ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
New fire-safety standards for upholstered furniture were issued by the State of California on Feb. 8—igniting immediate controversy. That’s because the proposed standard, known as Technical Bulletin 117 2013 (TB 117 2013), eliminates an open-flame test for foam used within furniture, relying instead on tests to evaluate a cigarette smolder, specifically the ignition resistance of upholstery cover fabrics, barrier, and filling materials. The change means manufacturers will no longer have to use flame retardant chemicals in foam to meet the standard.
Anti-flame retardant chemical activists are cheering the move, saying that it will improve human and environmental health by eliminating the need to use a variety of compounds, some of which have been shown to have varying degrees of toxicity. But fire safety scientists and chemical makers say the proposed new standard lowers fire safety because it tests only optimal conditions, such as perfectly sealed cushions with no exposure of polyurethane foam filling to heat or flame. Any evidence of toxicity, they say, needs to be balanced against a very real fire threat from candles, lighters, and other open flame hazards.
“Removing the open flame test will eliminate an important layer of fire protection for California,” says the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade group that includes the major manufacturers of flame retardant chemicals. “Regrettably, if this proposed regulation moves forward, it will reverse a fire safety standard that has provided an important layer of protection to Californians for over 35 years,” ACC says. The California standard for furniture fire safety is the de-facto national standard because of the size of the California market and because it is the strongest state regulation for furniture fire safety ever enacted .
ACC has stepped into the retardant chemicals debate with a vigorous approach to arguments for fire safety using chemicals. That’s because the reputations of ACC-member flame retardant chemical firms has been badly damaged in past years by discredited expert testimony and strong-arm lobbying tactics by the now defunct industry front group, Citizens for Fire Safety.
The Berkeley, Calif.-based Green Science Policy Institute headed by chemist and activist Arlene Blum, calls the proposed new standard “a win-win-win for fire safety, health and environment.” Blum has long advocated a revision of the standard that would remove the open flame challenge and obviate the need for retardant chemicals, which she contends are unacceptably toxic.
Blum often cites her study of tris-chlorinated flame retardant chemicals in children’s sleepware in the late 1970s as evidence for the hazards of related compounds sometimes used in furniture foam filling. The chemicals used in children’s sleepware were removed from the market because of Blum’s work.
The new standard, calling for cigarette smolder tests only, means “more safety for consumers and reflects real-world 21st century fire hazards,” says Tonya Blood, chief of the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, which issued the revised bulletin. The old standard, she says, focuses on upholstery filling, usually polyurethane foam, where fire does not start; ignores the flammability of upholstery fabrics; and doesn’t test the whole piece of furniture—only components.
The majority of furniture fires, Blood adds, start because of a dropped cigarette on upholstered sofas or chairs. The new standard, which is nearing the end of a lengthy process for enactment, is posted for public comment for 45 days. Regulators will be required to deal with any comments or concerns not previously dealt with before they can issue a final draft of the standard.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter