered furniture in the
top left of screen transitioned to flashover at 4 minutes and 45
seconds. At 15 minutes the fire started at the interior corner of the
barrier-clad contemporary furniture has self-extinguished. Flashover
occurs for the barrier clad contemporary furniture ignited between the
seats at 21 minutes and 45 seconds which is 17 minutes later than the
identical furniture that does not have the fire barrier. At 34 minutes
and 15 seconds, the living room furnished with legacy furniture flashes
over, consistent with what we found for the used furniture in the
modern vs. legacy side-by-side video. From this video, we can deduce
that rooms furnished with contemporary furniture often reach flashover
point prior to the fire service arriving at the scene of the fire.
phase 3: comparison of upholstered furniture on occupant tenability and
survivability
Based on the data drawn from Phase 2 and exemplified in the second
video that you just witnessed, UL wanted to determine what the smoke
alarm response and occupant tenability and survivability in an actual
full-scale home. In March 2012 a series of full-scale house fire
experiments was conducted in UL's large fire facility. One house was a
one-story, 1,200 square-foot, 3 bedroom, 1 bathroom house (8 rooms
total); the second house was a two-story, 3,200 square-foot, 4-bedroom,
2.5-bathroom house (12 rooms total). The second house featured a
contemporary open floor plan with the two-story great room and foyer
open to the upstairs bedrooms.
The living/great rooms were identically furnished with engineered
wood television stand, coffee table, a lamp, and end tables purchased
from a national department store chain. The only furnishings that
differed in the tests were the materials used in the upholstered chair
and sectional sofa. The contemporary furniture was constructed using
the same hardwood frames, but one set consisted of polyester wrap
covered polyurethane foam cushions, polyester microsuede cover fabric
while the other introduced a high-loft fire barrier to cover the
polyurethane foam cushions. The fires were ignited by placing a lit
candle on the right side of the sofa and allowed to grow until
temperatures in a remote location from the fire reached an unsurvivable
level of 150 C (302 F). Preliminary data analysis supports Phase 2
findings but we are still currently analyzing the results of these
recent experiments.
conclusions
Based on the research we conducted, UL believes:
One, that the typical flame-retardant chemical concentrations used
to meet fire regulations in upholstered furniture do not provide for
sufficient fire egress times. The most common of those fire regulations
is the BEARHFTI's CA TB 117 performance requirements.
Two, that when a flame-suppressant technology, such as a flame
barrier, is used between the decorative fabric and the foam, then this
furniture (manufactured to UL specifications with polyurethane foam)
behaves closer to ``legacy'' furniture. Specifically, the time to flash
over is increased to greater than 20 minutes--which would allow
occupants significantly more time to safely evacuate their home and
allow for fire service to respond to the fire.
Three, that barrier materials need not be made of a chemical flame
retardant that may or may not pose a negative impact on human health or
the environment. It is conceivable that manufacturers could incorporate
various innovative barrier methods in upholstered furniture with
minimal impact on current manufacturing methods. Some types of barriers
such as high-loft barriers could be used as a replacement for polyester
wrap thereby minimizing impact on manufacturing and labor. Other
barriers, such as flat barriers similar to those incorporated by the
mattress industry, could pose an additional manufacturing step, but do
yield increased fire-safety performance.
In addition to fire research UL has conducted on upholstered
furniture, UL has also conducted studies in cooperation with the Fire
Protection Research Foundation (a foundation under NFPA) on smoke
characterization to understand smoke associated with materials commonly
found in residential homes today and to provide data points to develop
better smoke-sensing technology or smoke-suppression technology in end
products. UL also has the ability to measure consumer exposure and
indoor air quality to flame retardant and alternative chemicals under
normal-use conditions and during combustion or fire processes for the
measurement of toxic byproducts using environmental chamber technology.
This technology allows the study and impact of alternative construction
techniques like the use of fire barriers, reduction of synthetic
materials, petrochemical-based construction materials; and the use of
alternative, less-toxic flame retardants for bedding, furniture,
construction materials, and electronics. This allows for system and
component analysis under normal and abnormal conditions to help
facilitate the development and validation of chemically safe, fire-
resistant products.
UL appreciates this subcommittee's interest in furniture
flammability-related matters and how all parties can work to enhance
public safety. We appreciate the opportunity to share our knowledge and
look forward to working with you and other stakeholders moving forward.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Counts.
STATEMENT OF ANDY S. COUNTS, CEO, AMERICAN HOME
FURNISHINGS ALLIANCE
Mr. Counts. Good afternoon. I'm Andy Counts, chief
executive officer at American Home Furnishings Alliance. I want
to thank you, Chairman Durbin and staff, for allowing me to
participate in today's hearing.
The issue of upholstered furniture flammability has been a
topic of discussion and debate at CPSC since it inherited the
Flammable Fabrics Act in 1973.
Since this time, CPSC has considered several petitions on
the issue and released multiple draft standards to address the
flammability of upholstered furniture.
As these proposals progressed, CPSC's objective has moved
from the risk of small open-flame ignition to the combined risk
of small open flame and smolder ignition, and finally to the
risk of smolder ignition only.
Consistently, over time, CPSC's statistics have shown that
90 percent of upholstered furniture fires result from smolder
ignition.
California Technical Bulletin 117, or TB-117, is required
for all upholstered furniture sold in the State of California
and attempts to address both smolder and small open-flame
ignition.
Unlike smolder ignition, small, open-flame resistance
generally requires the treatment of fabric and cushioning
materials with flame-retardant chemicals.
During the time that CPSC has been considering furniture
flammability, evidence about the potential eco-toxicity and
bioaccumulation of certain flame retardants have reshaped the
thinking regarding fire and chemical risks. Restrictions on
flame-retardant use and production are depleting the compliance
toolbox of compounds equipped to achieve open-flame resistance
in furniture and to meet TB-117.
In addition, CPSC staff has found that reformulated foam
cushions used to comply with TB-117 do not meaningfully improve
small open-flame performance.
TB-117 is the only reason flame-retardant chemicals are
found in upholstered furniture. California Governor Jerry Brown
recently issued a statement directing the State's Bureau of
Electronic Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation to revise TB-117 to end the reliance on flame-
retardant chemicals.
As a result of this directive, a draft revised California
standard has recently been released that will focus solely on
smolder ignition.
According to a recent NFPA report, the long-term trend in
smoking material fires has been down by 73 percent from 1980 to
2010.
More importantly, the trend line for upholstered furniture
as the first item ignited by smoking materials is also
declining. In 1980, NFPA estimated that there were 21,500 fires
caused by smolder ignition of upholstered furniture. And by
2010, that number had been reduced to 1,500.
Likewise, civilian deaths due to smolder ignition in
upholstered furniture have decreased from 1,030 in 1980 to 210
in 2010. When you factor in population growth over this period,
you can begin to fathom the significance of these decreases.
This downward trend in fire statistics involving smoking
materials and residential upholstery is to some degree the
result of a successful industry fire standard. The voluntary
program was developed by the Upholstered Furniture Action
Council (UFAC) in 1977.
Unlike TB-117, the UFAC program does not require the use of
any flame-retardant chemicals. UFAC construction criteria have
been adopted by both the American Society for Testing and
Materials as ASTM 1353, and NFPA. It is estimated that 90
percent of domestic furniture shipments comply with the UFAC
standard.
We understand the frustration some have expressed about the
pace of progress on this issue. However, we shouldn't disregard
the technical challenges associated with achieving improved
fire resistance for a product that is typically covered in
fabric and filled with plastics, cellulosics, and other
cushioning materials.
Add to this the differential performance of the tens of
thousands of upholstery fabrics on the market, and you begin to
understand the challenge CPSC shouldered.
An approach that addresses only smolder ignition is not
perfect, but represents what is achievable at this point, given
these sometimes competing factors.
We recommend that the CPSC immediately move to adopt ASTM
1353 to address the primary smolder ignition risk from
upholstered furniture. That would provide CPSC with the time it
needs to further investigate the feasibility of its barrier for
smolder-prone fabrics and submit its draft testing methods to
the necessary round robin laboratory analysis to ensure good
repeatability and reproducibility. This round robin analysis is
essential to the development of an enforceable standard.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We look forward to our continued work with the CPSC on this
important issue and to assisting our members with compliance.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andy S. Counts
The American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA) represents
manufacturers and importers of residential furnishings that include
upholstered furniture, wood furniture, home office, and decorative
accessories. AHFA companies participate in a highly competitive global
market characterized by ever-changing style preferences, margin
pressures, and the tendency of consumers to postpone big-ticket
purchases if their perceptions of value and function are not satisfied.
AHFA respectfully submits these comments regarding the
effectiveness of upholstered furniture flammability standards and
flame-retardant chemicals.
background information
There is currently one mandatory flammability standard for
residential upholstered furniture in the United States. That standard,
California Technical Bulletin 117 (TB-117), is required for all
upholstered furniture sold in the State of California.
Before we begin our discussion on the effectiveness of upholstered
furniture flammability standards, we want to share with you several
hard-learned facts based on 40+ years of experience with this topic.
First, fire testing is not a precise science. Today's modern fire-
testing methodology suffers from three important weaknesses. First,
none of the present test methods have been reconciled with what
actually happens in real-world fire scenarios, either qualitatively or
quantitatively. Second, the precision of today's fire tests is
reprehensibly poor with testing errors commonly exceeding 50 to 100
percent. Finally, computer models are only as good as the data driving
them. As noted above, the precision and bias of the data is deficient
so standard fire tests often lack the repeatability that agencies
expect with mandatory standards. This makes a flammability standard
extremely difficult to enforce.
Definition of the objective is 50 percent of the solution. There is
no such thing as fire-proof furniture and it simply is not a realistic
or practical goal. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
did not conceive this at the beginning and therefore the objective of
its rulemaking was not clearly defined. Initially it appeared that CPSC
wanted to prevent any ignition of the cover fabrics. This proved to be
unattainable because everything will burn and each fire is unique.
Later, the agency moved away from ``no ignition'' toward ``slowing''
the progression of the fires and thereby allow more egress time. The
later is an achievable goal and one which we continue to believe can be
met.
Third, there are no quick fixes or silver bullets when it comes to
upholstered furniture flammability. There are a myriad number of
configurations, fabrics, and fillings that are utilized by our industry
to satisfy the consumer's needs and tastes. And the issue is
counterintuitive. The materials that are most resistant to smolder
ignition tend to be poor performers when it comes to resisting open-
flame ignition and vice versa. These three facts have compounded the
difficulties CPSC has encountered in this complex rulemaking.
the national discussion
The issue of upholstered furniture flammability has been a topic of
discussion and debate at CPSC since it inherited the Flammable Fabrics
Act from the Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission in
1973. Since this time CPSC has considered several petitions on the
issue and released multiple draft standards to address the flammability
of upholstered furniture in 1997, 2001, 2004, and 2005. A proposed rule
was finally promulgated in 2008. As these proposals progressed, CPSC's
objective has moved from the risk of small open-flame ignition to the
risks of small open-flame ignition and smolder ignition, and finally to
the risk of smolder ignition only.
We welcomed the 2008 proposal because it was the first to focus
solely on the risk of smolder ignition which is the predominant
flammability hazard associated with upholstered furniture. Consistently
over time, CPSC statistics show that 90 percent of upholstered
furniture fires result from smolder ignition. Each year, there are
approximately five times as many incidents of smolder ignitions as
there are small open flame-related incidents.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. CPSC, Regulatory Options Briefing Package, October 28,
1997, p. 153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a recent National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
report, \2\ ``the long-term trend in smoking-material fires has been
down, by 73 percent from 1980 to 2010.'' More importantly for this
discussion, the trend line for upholstered furniture as the first item
ignited by smoking materials is also declining. In 1980, NFPA estimated
that there were 21,500 fires caused by smolder ignition of upholstered
furniture and by 2010 that number had been reduced to 1,500.\3\
Likewise, civilian deaths due to smolder ignition of upholstered
furniture have decreased from 1,030 in 1980 to 210 in 2010.\4\ Finally,
civilian injuries have declined from 1,910 in 1980 to 260 in 2010.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ John R. Hall Jr., The Smoking-Material Fire Problem, March
2012, p. i.
