Some important and ongoing developments in flame-retardancy legislation within the UK and the European Union were discussed at two recent meetings.
First, the Autumn Meeting of the Society of Chemical Industry's (SCI) Fire and Materials Group (FMG) took place at the Holiday Inn, Bolton, UK, in conjunction with the EU COST MP1105 FLARETEX Standardisation Meeting. This discussed the legislative landscape surrounding flame-retardant textiles and textile composites within the European Union (EU), versus that in various individual Member States.
The second conference was the FRETWORK FORUM, held at the Junction 25 Conference Centre, Brighouse, UK, which discussed UK Standards and Regulations relating to flame-retardant textiles, with the focus on recent proposals designed to amend the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (FFRs), which in due course will be circulated for formal public consultation.
Some highlights from both meetings will now be described.
Flame Retardancy
At the Bolton meeting the first session was chaired by Professor Baljinder Kandola (University of Bolton). In this session, Professor Paul Kiekens (Ghent University, Belgium) gave a COST Activity update, the objective of the COST programme being to build a European multi-disciplinary knowledge platform on sustainable flame retardancy1. Working groups were looking at ‘safer alternatives’ to halogenated flame retardants, increased use of phosphorus-based flame retardants as a possible and potentially safer alternative to halogenated flame retardants, and the development of novel, sustainable, nano-based flame retardants for synthetic polymer-based textiles.
The use of natural and hybrid nanoparticles, layer-by-layer deposition technologies and sol-gel technology were being explored, together with multifunctional finishes combining flame retardancy with other styles of finish, eg. water-and-oil repellency. FLARETEX action activities included conferences, workshops, training schools, short-term scientific missions, standardisation meetings, etc2.
Professor Richard Horrocks (Chair, SCI Fire and Materials Group) discussed UK textile-related legislation and testing. Fire statistics in the UK were solidly based, but EU fire statistics did not exist and world fire statistics were not reliable. If the UK legislation on upholstered furniture were to be transferred into the EU, there was great potential for savings lives, because over 100 lives a year had been saved in the UK since their introduction. A comprehensive description was then given of UK flame-retardancy legislation and testing requirements for nightdresses, nightwear and upholstered furniture, fabrics for transport and personal protective equipment.
Pros Van Hoeyland (Centexbel, Ghent, Belgium) reviewed EU textile-related legislation and testing and pointed out that the specification standards were based on different parameters in different countries and the requirements differed, making inter-country comparisons difficult. Problems arose in the areas of recycling/no recycling requirement, the composition of products, any ageing requirements influenced by the presence of flame retardants, and environmental considerations. He pointed out that there were a limited number of EU standards, almost no harmonised EU standards, and no European Directives/regulation in most areas, so that National Standards were used instead of EN standards.
Dr Shonali Nazaré (guest researcher, NIST, USA) delivered her own personal view of the current state of US textile/upholstered furnishing-related flammability legislation and testing. There were 1,600 fatal fires in residential buildings, some 2,495 deaths, and 79% of fatal fires extended beyond the room of fire origin. 26% of fires started in bedrooms, 23% in living spaces and smouldering cigarettes were a major source of ignition. The progress of flame retardant testing for mattresses had evolved as follows:
1975: Cal TB117 (California Technical Bulletin) – became a de facto National Standard.
1979: UFAC Voluntary Standard (cigarette ignition, component tests)
1980: Cal TB 116 (cigarette ignition, full scale test)
1991: Cal TB 133 (large open flame ignition, full scale test)
2005: 16 CFR 1634 Consumer Product Safety Commission Proposed Rule for Residential Furniture
2013: Cal TB 117 (Component tests including smouldering ignition)
The significance of these developments was clearly discussed in depth and Dr Nazaré considered that a number of things needed to be done, namely:
• establish a US regulatory framework based upon performance requirements
• develop repeatable test methods that accurately predict fire performance in the real world
• develop standard reference materials (SRM) for use in testing
• develop better fire-barrier materials – to meet fire safety requirements as well as comfort, durability and lower cost
• develop or implement other solutions, eg. other types of foam
Assistant Professor Dr Bengi Kutlu (Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey) discussed textile flame-retardancy standards in Turkey. After describing various test procedures she concluded that there was still a need to introduce new standards on flame-retardant textiles in Turkey as well as flame-retardancy regulations. Some Turkish standards were difficult to understand and there were difficulties in procuring special products/materials for the standards, as well as radiant heaters and PVC simulant materials for molten-metal splash tests.