\3\ Id. at 21.
\4\ Id. at 22.
\5\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the upholstered furniture action council
The downward trend in fire statistics involving smoking materials
and residential upholstery is, to some degree, the result of a
successful industry fire standard. This voluntary program was developed
by the Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC) in 1977. It has
demonstrated that fabric and yarn changes along with the use of
substrates between fabric and foam yield improved smolder performance.
Unlike TB-117, the UFAC program does not require the use of any flame-
retardant chemicals. Also unlike TB-117, UFAC program has undergone
round-robin testing and has shown to be repeatable and reproducible.
Because of this, UFAC construction criteria were adopted by both the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTME 1353) and the NFPA
(NFPA 260).
Perhaps the greatest contribution of the UFAC program has been to
remove smolder-prone materials from the market and replace them with
safer ones. Padding materials such as untreated cotton batting, sisal
pads, loose sisal, jute pads, rubberized horsehair, and kapok could not
pass any of the UFAC criteria and consequently disappeared from the
marketplace.
Likewise, UFAC has contributed to the development of safer
materials. In addition to inventing heat-conducting welt cords, it
effectively set the standards for polyurethane foam and class 1
fabrics. Seating-grade and padding-grade flexible polyurethane foams
must pass the UFAC filling and padding test method. As a result,
noncompliant foam is gone from the market. With respect to fabric
covers, the UFAC test methods accelerated the use of thermoplastic
fibers. This expanded the number of class I fabrics, the type most
resistant to smolder ignition, and reduced the number of class II
fabrics which require the use of a smolder-resistant barrier material.
While it is estimated that 90 percent of domestic furniture shipments
comply with the UFAC standard, the net result has been to afford low-
income consumers the benefit of the UFAC program even if their
manufacturers are not participating in UFAC. That is because these
safer materials are the only ones that can be found in the marketplace.
In the course of the current CPSC rulemaking, UFAC reviewed TB-117
promising CPSC to incorporate the best aspects of TB-117 as part of
UFAC's construction criteria. However, when testing was completed, UFAC
concluded that TB-117 foam was not more effective than the conventional
foam required by UFAC. Therefore, it declined to modify its
construction criteria. CPSC later tested TB-117 foam and confirmed that
it demonstrated no significant added protection in small open-flame
scenarios compared to UFAC complying upholstered furniture products.
small open-flame research
The current emphasis on smolder ignition is a sensible response to
the technical difficulties associated with the small open-flame
approaches considered during the course of the rulemaking. Early in the
project, CPSC staff found that reformulated foam cushions used to
comply with TB-117 did not meaningfully improve small open-flame
performance. Subsequent testing of so-called ``TB-117 plus'' foam
revealed it performed worse than conventional foam and was inferior in
some smoldering scenarios.
A 2001 proposal allowed the use of flame-blocking barriers as
protection against open-flame ignition. However, CPSC staff found that
barrier materials perform inconsistently depending on the cover fabrics
and ignition source. Some barriers were effective in conjunction with a
number of outer fabrics, but not with others. Those failing fabrics
were more appropriate candidates for a flame-retardant chemical
treatment option.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. CPSC Upholstered Furniture Flammability: Analysis of
Comments from the CPSC Staff's June 2002 Public Meeting, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently available barrier technology utilized to meet
California's standard for public occupancy furniture (TB-133) and to
meet the Federal mattress standard (16 CFR 1633) is not well-suited for
application to residential upholstered furniture. In addition to the
complexities created by the various geometries and spatial
relationships of furniture, existing barriers would negatively impact
the hand, drape, and seat of residential upholstered furniture. These
barriers also lack important performance characteristics such as loft,
resiliency and neutral color, which are critical for the residential
upholstered furniture market.
research and regulation of flame retardants
TB-117 is the only reason flame-retardant chemicals are found in
upholstered furniture. The focus on smolder ignition minimizes the
reliance on flame-retardant chemical treatments. Unlike smolder
ignition, small open-flame resistance generally requires the treatment
of fabrics and cushioning materials with halogenated compounds (i.e.,
bromine or chlorine). The widespread application of these chemicals to
produce upholstered furniture components would certainly have resulted
from the prescribed test methods proposed in the 1997, 2001, 2004, and
2005 CPSC briefing packages.
During the time that CPSC has been considering furniture
flammability, evidence about the potential ecotoxicity and
bioaccumulation of halogen flame-retardants have reshaped the thinking
regarding fire and chemical risks. Restrictions on flame-retardant use
and production are depleting the compliance toolbox of compounds
equipped to achieve open-flame resistance in furniture and to meet TB-
117.
In 2004, AHFA (then the American Furniture Manufacturers
Association or AFMA) co-chaired and participated with other key
industry stakeholders in a project sponsored by Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Design for the Environment' (DfE). The scope
of this project was to develop an assessment tool to evaluate emerging
flame-retardant chemistry that could potentially be used to replace
existing chemical solutions used to meet existing flammability
standards. The focus was to develop a science-based matrix to evaluate
and screen the potential risk of emerging flame-retardant chemicals to
human health and the environment. The resulting matrix did not provide
the absolute certainty needed to determine if the flame-retardant
chemistry was safe and effective.
In January 2010, EPA added polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)--
used as flame retardants in a wide range of products, including fabrics
and foam--to its ``chemicals of concern'' list, meaning it considers
them substances that ``may present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health and the environment.'' The furniture industry had already
voluntarily phased out the use of these chemicals in 2005. The only
PBDE still on the market in North America, is decaBDE, a fabric flame-
retardant effective across a full spectrum of fiber types. Critics of
decaBDE often cite evidence that it can degrade (debrominate) into more
hazardous congeners that are already the subject of regulatory action.
DecaBDE has been banned or substantially restricted in Washington
State, Maine, and the European Union. Asian countries and other U.S.
States are considering similar legislation. Without decaBDE, fabric
mills indicate that achieving open-flame resistance would require the
commercialization and testing of more specialized chemical formulations
geared to particular fabric types. Environmental authorities and policy
makers now appear to be moving toward restrictions on bromine and
chlorine flame-retardant chemicals generally.
Last year in California, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) added TDCPP (Tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)
phosphate), a flame-retardant chemical commonly used in furniture
applications, to its list of chemicals subject to Proposition 65.
Governor Brown recently issued a statement directing the State's Bureau
of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (BEARHFTI) to revise TB-117
to end the reliance on flame-retardant chemicals. In the present
Federal rulemaking, environmental advocates have urged CPSC to forego
regulatory approaches that would encourage such chemical use.
As a result of the Governor Brown directive a draft revised
California standard (TB-117 2012) has recently been released that will
focus solely on smolder ignition and take a similar approach to the
2008 proposed CPSC standard.
other trends shaping fire statistics
Any current discussion of this issue should be made in the context
of fire statistics that have improved significantly in response to a
number of trends. In addition to the impact of voluntary industry
standards such as UFAC, Americans are smoking less and are increasingly
protected by working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Small open-
flame statistics are being driven downward by the use of child-
resistant lighters pursuant to CPSC regulations finalized in 1993 and a
CPSC-sponsored voluntary performance standard for candles. In addition,
all States have enacted requirements for reduced ignition propensity
(RIP) cigarettes. The March 2012 NFPA study on smoking material fires
estimates that RIP cigarettes alone will reduce fire deaths 30 percent
from 2003, the last year before any State-implemented this
legislation.\7\ All of these developments can be expected to further
reduce residential fires associated with upholstered furniture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Hall, supra at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion and recommendations
We understand the frustration some have expressed about the pace of
progress on this issue. However, we shouldn't disregard the technical
challenges associated with achieving improved fire resistance for a
product that is typically covered in fabric and filled with plastics,
cellulosics, and other cushioning materials. Add to this the
differential performance of the tens of thousands of upholstery fabrics
on the market; the synergy between fabrics and filling materials; and
you begin to understand the challenge CPSC has shouldered.
Upholstered furniture flammability encompasses not only fire
science, but consumer preferences, behavioral factors, the
competitiveness of domestic industries and the increasing scrutiny of
chemicals that may pose a risk to human health and the environment.
Our industry is committed to supporting government and private
sector solutions based on three criteria:
--safe;
--effective; and
--saleable.
To be ``safe'', a solution must not introduce new risks to
consumers, workers, or the environment and not undermine the existing
level of resistance to smolder ignition. To be ``effective'', a
solution must reduce the number of residential fires involving
upholstered furniture and must not create a false sense of security to
the consumer. To be ``saleable'', a solution must result in furniture
that is attractive, comfortable, durable, and affordable. A solution
that meets the criteria of safe, effective, and saleable continues to
form the basis for an industry supported Federal standard for
residential upholstered furniture.
An approach that addresses only smolder ignition is not perfect,
but represents what is achievable at this point given these sometimes
competing factors. We recommend that the CPSC immediately move to adopt
ASTM 1353 to address the primary smolder-ignition risk from upholstered
furniture. That will provide CPSC with the time it needs to further
investigate the feasibility of its barrier for smolder-prone fabrics
and to submit its draft test methods to the necessary round-robin
laboratory analysis to ensure good repeatability and reproducibility.
This round-robin analysis is essential to the development of an
enforceable standard.
After finalization of a standard that addresses smolder ignition,
CPSC resources can then be concentrated on determining if potential
solutions to small open-flame risk exist and are justified. This effort
must provide multiple options for compliance and a mechanism for
identifying safe and effective flame-retardant chemistry.
Any mandatory flammability standard must also rely on the use of
compliant components and not the use of composite testing. Furniture
manufacturers are assemblers of components provided by third-party
suppliers. The combination of these various components results in
thousands of SKUs. This volume makes the testing of full-scale or
mockup composites not only unreasonable, but impossible.
Finally, cost must be a consideration. The statistics of
residential fires have told us repeatedly over the years that the
residential fire problem in the United States primarily lies in
households with lower incomes, less education, and a higher proportion
of single parents. This segment of the population is the most sensitive
to cost increases, yet this segment is clearly the most in need of the
protection that safer upholstery will provide. Furniture that meets
ASTM 1353 is proven to provide an acceptable level of fire protection
at price points that will primarily benefit them and the firefighters
charged with saving their lives.
We look forward to working with CPSC on this important issue and to
assist our members with the compliance obligations they will face once
a new rule is finalized.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Counts.
Peter Van Dorpe.
STATEMENT OF PETER VAN DORPE, CHIEF, TRAINING DIVISION,
CHICAGO FIRE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Van Dorpe. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here
today. My name is Peter Van Dorpe. I've been a firefighter for
32 years. I'm a district chief in the Chicago Fire Department
and in charge of the Training Division.
Since 2006, I have been one of the Chicago Fire
Department's liaisons to and have served as a subject-matter
expert for various agencies and universities that have been
conducting fire-safety research. These agencies include UL,
NIST, University of Illinois, Michigan State University, and
New York Polytechnic, among others.
This research has been funded largely through the
Department of Homeland Security's Assistance to Firefighters
Grants Program.
Through both my experience on the fire ground and in the
course of my participation in these research projects, I've
become acutely aware of the significant changes that have
occurred over the last 40 to 50 years in the way homes are
built and the way that we furnish them. What you have seen here
today, as dramatic as it is, demonstrates only a fraction of
the changes that have taken place.
Put as simply as possible, we are making homes bigger.
We're building them with less massive structural components and
then we're filling them with more air and more fuel than ever
before.
From a firefighter's perspective, this is a recipe for
disaster for both the fire service and the public we have sworn
to protect.
Part of the reason why I was selected to speak at this
hearing is because I was already scheduled to be in Baltimore
tomorrow to deliver a workshop at Firehouse Expo. Firehouse
Expo is one of several conferences that I and my colleagues
from the Chicago and New York City Fire Departments, UL, NIST,
and other research partners attend each year to deliver the
findings of its research to the American fire service.
We call it bringing science to the street, and our goal is
to make sure that the firefighters that arrive at your door in
your time of need come with a set of strategies, tactics,
skills, and knowledge to best equip them to safely and
effectively combat the fire they will face.
The first and most important part of reaching that goal is
to make sure these firefighters understand the scope and
magnitude of the changes in the modern fire environment. I hope
to convey some sense of that change to you in this brief time
we have today.
I will keep it simple: It's stuff, and there's more stuff,
and that stuff is made out of plastic. And more stuff, more of
that plastic stuff, is made out of plastic that contains its
own air supply--extruded polyurethane foam in furniture.
All of this stuff is fuel, and we're packing more and more
of it into our boxes that we live in every day.
How this stuff in these boxes behave, interact, and
maintain their integrity under fire conditions goes largely
unregulated, so long as that box is labeled one- or two-family
occupancy and the stuff is intended to be used by the people
that occupy those houses.
It should come as no surprise to us that most fire deaths
occur in one- and two-family homes.
The statistics that support these statements are readily
available and accessible from NFPA, UL, NIST, the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and a host of
other universities and Government agencies.
Please allow me to share with you some lesser-known
statistics. In 1903, 605 people died in the Iroquois Theater
fire in Chicago. In 1911, 146 died in the Triangle Shirt Waist
fire in New York City. There were 294 deaths in the
Consolidated School fire of 1937, 492 in the Coconut Grove
Supper Club fire of 1942, and 100 in the Station Night Club
fire of 2003.
Indeed, the 10 largest single-building fatal fires over the
last century have totaled more than 2,800 deaths. And that
number does not include the 2,666 deaths that occurred in the
fires that were in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
Each of these tragedies, as well as many like them
throughout our history, brought about a response that was
proportionate to the scope and magnitude of the event. Perhaps
the most important part of the response to each of these events
and those like them were the significant changes made in the
way we design, build, inspect, and otherwise regulate the
buildings we occupy and the things that we put in them.
We can and should be proud of the way we respond as a
society to the disasters and tragedies that befall our
communities. However, the tragedy that is the yearly fire death
toll in the United States goes unaddressed largely because it
goes unrecognized.
Each and every year, between 2,500 and 3,000 people die in
fires in the United States. That's more than died in the
September 11 attacks and more than died in the 10 most tragic
fires in our history. And it happens year after year after
year.
Eighty-five percent of those fire deaths occur in homes,
and they most often occur in ones and twos. Hence, those of you
who aren't professionally attuned to the situation are not
familiar with the scope and magnitude of the problem.
I hope my testimony today will help bring it to the
forefront for a time.
Statistically, three people died in fires while you slept
last night, and another will die while we are here discussing
the merits of the issues before us. Three more will die in the
time you will make your way home tonight and end your day and
return to sleep. Tomorrow and every day will be just like today
unless and until we do something different about the way we
build, protect, and furnish homes in this country.
When I'm teaching building construction to firefighters, I
make it a point to focus on the hazards of lightweight
construction and practices used in single-family homes. And I
always begin and end by telling them, ``It ain't about the
gusset plates.''
Gusset plates are a fastening method that has replaced
traditional nails in lightweight wood truss construction. The
fire service frequently points to them as the cause of early
collapse of floor and roof systems in buildings using these
systems.
What I mean to convey to them with this phrase is that we
need to focus less on the components and more on the totality
of the changes to the built environment and the fuel loads we
are placing in them.
Similarly, I encourage you not to get lost in the weeds of
which methods of reducing residential fire losses and fire
deaths are the most efficient, effective, or environmentally
friendly. For example, while the effects of adding fire-
retardant chemicals to extruded foams and fills has been shown
to be of limited value, this does not preclude the use of
retardants in any and all circumstances.
Most approaches to reducing fire growth and propagation in
furniture and finishes have value, and they should all be
investigated and pursued.
The mattress industry has demonstrated that an approach
that applies a variety of methodologies is the most likely to
sustain success over the long run.
Most tragedies, and certainly those that arise in accidents
in the home, are not the result of gross negligence or malice
on anyone's part. Rather, they are the sum of what my colleague
Vicki Schmidt, a volunteer firefighter and a State instructor
in Maine, refers to as the pitter-patter of little defeats,
those individually minor errors and omissions that we allow to
accumulate and coalesce into tragic events.
Please permit me to outline for you what I believe to be
some effective guidance for meeting the challenges before you.
Increased residential firefighters' fire safety, and
firefighter safety, requires reducing ignition sources.
Today, this is largely an issue related to behaviors
including smoking, alcohol use, and the safe use of open flames
such as candles. Reducing the development and prorogation of
fires that do occur by addressing the flammability and fire
development characteristics of home furnishings and finished
materials, particularly those that contain extruded
polyurethane foam and related materials.
Reducing the impact of fires that do occur upon the
occupants through more thorough and effective regulations
requiring active and passive fire protection and detection
systems in homes. And, yes, that does mean we need to advocate
for residential fire sprinklers in all new construction.
Reducing the impact of fires that do occur upon the
structural system of the home, by requiring structural
assemblies used two-family homes be protected in the same way
that they are required to be protected in other occupancies.
Finally, enabling the American fire service to do our job
more safely and effectively by doing all of the above and by
continuing to fund the fire-safety research and dissemination
of life-saving information it is generating.
In closing, I wish to assure you that the challenge is not
as difficult as you may think. Indeed, the problem has already
been solved.
Look around you. Look above your heads. This is a fire-safe
building. We have applied the lessons of the past and
appropriate science and technology to design an occupancy that
provides a safe and secure environment for its occupants.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We can do the same for residential occupancies. We have the
knowledge and the technology to meet all the challenges,
whether they be temporal, behavioral, financial, or
environmental. All we need is the will to act.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Van Dorpe District Chief on the
Chicago Fire Department in charge of the Training Division deg.
Good afternoon. My name is Peter Van Dorpe. I have been a
firefighter for 32 years. I am a District Chief on the Chicago Fire
Department in charge of the Training Division. Since 2006 I have been
one of the Chicago Fire Department's liaisons and have served as a
subject-matter expert for various agencies and universities that have
been conducting fire-safety research. These agencies include
Underwriters Laboratories (UL); the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST); the University of Illinois; Michigan State
University; New York Polytechnic; and others. This research has been
funded largely through the Department of Homeland Security's Assistance
to Firefighters Grants program. Through both my experience on the fire
ground and in the course of my participation in these research projects
I have become acutely aware of the significant changes that have
occurred over the last 40 to 50 years in both the way homes are built
and the way that they are furnished. What you have seen here today, as
dramatic as it is, demonstrates only a fraction of the changes that
have taken place. Put as simply as possible, we are making homes
larger, building them with less massive components, and then filling
them with more air and more fuel than ever before. From a firefighter's
perspective this is a recipe for disaster for both the fire service and
the public we have sworn to serve and protect.
Part of the reason why I was selected to speak at this hearing is
because I was already scheduled to be in Baltimore tomorrow to deliver
a workshop at Firehouse Expo. Firehouse Expo is one of several
conferences that I and my colleagues from the Chicago and New York City
fire departments, UL, NIST and the other research partners attend each
year to deliver the findings of this research to the American fire
service. We call it ``bringing science to the streets'' and our goal is
to make sure that the firefighters that arrive at your door in your
time of need come with the set of strategies, tactics, and skills that
best equip them to safely and effectively combat the fire they will
face. The first and most important part of reaching that goal is to
make sure our students understand the scope and magnitude of the
changes in the modern fire environment. I hope to convey some sense of
that change to you as well in the brief time that I have with you
today. I will keep it simple: Stuff. More stuff. More stuff made of
plastic (petroleum). More stuff made of plastic with a built in air
supply (polyurethane foam, i.e., furniture). All of this stuff is fuel
and we are packing more and more of it into the boxes that we live in.
How this stuff and these boxes behave, interact and maintain their
integrity under fire conditions goes largely unregulated so long as the
box is labeled ``one or two family occupancy'' and the stuff is
intended to be used by the people that occupy it. It should come as no
surprise to us that most fire deaths occur in one- and two-family
(read, ``unregulated'') occupancies. The statistics that support these
statements are readily available and accessible from the National Fire
Protection Association, UL, NIST, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health, etc.
In 1903, 605 people died in the Iroquois Theater fire in Chicago.
In 1911, 146 died in the Triangle Shirt Waist fire in New York City.
There were 294 deaths in the Consolidated School fire of 1937; 492 in
the Coconut Grove Supper Club of 1942; and 100 in the Station Night
Club fire of 2003. Indeed, the 10 largest single building fatal fires
over the last century total more than 2,800 deaths. Of course we are
all aware of the 2,666 lives lost at the fires of September 11. Each of
these tragedies, as well as many like them throughout our history,
brought about a response that was proportionate to the scope and
magnitude of the event. Perhaps the most important part of the response
to each of these events and those like them were the significant
changes made in the way we design, build, inspect, and otherwise
regulate the buildings we occupy and the things we put in them. We can
and should be proud of the way we respond, as a society, to the
disasters and tragedies that befall our communities.
However, the tragedy that is the yearly fire death toll in the
United States goes unaddressed, largely because it goes unrecognized.
Each and every year, between 2,500 and 3,000 people die in fires in
the United States. That's more than died in the September 11 attacks
and more than died in the 10 most tragic fires in our history, and it
happens year, after year, after year. Eighty-five percent of these fire
deaths occur in homes and they most often occur in one- and two-family
homes. Hence, those of you who aren't professionally attuned to the
situation are not familiar with the scope and magnitude of the problem.
I hope my testimony today will help bring it to the forefront for a
time. Statistically, three people died in fires while you slept last
night. Another will die while we are here discussing the merits of the
issues before us. Three more will die by the time you make your way
home tonight, end your day and return to sleep. Tomorrow and every day
will be just like today; unless and until we do something different
about the way we build, protect, and furnish homes in this country.
When I am teaching building construction to firefighters I make it
a point to focus on the hazards of lightweight construction practices
used in single family homes and I always begin and end by telling them,
``it ain't about the gusset plates''. Gusset plates are a fastening
method that has replaced traditional nails in lightweight wood truss
construction. The fire service frequently points to them as the cause
of early collapse of floor and roof systems in buildings using these
systems. What I mean to convey to them with this phrase is that they
need focus less on the components and more on the totality of the
changes to the built environment and the fuel loads placed in them.
Similarly, I encourage you not to get lost in the weeds of which
methods of reducing residential fire loss and fire death are the most
efficient, effective or environmentally friendly. While the effects of
adding fire-retardant chemicals to extruded foams and fills has been
shown to be of limited value, this does not preclude the use of
retardants in any and all circumstances. Most approaches to reducing
fire growth and propagation in furniture and finishes have value and
they should all be investigated and pursued. The mattress industry has
demonstrated that an approach that applies a variety of methodologies
is most likely to sustain its success over the long run.
Most tragedies, and certainly those that arise around accidents in
the home, are not the result of gross negligence or malice on anyone's
part. Rather, they are the sum of what my colleague Vicki Schmidt, a
volunteer firefighter and State fire instructor in Maine refers to as
the ``pitter-patter of little defeats''; those individually minor
errors and omissions that we allow to accumulate and coalesce into a
tragic event.
Please permit me to outline for you what I believe to be some
effective guidance for meeting the challenge before you. Increased
residential fire safety requires:
Reducing Ignition Sources.--Today this is largely an issue
related to behaviors including smoking, alcohol use, and open
flames such as candles, etc.
--Reducing the development and propagation of fires that do occur
by addressing the flammability and fire development
characteristics of home furnishings and finish materials,
particularly those that use or contain extruded
polyurethane foam and related materials.
--Reducing the impact of fires that do occur upon the occupants
through more thorough and effective regulations requiring
active (i.e., residential sprinkler systems) and passive
fire protection and detection systems in homes.
--Reducing the impact of fires that do occur upon the structural
system of the home by requiring structural assemblies used
in one- and two-family homes to be protected in the same
way they are required to be protected in other occupancies.
--Enabling the American fire service to do our job more safely and
effectively by doing all of the above.
In closing, I wish to assure you that the challenge is not as
difficult as you may think. Indeed the problem has already been solved.
Look around you. This is a fire-safe building. We have applied the
lessons of the past and the appropriate science and technology to
design an assembly occupancy that provides a safe and secure
environment for its occupants. We can do the same for residential
occupancies. We have the knowledge and the technology to meet all the
challenges, whether they be temporal, behavioral, financial, or
environmental. All we need is the will to act. Thank you.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Van Dorpe, and thank you for
what you do for a living. Men and women like you all across
America keep us safe. We're grateful.