Dr Eng Ana-Maria Mocioiu (INCDTP – The National Research and Development Institute for Textile and Leather, Bucharest, Romania) described the dilemma faced by testing laboratories and small-medium enterprises (SMEs) in dealing with the different test regimes and standards within EU Member States. EN 1103, for example, had no classification system while EN ISO 6940 and 6941 (without classification or criteria) meant that comments could not be made on the materials. The flammability testing of yarns/threads for protective clothing was another problem area.
The second day's session was chaired by Dr Sabyasachi Gaan (EMPA, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, St Gallen, Switzerland). Frank Moore (Chairman, CEN TC/248 Textiles) described with considerable insight how European Standards (CEN and CENELEC) were made, concentrating on the various stages of the development of a European Standard (EN) and the relationship to National Standards and International Standards (ISO).
Professor Richard Hull (University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK) gave an academic view of toxicity standards in relation to various types of textile fires (see Table 1). He pointed out that fatalities in fires mainly come from inhaling toxic gases, and the proportion of fatalities from this cause was increasing. Flame retardants that operated in the gas phase could potentially increase the yields of toxic gases like carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, irritants and smoke. The testing methods used were:
• cone calorimeter, controlled atmosphere for well-ventilated flaming fires
• closed box tests – NBS Smoke Box
• simple tube furnace tests – NFX – 70 – 100 Apparatus (French)
• Steady State Tube Furnace (SSTF) ISO FDIS 19700
Experiments had demonstrated that changing the fire conditions from smouldering to well-ventilated flaming fire and then to underventilated fire conditions dramatically increased the toxic carbon-monoxide yields from burning polypropylene and polyamide textiles. The hydrogen cyanide yield from burning polyamides also increased in a similar manner.
Dr Adrian Beard (Clariant Produkte [Deutschland] GmbH, Heurth, Germany) discussed what the Phosphorus, Inorganic, Nitrogen Flame Retardant Association (PINFA) members were doing in the search for potentially safer flame retardants. Their EU membership had in excess of 33 flame retardants on the PINFA website3. Flame retardants had to be compatible with the polymer and processing, produce high flame retardancy at low cost and increasingly important factors were their effect on ecology and toxicology. A change in one parameter often impacted on the other four parameters. Halogen-free flame retardants (HFFRs) could provide similar fire-performance characteristics in polymers to brominated flame retardants, except in polymer blends. Importantly, HFFRs improved smoke suppression; however the leaching of both HFFRs and brominated flame retardants was polymer-dependent.
Revision of the UK Furniture Flammability Regulations
At the Bolton conference, Terry Edge (Policy Manager, Department for Business Innovation & Skills, London, UK) discussed the UK Furniture Flammability Regulations (FFRs) and Standards describing how these are developed, implemented and amended. EU law takes precedence over National law and there were three EU levels, eg.
• Decision – binding on a country or company to whom it was addressed
• Directive – set a goal all Member States must achieve; but it was up to each how
• Regulation – must be applied in its entirety across the EU.
Terry Edge then discussed EU standards, the standards-making process, and the General Product Safety Directive (GPSR). He moved on to explain why the UK Furniture Flammability Regulations were introduced, culminating in the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (FFRs). This specified:
• compulsory cigarette test
• compulsory match test over polyurethane foam
• compulsory fillings ('crib 5') test
• compulsory labelling requirements
• tests based on BS5852 1979 and 1982
Requirements were prescriptive – it was not up to the supplier to decide that a product was 'safe' (as in the GPSR). Minor amendments were made in 1989, 1993 and 2010.
The FFRs applied to upholstery, both cover fabrics and fillings and applied to:
• upholstery intended for home use
• mattress fillings
• nursery and children's furniture
• garden furniture suitable for indoor use
• furniture in new caravans
• fillings of scatter cushions, seat pads and fillings
The FFRs had universal support but they had not been amended for over 20 years despite UK general policy to review every 3-5 years. A decision to review the FFRs was taken in 2009. The reasons for the review were:
• consultation on FFRs guidance revealed many areas that need updating
• new products in or out of scope, eg. mattress toppers
• testing becoming more difficult, eg.