Mr. Van Dorpe. Thank you, Sir.
Seventy-five percent of the American fire service is
volunteer.
Senator Durbin. I know that. I know in Chicago we have a
great fire department. We also, downstate, have a lot of great
fire departments and volunteer efforts.
So thank you very much.
One of the things which was noted earlier, I want to
mention to you. Tony Stefani, president of San Francisco Cancer
Prevention Fund said in a recent study, ``Firefighters show
blood levels of PDBEs'', these fire-retardant chemicals, ``over
30 percent higher than the general population of California,
and 60 percent higher than the general population of the United
States.''
One firefighter had a PDBE level 11 times greater than
average for the general population. And the concentrations in
the United States are 20 to 30 times higher than found in the
general population of Japan, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom.
So there is an environmental aspect to this, the exposure
of your men and women as firefighters to these fire-retardant
chemicals, which I guess Mr. Stefani is making a point to show
us may have some long-term negative health impact.
Has there been any effort underway to measure this beyond
his effort?
Mr. Van Dorpe. UL has conducted some smoke particulate
studies. They began, I believe, in 2007. Those continue to
today.
One of the things that we're finding is that, even when we
wear all of our respiratory protection, we're still exposed to
chemicals through dermal exposure. This stuff is migrating
through our skins and into our bodies.
So the problem for us is getting more and more complex all
the time. Every time we think we get a handle on how to deal
with our exposure to chemicals, we find that there's another
exposure out there.
Senator Durbin. And you probably read the Chicago Tribune
series, that there was a group calling themselves Friends of
Firefighters who were testifying for the use of these flame-
retardant chemicals. They were challenged. They had something
to do with the State of Vermont, at least they said they did,
but they were challenged as to whether they were speaking for
firefighters or for the chemical industry.
Mr. Van Dorpe. I'm not familiar with the group.
Senator Durbin. It's a point I hope you'll take a look at.
Mr. Schaefer, just for the record, you've stated it in
general terms, but in politics and in the Chicago Tribune
series, we follow the money.
Where was the money engaged in each of these undertakings?
Why did the tobacco industry decide they wanted to push
flammability in furniture rather than a fire-safe cigarette?
Why did the chemical industry want to push certain fire-
retardant chemicals? What was the role of the furniture
industry and such?
So, for the record, when it comes to UL, who is paying for
your efforts in research?
Mr. Schaefer. For our efforts, they're self-funded through
our public safety mission fund. Sometimes we do research work
in partnership with organizations like NIST, and there, there
would be grants and so on.
But for the most part, the research work we do is self-
funded in the interest of advancing our safety mission.
Senator Durbin. And to make it clear for the record, there
are two approaches where--well, three, actually: legacy
furniture, which was different than the furniture that we buy
today; then furniture treated with fire-retardant chemicals,
which you said does not produce any measurable impact of
safety; and then barriers, which I assume is some sort of a
cloth or fabric or something that stops the fire from spreading
into the furniture. Three different levels, if I've got that
correct.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Durbin. And the barriers, you say, don't
necessarily have to include fire-retardant chemicals?
Mr. Schaefer. That's right, the barrier could be
constructed even out of fiberglass, what you would see in
insulation in your homes, so it's basically a neutral material.
And there are other technologies that don't use flame
retardants with barriers.
Senator Durbin. I'm sorry, Senator Lautenberg missed the
video. We want to make sure he gets a chance to see it later,
but it was very dramatic in showing the difference in each.
So, Mr. Counts, as I understand what you're saying here,
TB-117, the California standard relative to flame-retardant
chemicals, kind of became a national standard, because
furniture makers who are selling a lot of furniture in
California are all around the country.
And now what I hear is, based on scientific evidence, the
industry is backing away from the use of these chemicals, and
the Governor in California has raised questions about the
standard itself.
So I guess my basic question is, when it comes to furniture
flammability today, is the furniture industry looking at their
products in a different way in terms of how to make them safe,
and not introduce toxic chemicals that may endanger customers?
Mr. Counts. Yes, Senator, we are.
In my written testimony, I noted that, in 2005, the
furniture industry voluntarily phased out the use of PBDEs in
our upholstery foam. EPA took action on that later in 2010, I
believe.
So we're monitoring very closely European studies. We're
working with our suppliers to make sure that all the research
is available that's possible, working with Arlene Blum and
others at Cal Berkeley, just to identify what chemicals may be
trending at potential issues, and we look to phase those out as
we can. And we'll be working with California on their new
smoldering initiative as well.
Senator Durbin. So you referred to something which I know
nothing about, ASTM-1353, instead of the California TB-117.
Is this a new standard in terms of flammability and the
safety of furniture you're recommending to CPSC and you think
should be an industry standard?
Mr. Counts. ASTM-1353 is the embodiment of the Upholstered
Furniture Action Council standard that was developed in 1977 to
address smolder ignition.
If you look at the statistics on smolder ignition and the
trends that I mentioned in my testimony, that along with smoke
detectors and changing in lifestyles, decreasing smoking, et
cetera, has added to the decrease in the trend there.
So that is the standard that we're looking to adopt.
Senator Durbin. Officer Van Dorpe said something, which I
thought to myself, I never thought of even looking for this.
But he suggested, in his five things to make our homes safer,
one of them is that we should be more sensitive to the
furniture we buy, in terms of whether or not it is fire safe.
I cannot recall furniture ever being labeled fire safe. Is
that something your industry does, advertises?
Mr. Counts. There is a UFAC hangtag that you can find on
furniture, typically the retailer might not like hang tags on
their furniture, and they'll rip that off, and you can't find
it. There's the California TB-117 tag that's on there,
occasionally. But those are the two standards.
Senator Durbin. I'll bet you there aren't a half a dozen
people in this room that would know what that meant if they saw
it hanging from the back of a chair. I wouldn't have until this
hearing.
Mr. Counts. Well, the hangtag is fairly descriptive, but
like I said, sometimes it doesn't make it to the consumer.
Senator Durbin. All right. Thank you much.
And that's the point I wanted to get to, Mr. Van Dorpe, is
when it comes to our knowledge of what we're buying and whether
it's safe, most consumers may not think of it, number one; and
number two, wouldn't know what to look for.
Is there something that the firefighters recommend, in
terms of that choice?
Mr. Van Dorpe. For a very long time, and this might be a
little off topic, but for a very long time, the building
industry said to the fire service, when we were concerned about
the lightweight construction and taking mass out of buildings,
where's your data, where's your data?
We finally have the data now, thanks to you all. So we've
changed that discussion.
And oftentimes we hear when we talk about fire safety in
the homes and sprinkler systems and fire-safe furniture and
things like that, where the industries will say to us, well,
consumers won't pay for that. I think we need to start asking
them, where's your data?
Has anybody really asked? I mean, you can buy the safest
car on the planet. There are manufacturers that will advertise
their cars that way, ``We sell you the safest car. You'll pay a
little more for it, but we promise you it's the safest car.''
We can do the same approach with our homes. We can sell
fire-safe homes. We can sell fire-safe furniture. You want a
five-star home or a four-star home? What's the difference? One
is more fire safe than the other.
We haven't even made the attempt, and we really should.
Senator Durbin. Good point.
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry I missed the testimony of all of the witnesses. They
bring good information to us.
Chief Van Dorpe, firefighters are called on to rush into
homes that are burning on a regular basis. Inside those homes
are hundreds of household products--we talked about that--
including many that contain chemicals.
Now, could we protect the health of the firefighters by
reforming our Federal chemical laws to reduce toxic substances
in the homes?
Before you answer, I want to tell you something that I
worked on some years ago. We had a fire in Elizabeth, New
Jersey. And there's a lot of chemicals produced in the State of
New Jersey.
And a couple of firemen were going into the burning
building and their uniforms; their protective uniforms began to
melt. And it was then that I wrote a law called ``Right to
Know'', which became the law.
And when you think about the sofas and fire retardants and
things of that nature that work against safe opportunities in
fighting a fire, and the Right to Know.
And in this case, I just wonder, is there something that we
might do that would change the nomenclature on fire retardants
and on every sofa, everything, have a defining message that
says, hey, be careful, that this can accelerate a fire
beginning because of the chemicals there? Is there anything
that you think your firefighter friends and the volunteers
might do to protect themselves by having more knowledge about
what's in these homes?
Mr. Van Dorpe. We can't have too much knowledge about the
environment that we're operating in. And that environment is
getting more and more complex all the time.
The challenge that we face is that, in the residential
market, as soon as you start talking about our homes, most of
the regulations, both for building codes and the restrictive
regulations, go away. And that's where most of our fires are,
and that's where most of our fire deaths are, and that's where
most of our exposures are.
So what American fire service needs for you to do is to
take what we already know about making buildings safer, making
products safer, and apply that to all products, not just to
those that are in hotels or in assembly buildings or other
places, but across the board.
We know how to do this. The mattress industry has
demonstrated it.
In Europe, England, and in the United Kingdom, if you
Google ``home fire'', you know, home furniture fires, most of
your responses come back with United Kingdom references,
because they've done the work, they've laid the groundwork and
they've implemented a lot of these lessons.
So the information is out there. We just need to apply it.
Senator Lautenberg. What happened on 9/11, New Jersey lost
700 of its citizens in that calamitous occasion. But we still
have had consequences of exposure by firemen and other
emergency personnel. Still now, there are lots of them being
treated and deaths are taking place because of the effects of
the fumes and the dust and all of that.
And what happens when the toxic fumes are coming out there,
black smoke, when they're burning? What happens to those who
are trying to do their job, trying to save lives? What steps
has your department taken to protect your firefighters from
these health risks, these exposures?
Mr. Van Dorpe. We're doing several things, one of which is
to ensure full encapsulation of the firefighters, the less skin
we have exposed--the standard today is zero, no exposed skin--
the less chemical exposure you have. Increasing our use of
respiratory protection all the time, not just some of the time
or when we think we really need it.
And then the other thing we do, we launder our equipment on
a regular basis, because we find that if you don't do that,
then those chemicals stay in your clothing, and then every time
you put them on, you're re-exposing yourself, whether you're in
a fire or not. So our turnout gear, our firefighting gear, gets
laundered on a regular basis.
So we're taking what constructive steps we can to reduce
that chemical exposure.
Senator Lautenberg. Last question for me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schaefer, UL research suggests that flame-retardant
chemicals in foam furniture do not provide significant
benefits.
Based on your analysis, do you think there are safer and
more effective ways than fire retardants to reduce fire
hazards?
Mr. Schaefer. Fire retardants or alternate means?
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Mr. Schaefer. Yes, there are safe alternative ways, such as
the use of fire barriers, where we saw very vividly there was a
significant difference in the fire performance of furniture.
Senator Lautenberg. Define, if you would, a fire hazard.
What would you define as a fire barrier?
Mr. Schaefer. A fire barrier is basically an inner covering
that's placed over the foam material, for example. So it
provides a shield, basically, between the source of the
ignition, which could be the outer covering of the furniture,
and the foam content.
And this technology has been used very effectively by the
mattress industry, where they were also looking at flammability
issues. And there's probably no piece of furniture that's in
more intimate contact with a human being.
And they found, through the use of fire barriers, they
could meet the flammability requirements and at the same time
not introduce flame-retardant chemicals.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I want to say thanks for
bringing this subcommittee hearing up, because there's so much
going on. And it took a Chicago Tribune expose to really bring
attention to one part of the thing that is never visible--you
don't know--discharging toxic chemicals into the air, just by
sitting on a sofa or something like that.
But we have to continue. When you talk about the number of
deaths, Chief, that occur every day in the country as a result
of fires, we've got to wake up to the alarm.
Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Lautenberg. And thanks for
your leadership on this.
Mr. Schaefer, before I conclude, I am struck by the fact
that, though I'm a fan of CPSC--and we recently put a reform in
place, we're now investing more Federal funds in the CPSC than
we have ever, and I trust its leadership--when I listen to the
fact that this started in 2003, this investigation, and it
still isn't over, isn't finished--you talked about starting in
2008 and apparently getting into a lot more the impact of
flame-retardant chemicals and ignition of furniture and so
forth--I think I know the answer to this, and I think I may end
up looking in a mirror, why is it that the CPSC takes so long
to reach a conclusion, when, in your business, your not-for-
profit undertaking, you seem to be able to do it in a shorter
period of time?