- finding cigarettes for the cigarette test
- test cover fabric (separate amendment needed)
• enforcement more difficult: safety threatened
• grey areas, eg. overlap with non-domestic fire law
The current review of the FFRs has the following improvement aims, namely to:
• simplify and rationalise the FFRs
• maintain current safety levels
• reduce levels of flame-retardant chemicals in furniture (introduce alternative match test)
• save money for industry, eg. exclude most fabrics from the cigarette test (because they have never failed)
• long term: possibly revoke when the EU is equivalent (European Commission is supportive)
The UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) initiated a new statistical report in 2009 that demonstrated that the FFRs were still effective at saving lives (around 54 lives per year) and also money (around ￡140 million to the economy). The Ministerial Decision to Review was agreed on the basis that current safety levels would be maintained. BIS set up working groups to advise on three areas of the review, namely testing, traceability and the scope of the FFRs. BIS had convened a group of test experts to draft new testing requirements, all of which were now in the draft regulations, ie. no standard.
BIS was introducing an additional substantial amendment, namely introducing an alternative match test (testing over actual/stylised composites containing combustion-modified foam), which should help reduce flame-retardant levels by up to 50% and bring significant cost savings to industry. The next steps in the FFRs Amendment Process were:
• BIS to finish drafting amended regulations
• Submit to Government regulatory committee
• Go out to public consultation
• Government response – could be lengthy
• Notify European Commission / Member States
• Implementation
This would take about another 18 months. Future improvements were to:
• encourage industry take-up of alternative match test and greener chemicals
• continue to work with the European Commission to rationalise fire safety across Europe
• investigate new technologies that would reduce flame retardant use further, eg. 'barrier technology'
Further information on the FFRs is available.4-6
Linking to, and part of, these FFR developments was the presentation at the FRETWORK FORUM by Steven Owen (Intertek Ltd, Leigh, UK), explaining the informal consultation paper relating to reducing flame-retardant usage in the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations without lowering fire-safety levels. This was a technical paper detailing a proposal and discussion on possible alternatives for the current match test. Essentially, BIS intends to replace the existing FFRs match-test requirement (for which testing is undertaken over highly flammable polyurethane foam) with a requirement based on combustion-modified foam. Five variants on this alternative have been identified and these options are illustrated in Table 2. The most viable of these options are considered to be options 2, 3 and 4. It is not possible to reproduce here all the technical background to the development of these options, but the report has been made available online7. Table 2 shows the benefits and drawbacks of the options and also the predicted impact on fire safety.
Flame Retardants and the Environment – Recent Developments
At the FRETWORK FORUM, chaired by Peter Wragg (FRETWORK UK), Dr Florian Kohl (Albemarle Europe SPRL, Belgium) delivered a presentation (jointly authored with his colleagues Caroline Ciuciu and Sylvia Jacobi) on the evaluation of substances under REACH, with special reference to the case of the flame retardant EBP (1,1'-(ethane-1,2 diyl) bis [pentabromobenzene], (CAS No 84852-53-9). EBP is seen as a substitute for DecaBDE (decabromodiphenyl ether), a flame retardant which, in the USA and Canada, will be voluntarily phased out of production, import and sales from the end of 2013. Albemarle is the Lead Registrant for EBP and the UK is the evaluating Member State. Further environmental studies and detailed exposure assessment (with sensitivity analysis) for the whole life cycle of EBP will be carried out before a final conclusion can be reached by the UK Competent Authority, probably in 2016 or 2017.
Dr Philippe Salémis (Director, European Flame Retardants Association, (EFRA), Brussels, Belgium) gave a regulatory update on DecaBDE. On 27 May 2013 Norway submitted a proposal to nominate DecaBDE as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) under the UNEP Stockholm Convention and has proposed that it be listed in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention as a substance for elimination. After screening to see whether DecaBDE meets the POP criteria the decision to list it would be taken in May 2017 at the earliest.