Mr. Schaefer. I really can't comment what impacted CPSC. I
do know, with other work we've done, there can be challenges
with getting consistent, uniform test sample foams and things
like that. I could speculate. I know there were considerable
issues with import safety that came up in the last few years,
and I'm sure that diverted some energy. And I know there were
also funding challenges for CPSC in past years.
But I think, and this is where this subcommittee is to be
applauded, sometimes it takes a spotlight on an issue to really
get it elevated and acted upon.
Senator Durbin. I still remember Chairman Tenenbaum's
statement that they worked for 2 years to find a standard
cigarette to use to determine whether the fire was being
started in the proper way or in a consistent way. And 2 years
seems like a long time to me, as a layman.
But let me just say thank you to this panel.
And, Chief, thank you very much.
Mr. Counts, thank you for your statements on behalf of the
furniture industry.
Mr. Schaefer, very proud of UL, the work that you do in our
State and around the country.
We wouldn't be here today were it not for the Chicago
Tribune series. It really opened the eyes, not only of people
in the Midwest, but all across the country and beyond about a
very, very serious issue that affects every family with
furniture. That's just about all of us. And every family that's
concerned about that public health of the people living in
their homes. Again, just about all of us.
And when it comes right down to it, I think what we found
is there was, sadly, an unfortunate political effort under way
to promote the use of chemicals in certain applications, which
did not make us any safer. In fact, it endangered the public
health of America.
It was a sinister and, in many respects, shameful exercise
of our political system that led to the status that we found
ourselves in with these chemicals being used widely in the
belief that they were keeping us safer.
We've learned a lot. And I think what I've heard today, the
furniture industry and everyone has learned a lot in the
process. I just hope that we can understand at the end there is
a legitimate oversight role for Government, to take a look at
the private sector and to keep us safe, whether it's the CPSC
or EPA or many other agencies. And we have to make sure that we
safeguard that, regardless of the administration, and make sure
that we have the resources to deal with the challenges we face
to get people the certainty they need in their lives.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
I'm going to ask unanimous consent that statements from the
San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation and the
U.S. Fire Administration be included in the record.
Since there's no one here to object, that's going to
happen.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention
Foundation
Honorable members of the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Subcommittee: First, I would like to apologize for not
being physically present at this meeting. I had a previous commitment
that I had to keep.
I would like to give you a little history about myself and the San
Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation before my written
testimony.
I am a retired Captain from the San Francisco Fire Department
(SFFD) with 28 years of service. I spent the last 13 years of my career
as an officer at Rescue 1, Station 1 and proud to say one of the
busiest firehouses in the United States. After 26 years on the job, I
contracted Transitional Cell Carcinoma in my right renal pelvis--a rare
form of cancer usually found in people who work in the ``chemical
industry'' according to my doctor. During my treatment and recovery,
two more firefighters from my station also contracted Transitional Cell
Carcinoma--only the common form, bladder cancer. It also seemed like
every month we were attending a funeral of another firefighter that had
lost his battle with some form of cancer. In 2006, with the support of
the department's administration and San Francisco Firefighters Local
798, I formed the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention
Foundation dedicated to the early detection and prevention of cancer in
both active and retired firefighters. Since its inception we have
conducted five major cancer screenings. Through these screenings we
have identified five retired firefighters and one active firefighter
with various forms of cancer. At the time of the screenings these
individuals were not aware they had cancer.
Our foundation has also been involved in three studies. The first
study (published in 2007) was conducted by the Department of Urology at
UCSF and identified bladder cancer rates in the SFFD greater than the
population in general and of major concern for the entire firefighting
profession.
Our second study is currently being conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) looking at causes of death in a
cohort of 30,000 firefighters (5,538 participants from SFFD; 15,461
from Chicago Fire; and 10,652 from Philadelphia Fire) dating back to
1950. The study should be published with results sometime in 2014.
The third study is one that I will highlight in my testimony. It
will be published very soon. The title of the study is ``Halogenated
Flame Retardants, Dioxins, Furans, and Other Persistent Organic
Pollutants in Serum of Firefighters from Northern California''. The
``Firefighters from Northern California'' that it refers to is a cohort
of 12 firefighters from San Francisco. I have been given permission by
one of the lead researchers, Susan D. Shaw, DPH, to discuss various
findings of the study.
The question posed by Senator Durbin: ``How has the use of flame-
retardant chemicals affected the lives of firefighters and their
ability to do their jobs?''
We must first remember that firefighters are exposed everyday in
the same manner that the population in general is to the effects of
flame retardants that escape from household products and settle in dust
whether it be in the workplace or at home . . . But once a firefighter
enters a burning building it is a completely different set of
circumstances.
Firefighters are fully aware that we work in a ``chemical
cocktail'' every time we enter a building on fire. Does that hinder the
fire extinguishment? The definitive answer is, ``Absolutely not.'' It
is our job to extinguish the fire, preserve life and property, and get
the job done. The firefighters' biggest fear is what occurs once the
fire is extinguished and the ``overhaul'' process begins. It is during
this period of time where ``off gassing'' occurs. Products of
combustion have been extinguished but the emission of toxic gases
continues. Most departments have Combustion Gases Indicators (CGIs)
that are used to measure various toxins in the atmosphere once a fire
is extinguished. Once the CGI indicates a ``clear'' atmosphere,
firefighters are allowed to remove their scuba gear. The problem with
this is that the CGIs have the ability to pick up a few toxic gases,
but nowhere near the 100-plus toxic gases that remain in the
atmosphere. We are now being told that even if all personal protective
equipment remains in place brominated and chlorinated fire retardants
have the ability to permeate the protective equipment worn by
firefighters. Additionally, if this protective equipment is not
properly decontaminated immediately when returning to quarters,
firefighters risk continual exposures every time they don the
protective equipment.
Flame-retardant chemicals (Polybrominated diphenylethers [PBDE])
are applied onto or in many common household goods, furniture foam,
plastic cabinets, computers, small appliances, consumer electronics,
wire insulation, back coatings for draperies, and upholstery to name a
few. These gases are not picked up by CGIs. These chlorinated and
brominated flame retardants produce both toxic dioxins and furans when
they burn which have been proven to cause cancer. The significantly
elevated rates of cancer reported in firefighters (Kang et al. 2008,
LeMasters et al. 2006, Hansen 1990) include four types that are
potentially related to exposure to dioxins and furans:
--Multiple myeloma;
--Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma;
--prostrate; and
--testicular cancer.
A question that lingers in our profession is do these chemicals
combine synergistically with other toxins in the atmosphere and
exacerbate the effect of other toxic carcinogens? What we do know is
that our rate of contracting various forms of cancer is increasing. We
are also fully aware that these flame-retardant chemicals bioaccumulate
in our blood, fat tissue, and in mother's milk.
Through our foundation, SFFD participated in a study examining the
levels and patterns of halogenated compounds in the serum of the
firefighters and compares contaminant concentrations in this cohort
with those in the general population and other studies in the United
States and worldwide. The cohort included 12 firefighters who willingly
gave blood after two separate fires in San Francisco.
The study of our firefighters showed levels of PBDEs more than 30
percent more than the general population of California and more than 60
percent more than the general population of the United States. We had
one firefighter with a PBDE level of 442ng/g of lipid weight which is
11 times greater than the average of the general population of the
United States. The PBDE concentration in San Francisco firefighters was
20-30 times higher than levels found in the general population of Japan
(Uemura et al. 2010), Hong Kong (Qin et al. 2011) and the United
Kingdom (Thomas et al. 2006). With this information we are now hoping
for a much broader study to take place.
Another issue that has to be addressed in regards to flame
retardants is the rising cases of breast cancer we are seeing in our
female firefighters in San Francisco. We have more than 200 female
firefighters in San Francisco--the most of any major metropolitan city
in the United States. Many of these women are nearing the age of
retirement. To our knowledge there have been no major studies in
regards to the health of female firefighters mainly because they have
only been in the profession for 40-plus years. In our 40-49-year-old
group of female firefighters we have 117 women. In that group we have
had eight cases of breast cancer. The national average of breast cancer
for the 40-49-year-old female group is 1 in 69. It is a known fact that
PBDEs bioaccumulate in mother's milk in the general population. It is
also known that PBDEs are neurodevelopmental toxicants. The unknown is
what level of PBDEs is in the mother's milk of a female firefighter and
what effect that is having on their children. Our foundation is in the
preliminary stages of a study addressing the health issues of our
female firefighters.
As far as the benefits of flame retardants, I think Dale Ray, a top
official with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who oversaw the
2009 tests at a laboratory outside Washington summed it up best in the
Chicago Tribune series on flame retardants when he stated, ``We did not
find flame retardants in foam to provide any significant protection.
Moreover, the amount of smoke from both chair fires (one treated, one
not treated) was similar''. Ray noted that most fire victims die of
smoke inhalation, not the flames.
It is probably to late for this generation of firefighters to be
protected by a change in the current toxic flame-retardant standard.
But the generations of firefighters to come will be forever thankful
that this very important step was taken.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Fire Administration
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to address this hearing and to provide the views of the
United States Fire Administration (USFA) on the topic of furniture
flammability and home fire safety. I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss these important issues, which are of growing concern to the
USFA.
background
Over the past 40 years, the number of lives lost fighting fires
across the United States has decreased dramatically. In 1971, this
Nation lost more than 12,000 citizens and 250 firefighters to fire.
Acting to halt these tragic losses, the Congress passed Public Law 93-
498, the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act, in 1974, which
established the USFA. Since that time, through data collection, public
education, research and training, USFA has helped reduce fire deaths by
more than one-half--making our communities and our citizens safer.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USFA Web site; http://www.usfa.fema.gov/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In spite of these efforts, America's fire death rate continues to
be one of the highest per capita in the industrialized world. Fire
kills approximately 3,500 people and injures another 18,300 each year.
Included in these fire fatalities are the approximately 100
firefighters who die on duty each year. Direct property losses due to
fire reach more than $12 billion a year. Most of these deaths and
losses are preventable.\1\
More than 80 percent of fire deaths occur in homes, an environment
where citizens expect that they should be most safe. USFA is
increasingly concerned about current trends that portend a looming
catastrophe for the Nation: an aging population combined with changes
in residential construction and use of highly flammable materials that
create tremendous risk for fast-burning fires.
A summary of USFA's concerns is outlined below:
--Since the 1960s and 1970s, materials used in home furniture and
furnishings have changed dramatically. Furniture fabrication
has changed. Furniture that was once made with heavy wood
frames, cotton batting, and wool fabric is now made with light
wood or plastic frames, polyurethane foam, and synthetic
fabric. Fires involving this newer furniture grow much, much
faster than fires in older furniture. Research has shown that
the time available to escape a flaming fire in a home has
decreased significantly from 17 minutes in 1975 to only 3
minutes in 2003; a change that has been attributed to the
increased combustibility of home furnishings.\2\ Carpets,
draperies, clothing, entertainment systems, computers, and many
other items commonly found in homes are also made of synthetic
materials that have similar burning characteristics in an
established fire in a home. Many of these materials are
required to pass tests for resistance to small sources of
ignition, but once ignited, they burn fast and hot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bukowski, R.W., et al., Performance of Home Smoke Alarms:
Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in
Residential Fire Settings, NIST Technical Note 1455-1, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, February
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The significant changes in the materials found in our homes are not
limited to the contents and furnishings that occupants bring
into their homes. Important building elements are now made of
synthetic materials that burn faster and hotter than
traditional construction materials. Vinyl siding and exterior
finishes, window and door frames, doors, foam insulation board,
and other components made of synthetic materials all contribute
to faster fire spread. Though some of these items are required
to pass tests for resistance to ignition, they too, burn
rapidly once lighted.
--The past 30 years have seen a dramatic increase in the use of
lightweight construction assemblies such as trusses and other
engineered assemblies in home construction and remodeling.
These assemblies fail earlier during a fire than traditional
dimensional lumber, all other factors being equal. Failure of
these assemblies can result in structural collapse that
threatens the lives of both the building occupants and
responding firefighters.
--During this same time period, architects have made use of the wide
span capabilities of these engineered structural assemblies to
create remarkable and spacious home plans. These large wide-
open spaces allow for faster fire development than smaller
rooms found in older homes.
--Recent advances in energy conservation features have also had an
impact on how a fire grows in a home. As a result of
increasingly air-tight window and door fixtures, among other
efficiency improvements, firefighters are experiencing an
increase in the number of serious events such as ``backdrafts''
and ``smoke explosions'' that threaten the lives of both
trapped occupants and firefighters.
Despite the many benefits to the advances in building technologies
and materials in modern times, these advances have developed over time
without expectation or analysis of the resultant cumulative effect on
occupant safety from fire within residences. The resulting adverse
impact to fire safety was not anticipated.
While many in the fire service have long-recognized the potential
impact of changes in building technologies and material construction,
only in recent years have the risks associated with these issues come
under investigation. Recent research clearly shows that these
innovations have dramatically changed the way a fire develops, grows,
and spreads in a home. Fires in homes today develop, grow, and spread
faster than ever before.
Concurrent with this dramatic change in the development and
behavior of fires in the home, we are beginning to experience the much-
heralded aging of our population. As we age, we become less able to
awaken to the sound of a smoke alarm \3\ \4\ \5\ and we are less able
to move quickly. The significant reduction in time available to escape
a home fire combined with the declining sensory and mobility
characteristics of older citizens is a recipe for disaster. USFA is
concerned that the reductions in the number of fire deaths and injuries
made over the last 40 years could be overcome by the potential for loss
of life as a result of this deadly combination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A Review of the Sound Effectiveness of Residential Smoke
Alarms, CPSC-ES-0502, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, December
2004.
\4\ Geiman, J.A., and D.T. Gottuk, Reducing Fire Deaths in Older
Adults: Optimizing the Smoke Alarm Signal, Fire Protection Research
Foundation, Quincy, Massachusetts, May 2006.
\5\ Bruck, D.A., I. Thomas, and , A. Kritikos, Reducing Fire Deaths
in Older Adults: Investigation of Auditory Arousal with Different Alarm
Signals in Sleeping Older Adults, Fire Protection Research Foundation,
Quincy, Massachusetts, May 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
situation
Citizens, firefighters, elected officials, and others across
America share the USFA's concern over the relatively high number of
fire deaths in America's homes, and the changing nature of fire hazards
in our homes. The fire problem is becoming more complex, and it
continues to defy simple fixes, despite the desire to find easy
answers. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is taking on the
important task of reducing the adverse impact of one of the known
factors adding to the home fire hazard problem, the flammability of
upholstered furniture. They are doing so with scientific research and
consideration by agencies such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
UL has recently completed an extensive project on furniture
flammability. While UL's work has not been fully published at this
time, what we have seen demonstrates beyond all doubt that modern
furniture presents a much greater fire challenge than the furniture
used by our grandparents. While it is not the only way to improve fire
performance of upholstered furniture, the positive impact that the
current fire barrier technology can provide was clearly demonstrated in
this work.
NIST has done outstanding multidimensional work addressing the
subject of furniture flammability, and is continuing to explore several
avenues that show great promise. USFA applauds the work done at NIST
and looks forward to ongoing collaboration with their research team.
CPSC has proposed a regulatory approach that is based on the best
science currently available. USFA supports the work that CPSC has done
on the topic and recognizes their effort as a thoughtful approach to
improving home fire safety by attacking one significant part,
flammability of upholstered furniture, of an increasingly complex
residential fire problem.
conclusion
USFA believes that the approach proposed by CPSC is an important
step in improving home fire safety, but that it is not a final
solution. As our collective understanding of the underlying science
improves, we anticipate that there will be opportunities for voluntary
improvements by the industry or a need for additional regulatory
actions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity to provide
the views of USFA on the topic of furniture flammability and home fire
safety. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues, and look
forward to providing further information as requested.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Durbin. We're going to keep the record open for 1
week, until noon on Wednesday, July 24. We may be sending you
some questions along the way, follow-up questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the witnesses for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Inez M. Tenenbaum
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
consumer product safety commission's upholstered furniture flammability
standard
Question. In your testimony, you reference that much of the delay
has resulted from the necessity of developing standard reference
materials (such as standard cigarettes or standard foam) for testing.
Are there remaining standard reference materials that need to be
developed before you can move forward with finalizing the proposed
rule?
Answer. The research to determine the specifications for Standard
Reference Material (SRM) foam was completed in July 2012. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) staff is working with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology and manufacturers to acquire SRM
foam for testing as soon as possible. The staff also may conduct some
additional work to select the best standard cover fabric for testing in
accordance with the proposed rule.
Question. Under the rulemaking authorities that you currently have,
what steps still remain in order to complete the standard, and what is
your best estimate of when the standard might be completed?
Answer. The remaining steps in the rulemaking include:
--testing to determine the necessary revisions to finalize the
proposed rule;
--testing the materials subject to the proposed rule to determine
that compliance can be achieved;
--evaluating furniture constructed with compliant materials to
estimate the reduction of deaths and injuries that could result
from the proposed rule; and
--drafting the text of the final rule and developing the final
regulatory analysis.
The staff will also continue to work cooperatively with the State
of California's Bureau of Electronic & Appliance Repair, Home
Furnishings & Thermal Insulation (BEARHFTI) as that agency proceeds
with its work to revise Technical Bulletin 117 (CA TB 117). TB 117
currently contains performance standards that effectively require the
use of flame retardants in upholstered furniture. Future changes in TB
117 could have an impact on the rulemaking proceeding. With those
caveats, CPSC staff estimates, subject to Commission direction,
completion of the final rule in 2015.
california technical bulletin 117
Question. What role does California TB 117 (CA TB 117) play with
regard to your efforts to finalize a standard for upholstered furniture
flammability?
Answer. There is a high degree of compliance with CA TB 117, not
only in California, but also across the Nation. The existing CA TB 117
is essentially a de facto national standard. CPSC staff continues to
work cooperatively with BEARHFTI on possible revisions to CA TB 117,
and elements of the Commission's proposed rule are incorporated into
California's latest draft revised regulation, known as CA TB 117-2012.
As CPSC moves forward with its own rulemaking, the Commission staff
will continue to monitor CA TB 117-2012 developments and will consider
the potential effects of a revised California regulation on the level
of consumer safety.
Question. Does the fact that the California Governor recently
ordered that CA TB 117 be revised impact your efforts?
Answer. The revision of CA TB 117 will not impede CPSC's efforts to
address the fire risk associated with ignitions of upholstered
furniture. Throughout the upholstered furniture rulemaking process,
CPSC staff has always envisioned a rule that does not require the use
of flame retardants to meet performance standards. Revising or removing
the open-flame requirement of CA TB 117 would eliminate the practical
need for manufacturers to use flame retardants in upholstered furniture
sold in California and across the United States. Accordingly, CPSC
staff is carefully monitoring the progress of the CA TB 117 revision
efforts.
Question. What will be the effect if CA TB 117 is completed prior
to your standard?
Answer. As required under the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA), CPSC
preliminarily determined that the proposed rule was needed to address
an unreasonable risk of fire injury or death to the public when it
issued a proposed rule in 2008. The proposed rule included an
assessment of reasonable alternatives to the proposal, including
reliance upon the existing California regulations. If a revised TB 117-
2012 were completed prior to our rule, CPSC would need to evaluate the
revision to determine whether a Federal rule is still needed to address
the fire risk.
Question. If California fails in their efforts to update CA TB 117,
can CPSC preempt CA TB 117 with your proposed rule?
Answer. In general, section 16 of the FFA provides that whenever a
flammability standard or other regulation for a product is in effect
under the FFA, no State may establish or continue in effect a
flammability standard or other regulation for that product, if the
standard or regulation is designed to protect against the same risk of
occurrence of fire as the FFA standard or regulation, unless the State
standard or regulation is identical to the FFA standard or regulation.
Because the CPSC rule and CA TB 117 are both designed to address the
same unreasonable risk of occurrence of fire presented by flammable
upholstered furniture, any Federal rule by CPSC would have preemptive
effect. I should note, however, that the decision as to whether our
rule has preemptive effect ultimately will be determined by the courts.
response to american home furnishings alliance recommendations
Question. The American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA) recommends
that CPSC immediately adopt American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) 1353 as a Federal mandatory standard while continuing work on
the CPSC proposed standard?
Answer. The Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC) voluntary
guidelines are based on tests prescribed in the ASTM E1353 test method.
The vast majority of upholstered furniture sold in the United States
conforms to the voluntary guidelines. While some elements of the CPSC's
proposed flammability performance tests are similar to the ASTM 1353
standard, CPSC staff reviewed the ASTM/UFAC approach and concluded that
it was inadequate because conforming furniture can still ignite and
burn from smoldering cigarettes. The CPSC proposal incorporated
significant improvements to the ASTM/UFAC method and is more stringent.
Mandating the ASTM E1353 method, as embodied in the current UFAC
guidelines, would impose modest costs, but also provide only negligible
safety benefits.
Question. How does ASTM 1353 differ from what CPSC is proposing?
Answer. There are two principal, substantive differences between
the ASTM tests and the smoldering ignition tests in CPSC's proposed
rule. The first involves relatively small differences in the test
methods themselves. The second involves larger differences in the
acceptance criteria that determine the stringency of the performance
tests.
With regard to the test methods, the ASTM method measures char
length from the lit cigarette placed on an upholstery mockup. The
mockup is encased in a box that artificially restricts airflow to an
unrealistically low rate. The cover fabric is classified as either
``Class 1'' or ``Class 2'' based on the char length resulting from the
test. If the char is within the 2-inch specified length, the cover
fabric is Class 1 under the UFAC guidelines and may be used without
restriction; if the char exceeds the 2-inch specified length, the
fabric is Class 2 under the UFAC guidelines. For Class 2 fabrics, the
use of a smolder-resistant barrier (typically polyester batting)
beneath the cover fabric is prescribed to provide additional smolder
resistance for the finished article of furniture. The UFAC/ASTM
approach represents the status quo in the industry; virtually all
fabrics are classified as Class 1, although in tests conducted by CPSC
staff, some Class 1 fabrics were so smolder prone that they produced
dangerous smoldering or transitioned to flaming combustion even when a
polyester batting layer that would have been required for Class 2
fabrics was present.
The main difference is in the acceptance criteria. CPSC's proposed
rule classifies furniture as ``Type I'' or ``Type II'' based on
acceptance criteria of the proposed test. CPSC's proposed Type I
smoldering test for upholstery cover fabrics uses the basic UFAC/ASTM
mockup test configuration, but controls airflow without a box, limits
maximum allowable smoldering time to 45 minutes, and limits mass loss
of the (nonflame-retardant) polyurethane foam substrate beneath the
fabric to 10 percent. This test is a much better indicator of the
likelihood of continued combustion and fire growth, and it identifies
more effectively smolder-prone cover fabrics.
While most cover fabrics are still expected to pass the smoldering
resistance test and be used in complying, Type I furniture, fabrics
that fail the smolder-resistance test can only be used in Type II
furniture. Type II furniture is that which is constructed with a fire-
blocking barrier beneath the cover fabric. Compliant Type II barriers
must pass a stricter smolder-resistance test; they must also pass a
flame-resistance test that simulates the potential transition from
smoldering to flaming combustion.
Question. What is your response to AHFA's recommendation that your
proposed standard rely on the use of compliant components (individual
pieces that are used to construct the final furniture) instead of on
the use of composite testing (testing of the completed furniture)?