However, EFRA does not believe the Norwegian proposal demonstrates that commercial DecaBDE meets the screening criteria because the proposal contains many inaccuracies, including references to the substance itself, its toxicology and its potential for accumulation. Commercial DecaBDE is ≥97% DecaBDE congenor BDE-209, with the remainder either Nona-BDE congenors or trace levels of Octa-BDE congenors. The composition referred to by Norway of 77.4% BDE-209 is a commercial formulation that has not been sold for approximately 30 years! With regard to bio-accumulation, commercial Deca-BDE is not bio-accumulative, as concluded by EU risk assessments. The measured bio-accumulation factors (BAF) for DecaBDE are significantly below the regulatory level of concern (even by the EU regulatory definition of BAF>2000, which is much stricter than the Stockholm Convention of BAF>5,000). In addition, commercial DecaBDE has minimal potential for adverse effects to human health or the environment, and the Norwegian proposal does not cite critical information from peer-reviewed literature. The proposal also makes assumptions regarding the debromination of DecaBDE.
Under these circumstances EFRA is highly concerned about an unjustified listing of commercial DecaBDE as a POP, which could lead to the setting of a precedent with unforeseen consequences for future decision-making at the UN level. An immediate consequence would be to harm the potential for the recycling of products containing commercial DecaBDE, which is required by many international objectives for waste management and resource efficiency. EFRA has called on the POP Review Committee members to conclude that the dossier, as it stands today, does not fulfil the screening criteria and does not justify the development of a risk profile.
On 5 July 2013, ECHA withdrew DecaBDE from the list of substances considered for Authorisation, at the request of the European Commission. ECHA will instead develop a proposal to Restrict the ‘Manufacture, use and placing on the market of DecaBDE and of mixtures and articles containing it’. A Restricted Substance must comply with the conditions of the Restriction, and ECHA will publish the proposal on 1 August 2014. This process involves risk assessments and socio-economic impacts and allows two periods of input by industry. A decision on a potential Restriction can be expected at the earliest in August 2016.
Dr Jelle Mertens (International Antimony Association [i2a], Brussels, Belgium) gave an environmental, health and safety regulatory update on Antimony Trioxide (ATO). ATO was the major antimony compound registered under REACH, and around 130,000 tonnes were used in 2012. More than 80% of antimony compounds are used as a flame-retardant synergist for halogenated flame-retardants – mainly ATO and antimony pentoxide (APO) are used. i2a members have already expended ~ €6million evaluating the safety of using ATO and other Sb compounds.
Studies have demonstrated workers’ exposure to ATO dust can be perfectly controlled by using respiratory protection (dust mask, exhaust ventilation). ATO was classified as a carcinogen Cat 3 (R40; DSD) or Cat 2 (H351), ‘suspected of causing cancer via inhalation’, but this was based on rat studies and there was no human evidence. The most likely reason for carcinogenicity in rats was the particle effect, there being morphological differences in the rat respiratory system compared with that of humans. Studies had also concluded that there was no risk for consumers and the environment from exposure to ATO or APO via its use in backcoating or as an additive. The safe use of ATO as a flame-retardant synergist has been confirmed by international assessments, studies and REACH dossiers, and there were no scientific reasons or forecasts for ATO to be considered as a SVHC (Substance of Very High Concern) or to undergo restriction/authorisation under REACH.
Lein Tange (ICL Industrial Products, Europe BV, Netherlands) discussed the experience with recycling of flame retardants from WEEE (Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment) as a start for a similar process for textile, including the whole value chain from producers to end of life. The TexFRon 4000 series of polymeric brominated flame retardants had advantages, eg.
• low water solubility
• no leaching
• no migration
• no risk of formation of halogenated di benzo-dioxins and furans during processing
• low potential for bio-accumulation
In addition, the US Environmental Protection Agency has stated that: “Polymers are not readily absorbed by biological species and thus are relatively non-toxic.” The EU REACH assessments give “exemption for polymers.” Lein Tange concluded that we all had to work together as part of the value chain and be active on all levels, including standardisation, ecolabels and waste-oriented topics including polyurethanes.
References
1. http://www.cost.eu/domains (e-mail: COST.MP105@UGent.be).
2. http://www.FLARETEX.eu
3. http://www.pinfa.eu/library/brochures.html
4. 2009 Statistical Report into Effectiveness of FFRs.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file54041.pdf
5. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/1324/contents/made
6. Guide to the FFRs: http://www.//www.bis.gov.uk/files/file24685.pdf
7. Reducing Flame Retardant Usage in The Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations: A Proposal and Discussion on Possible Alternatives for the Current Match Test (BIS/Intertek), http://tinyurl.com/ovjsw7n