Answer. CPSC's proposed rule relies on the use of complying
component materials, rather than on composite assemblies, consistent
with AHFA's recommendation. The principal advantage of this approach is
economic efficiency-suppliers of the various components can test and
certify their materials, and furniture manufacturers can choose from
among many complying materials, without having to duplicate compliance
tests for each of thousands of potential combinations. Balanced against
the desire for low cost, however, is the need to ensure that complying
components will perform as intended when assembled into the wide range
of constructions and geometries in finished articles of upholstered
furniture. CPSC staff will continue to be mindful of these issues as
they move forward with the rulemaking.
flame-retardant chemicals
Question. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
jurisdiction over evaluating the toxicity of flame-retardant chemicals
under the Toxic Substance Control Act but, in 1977, CPSC attempted to
use their authority under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to ban
the use of a flame retardant--``tris'', a harmful carcinogen--from use
in children's clothing. Though the ban was overturned on procedural
grounds, could the CPSC use this authority to take similar steps to ban
the use of certain toxic flame-retardant chemicals in upholstered
furniture?
Answer. While EPA has authority to regulate flame-retardant
chemical risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act, CPSC has
authority under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) to regulate
a ``hazardous substance'', as defined in the FHSA, that is intended or
packaged in a form that is suitable for use in the household. In other
words, the CPSC does not regulate chemicals, but it can regulate a
product, such as upholstered furniture, if that product contains a
hazardous substance and the Commission is able to make the requisite
findings under the FHSA. See 15 U.S.C. 1261(f) and (q)(1)(B); 1262(f)
through (i).
CPSC staff has conducted risk assessments for fabric, foam, and
barrier flame retardants. Staff identified one foam flame retardant,
known as TDCP or ``chlorinated tris'', as a potential carcinogen. To
regulate upholstered furniture containing this or other flame
retardants under the FHSA, CPSC would have to find that upholstered
furniture containing the chemical is a ``hazardous substance'' under
the FHSA and that cautionary labeling would not adequately protect
public health and safety. A ``hazardous substance'', as defined in the
FHSA, includes a substance that is toxic and ``may cause substantial
personal injury or substantial illness during or as a proximate result
of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use.'' See 15
U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A). FHSA also requires, among other things, a final
regulatory analysis of the costs and benefits of the regulation, a
description of alternative approaches to regulation, as well as an
analysis of the costs and benefits of those alternatives, and why they
were not chosen as part of the final rule.
To date, CPSC staff has worked cooperatively with EPA staff outside
of the FHSA rulemaking context to identify and address potential risks
associated with a category of flame-retardant chemical compounds known
as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) that had been used in
upholstered furniture to meet CA TB 117. EPA proposed a Significant New
Use Rule (SNUR) for two PBDEs (penta- and octa-BDE) in 2004 and another
SNUR (deca-BDE) in 2012. Penta- and octa-BDEs are now out of
production, and deca-BDE production is expected to cease by December
31, 2013. Going forward, CPSC staff and EPA staff will continue to work
cooperatively on issues related to flame retardants.
______
Questions Submitted to James J. Jones
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
flame-retardant chemicals
Question. Tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCP) is the
chlorinated version of a chemical known as ``tris'' that the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) attempted to ban from children's
sleepwear in the late 1970s after it was found to be carcinogenic.
Despite its similarity to tris, TDCP is a widely used flame retardant
in furniture cushions and baby products. Along with components of
Firemaster 550, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has placed a
chlorinated flame retardant, Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP), on a
list of chemicals that will be reviewed next year under its Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) work plan. However, EPA did not place
TDCP on the list. Why not?
Answer. In March 2012, following the development of the ``TSCA Work
Plan Chemicals: Methods Document'', a screening process to identify
chemicals for review based on their combined hazard, exposure,
persistence, and bioaccumulation characteristics, EPA identified 83
work plan chemicals for risk assessment under TSCA.\1\ Of these, an
initial seven chemicals were identified for risk assessment development
in 2012.\2\ Although TDCP has chemical characteristics similar to other
flame retardants, it did not meet any of the specific listing criteria
identified in the TSCA Work Plan methods document. Specifically, it was
not identified as a known or probable human carcinogen by the
Integrated Risk Information System, International Agency for Research
on Cancer, or National Toxicology Program, and was not reported as
being in children's products through the 2006 Information Use Reporting
or the Washington State Children's List. Consumer products were not a
screening category for step 1 in the Work Plan development process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/wpmethods.pdf
\2\ http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/
workplans.html#2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 2012, EPA identified 18 additional chemicals from the
TSCA Work Plan, which the Agency intends to review and for which the
Agency will develop risk assessments in 2013 and 2014, including three
flame-retardant chemicals:
--Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH);
--2-Ethylhexyl-2, 3,4, 5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB); and
--Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate (TCEP).\3\
EPA is currently developing a strategy, scheduled for completion by
the end of this year, to address these three flame-retardant chemicals
as well as a broader set of flame-retardant chemicals. This effort will
assist EPA in focusing risk assessments on those flame-retardant
chemicals that pose the greatest potential concerns. EPA anticipates
initiating the risk assessments in this category of chemicals in 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/
workplans.html#2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a large class
of flame-retardant chemicals that have been shown to be harmful to
humans and the environment. What can be done to remove products with
these chemicals from American homes and properly dispose of them?
Answer. EPA's regulatory efforts for addressing concerns with PBDEs
include a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) issued in 2006, a recently
proposed SNUR, and a proposed test rule for PBDEs. EPA has also engaged
producers and importers in negotiations and commitments to voluntarily
phase out certain PBDEs.
In 2003, the sole U.S. manufacturer agreed to voluntarily phase out
production of pentaBDE and octaBDE by December 31, 2004. In conjunction
with this phase out, EPA issued a SNUR in 2006 which designated the
manufacture and import of six PBDE compounds as a significant new use.
The SNUR required persons who intended to manufacture or import tetra-,
penta-, hexa-, hepta-, octa- and nonaBDE to submit information to EPA
for review before engaging in the new use. Additionally, the SNUR
ensured that no new manufacture or import of pentaBDE or octaBDE could
occur after January 1, 2005.
Following negotiations with the EPA in 2009, the sole importer and
two domestic manufacturers of decaBDE voluntarily agreed to stop
producing decaBDE by December 31, 2012, for all uses except certain
military and transportation uses, and to stop providing decaBDE for all
uses by December 31, 2013. On April 2, 2012, the EPA proposed to amend
the 2006 SNUR by expanding the scope to include processors of PBDEs and
articles containing PBDEs. The proposed amended SNUR would also
designate the manufacturing, importing, and processing of decaBDE,
including in articles, as significant new uses. Along with the proposed
SNUR, EPA also proposed a test rule for those persons that
manufactured, imported, or processed commercial PBDEs after December
31, 2013. With a test rule in effect, manufacturers, importers, and
processors could be required to conduct health and safety studies to
inform data gaps.
To aid companies in moving to safer alternatives, EPA recently
published, with public participation through its Design for the
Environment program, a draft report: ``An Alternatives Assessment for
the Flame-Retardant Decabromodiphenyl Ether.'' Public comments were due
by September 30, 2012, and EPA expects to finalize the report in the
coming months.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/decaBDE/about.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these efforts may result in a reduction of products
containing PBDEs in American homes, we would note that CPSC has
authority to require recalls if it determines that a product presents
an unreasonable risk of injury or death. EPA is not aware of CPSC
requiring a recall of furniture as a result of the product containing
PBDE. In terms of disposal, PBDE-containing furniture can be disposed
of in municipal solid waste landfills.
future efforts regarding flame retardants
Question. EPA has started a new plan to re-evaluate all of the
flame retardants on the market with the latest testing and analysis
methods to see if any of these chemicals poses a risk to the public's
health. Once you've completed the new plan, what will the next steps
be?
Answer. As indicated in the response to question one, EPA is
currently developing a strategy, scheduled for completion by the end of
this year, on the three flame-retardant chemicals identified earlier
this year, as well as on a broader set of brominated flame retardant
chemicals.
The strategy will assist EPA in focusing its risk assessments
efforts on those flame-retardant chemicals that appear to pose the
greatest potential concerns. EPA anticipates initiating the risk
assessments on brominated flame retardants in 2013. If an assessment
indicates significant risk, EPA will evaluate and pursue appropriate
risk reduction actions. If an assessment indicates no significant risk,
EPA will conclude its current work on that chemical.
europe bans or greatly restricts flame retardants
Question. Furniture flammability is not just an issue here in the
United States. However, many European countries have taken alternative
steps to ensure flammability standards can be met without causing
public health concerns. The United Kingdom has banned the use of
conventional, flexible polyurethane foams in the manufacture of
upholstered furniture for sale. In addition, many European countries
have banned the use of PDBEs and greatly restricted other flame-
retardant chemicals. Does EPA examine how other countries are
regulating flame-retardant chemicals?
Could any of these methods be applied here in the United States?
Answer. EPA is aware of what other countries are doing on flame
retardants and will consider any data or assessments that are available
to us. EPA's authority for regulating PBDEs and other industrial
chemicals must be consistent with TSCA, this country's chemicals
management legislation. While TSCA provides the authority to take
action to prohibit or limit the manufacture, import, or use of a
chemical, the requirements needed to take that action have proven very
challenging.
CPSC also encourages the use of barriers to reduce the use or need
for chemical flame retardants while still meeting, or exceeding
flammability standards.
In 2006, CPSC published a regulation on the allowable rate of heat
release from a mattress;\5\ this has effectively reduced both the size
and growth rate of fires in mattresses that were in compliance with the
new standard. Additionally, in 2008, CPSC proposed a rule establishing
flammability standards on the smolder propensity of upholstered
furniture.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr06/rnattsets.pdf
\6\ http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr08/furnflamm.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
toxic substances control act
Question. Following the series of articles in the Chicago Tribune
that highlighted the potential health risk of flame retardant
chemicals, many of my constituents responded that the Federal
Government should have protected the public from these chemicals. What
steps has EPA taken outside of legislation to more effectively regulate
hazardous chemicals such as flame retardants?
Answer. EPA engaged in negotiations in 2003 and again in 2009 with
manufacturers and importers of PBDEs. EPA considers commitments from
chemical companies to voluntarily phase out certain chemicals from the
market an important strategy of chemical management. EPA is using SNURs
to ensure if any PBDEs that have been voluntarily phased out were to be
reintroduced into commerce, they would first be subject to EPA's
review.
In addition to those actions, EPA believes that its current
approach to identifying chemicals for review and assessment utilizing
the ``TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document'', is a significant
step to ensuring the safe use of chemicals. If, through this process,
EPA identifies chemicals that pose a concern, the Agency will evaluate
and pursue appropriate risk reduction actions, as warranted, using
existing TSCA authority. If an assessment indicates no significant
risk, EPA will conclude its current work on that chemical. However,
identification of chemicals as Work Plan Chemicals does not mean that
EPA would not consider other chemicals for risk assessment and
potential risk management action under TSCA and other statutes. EPA
will consider other chemicals if warranted by available information.
EPA will also continue to use its TSCA information collection, testing,
and subpoena authorities, including sections 4, 8, and 11(c) of TSCA,
to develop needed information on additional chemicals that currently
have less-robust hazard or exposure data.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.epa.gov/opptiexistingchemicals/pubs/
workplans.html#not
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted to Gus Schaefer
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
underwriters laboratories testing on upholstered furniture flammability
Question. In 2008, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) initiated a
series of tests to determine the most-effective ways to improve
flammability of upholstered furniture exposed to small open flames
(namely, candles or lighters). UL has completed all phases of the study
and is currently finalizing the data for an upcoming report. During
your testimony you showed two powerful videos that demonstrate the way
modern furniture burns. But that is only part of your current research.
When do you expect to finalize and publish the results of the study
referenced in your testimony?
Answer. We expect to finalize and publish our findings in a report
due to be released in early fall 2012. The project report for the
initial investigation (material, mock-up, and furniture tests), or
Phase I, is still on schedule for the aforementioned release date.
Phase II (living room burns) and Phase III (house fires with egress
estimations) will be finalized and published in the subsequent 2-4
months.
Question. Will the results be made available to the public?
Answer. Yes, UL intends to post our reports upon completion on the
Upholstered Furniture Flammability project Web page: www.ul.com/
fireservice. This Web page was created in July 2011 to provide the
public with an overview of the project, our published findings, fire
demonstration videos, and other related material.
response to testimony from the american home furnishing alliance
Question. Testimony from the American Home Furnishing Alliance
(AHFA) has outlined several concerns regarding the repeatability of
flammability testing and the difficulty this testing presents for
manufacturers and for creating new standards. Is it difficult to
produce reliable, repeatable tests to properly evaluate flammability
performance?
Answer. Results of fire tests and other physical tests are impacted
by the method itself (e.g., equipment and reagents, procedures,
environment conditions, etc.), the operator, and the sample.
Standard Test Methods such as those developed by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), ASTM International, the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), the Upholstered Furniture
Action Council (UFAC), and UL minimize variations from testing and the
test operators by clearly defining a fixed set of equipment
requirements, measurement methodologies, and procedural protocol. The
sample thus becomes the main source of variation. In fact, there are
defined protocols (ASTM Committee E11 quality and statistics, ISO TC
46/SC 8 Quality--Statistics and performance evaluation) for verifying
that the sample, and not the test method, is the limiting repeatability
factor.
By following good scientific practice, reliable and repeatable
tests for evaluating flammability properties can be developed. UL, ASTM
International, and ISO have long histories of developing standard test
methods. The developed tests are used on a daily basis for research,
manufacturer quality control, product certification, and are referenced
in fire and building codes worldwide.
Question. AHFA also raised some concerns regarding the
incorporation of barrier technology into upholstered furniture. How
would you describe the comfort level of furniture containing barriers?
Answer. While UL did not factor in ``comfort'' implications into
the scope of its formal research. However, the furniture UL created for
its research that incorporated barriers looked, felt, and sounded (for
example, no crackling or squeaks when sitting or rising) the same as
furniture made without the barrier.
UL did investigate a variety of representative barrier types
including ``high-loft'' barriers and ``flat'' barriers as a part of
this research, but did not test all available barriers. Depending on
what type of barrier is used in different parts of the furniture
(cushions, arm rest, flat surface, etc.), some of these barriers could
result in furniture that may look, feel, and possibly sound different
than furniture without the barrier.
Question. Do you believe incorporating barrier technology into
furniture would significantly increase the cost to manufacture?
Answer. From our written testimony: UL's general experience tells
us that industry is usually able to develop cost-effective and
efficient approaches to address enhanced safety requirements.
Question. In your testimony, you discuss the disproportionately
higher number of home fire deaths related to upholstered furniture. In
AHFA testimony, Mr. Counts discusses how improvements such as smoke
alarms and residential sprinklers have has greatly diminished home fire
deaths. In the past 30 years, what factors have you found to be
responsible for reducing the number of home fires related to
upholstered furniture?
Answer. While smoke alarms and more recently, residential
sprinklers, have contributed to a reduction in fire deaths related to
upholstered furniture, the fact remains that fires beginning with
upholstered furniture and mattresses/bedding are responsible for more
home fire deaths than any other item (National Fire Protection
Association [NFPA] report ``Home Fires that Began with Upholstered
Furniture'', 2011). During the 5-year period of 2005-2009, these fires
accounted for 19 and 14 percent of deaths and 7 and 10 percent of the
injuries, respectively. They also accounted for $824 million in direct
property damage. Contemporary upholstered furniture, or furniture
constructed with modern synthetic material, leads to a disproportionate
number of potentially preventable fire deaths as evidenced by the NFPA
report:
``Overall, fires beginning with upholstered furniture accounted for
2 percent of reported home fires but 1 of every 5 (19 percent) home
fire deaths.''
One of the most notable fire protection technologies since the
1980s is the introduction of residential fire sprinklers. But like the
current furniture flammability discussion around barrier fabrics, the
mandating of residential fire sprinklers has faced resistance by many
within the construction industry because of added cost to homes.
The city of Scottsdale, Arizona, for instance, mandated the
installation of residential sprinklers since 1986. The Scottsdale Fire
Department published a report detailing the positive effects of their
sprinkler ordinance. Key findings include:
--More than 50 percent of the homes in Scottsdale (41,408 homes) are
protected with fire sprinkler systems.
--From 1986-2001, there were 598 home fires. Of the 598 home fires,
49 were in single-family homes with fire sprinkler systems:
--There were no deaths in sprinkler-installed homes.
--13 people died in homes without sprinklers.
--There was less damage in the homes with sprinklers:
--Average fire loss per home with sprinklers: $2,166
--Average fire loss per home without fire sprinklers: $45,019.
--Annual fire losses in Scottsdale from 2000-2001 were $3,021,225,
compared to the national average of $9,144,442.
The full report can be downloaded from the Home Sprinkler Coalition
site at http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/fire-department-15-year-data.
______
Questions Submitted to Andy S. Counts
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
consumer product safety commission flammability standard
Question. Earlier testimony has shown increased flashover
(combustion) times, resulting in fires that burn more quickly, leaving
less time for consumers to escape homes in the case of fire, and also
less time for firefighters to respond to fires.
Do you believe current upholstered furniture flammability standards
are adequately protecting consumers from the risk of furniture fires?
Answer. Yes, the voluntary Upholstered Furniture Action Council
(UFAC) standard as reflected in American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) 1353 is adequately protecting consumers from the risk
of furniture fires. Despite the absence of a mandatory national
standard, incidents of deaths and injuries from upholstered furniture
fires have steadily declined over the last few decades in spite of a
large increase in the population of this country (see if we can
quantify from census figures). A recent National Fire Protection
Association report said that there has been a 93-percent decline since
1980. While many factors have contributed to this decline, the safer
construction criteria developed by UFAC undoubtedly played a
significant role in the downward trend in the number of ignitions of
upholstered furniture.
Regardless of the extrapolation method used to estimate the
national level death and injury figures, the risk level associated with
death or injury in a cigarette- or small, open-flame-ignited
upholstered furniture fire is lower than many other risks commonly
accepted by individuals without concern. Despite population growth, the
risk of fire fatalities and the number of upholstered furniture fires
continue to fall. In recent years, the risk has been extremely low: In
1980 the death rate for cigarette fires was 4.34 per million
population; by 2002 this death rate had been reduced to 0.53 per
million population. The death rate for small open-flame fires in 1980
was 0.61 per million population; by 2002 this death rate had been
reduced to 0.53 per million population. A risk level of under 1 per
million is considered by experts to be de minimis, below many everyday
risks that are essentially unavoidable.
Question. In your opinion, what is the most-effective way to reduce
upholstered furniture flammability?
Answer. We believe that the fire statistics demonstrate the
effectiveness of ASTM 1353 and this standard achieves that without the
use of flame-retardant chemicals. Since smolder ignition continues to
be to the primary source of ignition for upholstered-furniture-related
fire deaths and injuries, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
should mandate the consensus based and proven requirements of ASTM
1353. Making it a Federal mandatory standard would further enhance the
level of compliance achieved by this voluntary standard because
noncompliant domestic and imported product would now be subject to the
standard. In addition, the labeling requirements of a mandatory
standard would help to educate that consumer on the potential dangers
of upholstered furniture flammability.
CPSC has been working on a proposed new upholstered furniture
flammability standard for the last 5 years. The proposed standard could
be met without utilizing flame-retardant chemicals. It is my
understanding that a significant portion of the delay in finalizing the
rule has been establishing standard reference materials for testing.
Question. In your opinion, what additional issues does CPSC still
need to resolve before finalizing the rule?
Answer. CPSC has allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the
good. Instead of embracing the proven voluntary standard that is ASTM
1353, CPSC has attempted to make improvements to the testing methods.
This has resulted in test methods that have not been shown to be
repeatable or reproducible. Until CPSC subjects their test methods to
round robin testing, they will be unenforceable. The test methods
embodied in ASTM 1353 have been proven both repeatable and reproducible
in laboratory round robin studies.
CPSC recently reported on a barrier material that it believes is
effective against smolder and open-flame ignition. We need to obtain
more information about this product so it too can be tested in a round
robin to determine if it will be effective with a large number of
textiles and a large number of configurations. This is essential
because we are not aware of any other barrier material that can comply
with the CPSC proposed test method for barriers.
Both CPSC and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) have shown that
barriers significantly reduce flammability compared to other strategies
for reducing flammability. However, in your testimony, you indicated
several concerns with barriers, particularly increased manufacturing
costs and impact on ``saleability''.
Question. How do manufacturers incorporate barriers into their
furniture?
Answer. Some commercial applications of furniture are required to
meet the requirements of California Technical Bulletin 133 (TB-133).
This standard requires the use of flame-resistant barriers in
construction and the majority of these barriers utilize flame-retardant
chemicals. In fact, it is our understanding that the barrier that UL
used in its video shown at the hearing incorporates a fair amount of
flame-retardant chemistry. The perceived human and environmental
concerns with flame-retardant chemistry make furniture manufacturers
reluctant to incorporate these barriers into residential furniture
where consumers are exposed to them on a 24/7 basis unlike commercial
furniture used in the hospitality industry.
Unlike a mattress that is a single horizontal slab, the various
geometries and spatial relationships of furniture prevent the
application of a barrier as a slip on sock or bag. Instead these
barriers must be incorporated by upholstering the barrier prior to the
cover fabric therefore doubling the amount of labor typically involved.
Surveys have shown that this process increases manufacturing costs an
average of $150 for a chair and $300 for a sofa. This would equate to
an increase of approximately $300 and $600, respectively, at retail.
Question. Are there any other technologies manufacturers are
currently considering to address furniture flammability?
Answer. The industry has been working to address the issue since
the 1970s and this effort has resulted in a movement from smolder prone
components (legacy furniture) to smolder resistant ones (modern
furniture). This movement has contributed to the dramatic decrease in
deaths and injuries associated with upholstered furniture fires. We
continue to explore new component options as the technology evolves.
Question. You testified that there are no quick fixes to
upholstered furniture flammability since a variety of materials and
combinations are needed to satisfy customers' needs and tastes. Do you
believe that it's likely that consumers are not taking into account
flammability and the changing nature of furniture materials with regard
to flammability? If given a choice--being aware of the increased risk
over legacy materials and the quick ignition time--don't you think that
might influence consumers' purchases?
Answer. Keep in mind that the movement away from ``legacy
materials'' was due to their propensity to ignite when exposed to a
smolder ignition source. As the data trends indicate this movement has
undoubtedly saved lives. Some purchasers of new upholstery receive the
UFAC hangtag which warns them that upholstery may burn rapidly and emit
toxic gases. A number of consumers have contacted us regarding these
warnings so we think that there is a good level of awareness that
furniture will burn. A national standard would include a labeling
requirement that could be used to further educate consumers as to the
potential dangers of upholstered furniture flammability.
Question. Since legacy furniture burns much more slowly, are there
some parts of the legacy furniture that it might make sense for
industry to return to manufacturing? If not, why not?
Answer. The Federal Government's original investigation into
smoldering ignition found that the materials being used in the so
called legacy furniture were the most prone to cause smoldering
ignition when exposed to a lit cigarette. It has taken several years to
remove these products from the marketplace and the absence of such
legacy products is one of the reasons that cigarette ignition of
upholstered furniture has declined over the years. By reintroducing
these materials, we are concerned that the downward trend would reverse
and we would see a commensurate increase in the incidents of smoldering
ignition of upholstered furniture.
Question. Barriers in between the fabric and the cushion of
furniture are being considered as an improvement over flame-retardant
chemical materials. If manufacturers are reluctant to use some of the
new barriers due to reasons of comfort, are there some other options or
technologies available? If using a barrier, could more material be used
alongside it to add comfort?
Answer. Barriers are used to address the risk of small open-flame
ignition. As discussed above the risk of this type of fire occurring in
the home is already extremely small and difficult to address because it
is often the result of arson or child play. CPSC has found that many of
the open-flame ignitions are not ``addressable'' within the meaning of
their statute. Regardless of this fact, industry would embrace barriers
if they could maintain ``saleability''. This would involve several
factors including health concerns, comfort, and affordability. Existing
barrier technology does not meet these criteria. CPSC should move to
address the primary risk of smolder ignition by adopting ASTM 1353.
Resources can then be focused on evaluating small open-flame solutions
to determine their effectiveness and feasibility.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Durbin. I want to thank everybody for attending,
and I hope you got as much out of this hearing as we did.
Once again, thanks to the Chicago Tribune for leading us in
this effort.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., Tuesday, July 17, the hearing was
concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-