 Now that almost everybody is back and we expect others to join us very quickly We're going to move on to panel three the speakers in panel three are dr. Jennifer Lowry from the American Academy of Pediatrics Welcome mr. Patrick Morrison from the International Association of firefighters welcome to you sir Mr. Lewis Taurus League of United Latin American citizens Ms. Marine Swanson from the Learning Disabilities Association of America and mr. Daniel Pinchina Who I understand is on route so in the meantime you will each have five minutes to present testimony and may ask You to look behind the commissioners to the gentlemen with the yellow time cards so that you can keep track of your time Okay, dr. Lowry Thank you very much for allowing me to speak My name is dr. Jennifer Lowry and I am here representing the American Academy of Pediatrics a nonprofit professional Organization of 64,000 pediatricians. I serve as the chair of the AAP's Council on Environmental Health Executive Committee In addition to my role at the AAP I also work at Children's Mercy Kansas City where I am the chief of the section of clinical toxicology The medical director of the division of clinical pharmacology medical toxicology and therapeutic innovation and the medical director of the Center for Environmental Health I appreciate the opportunity to provide input today The AAP is one of the original petitioners and strongly supports the CPSC Moving forward on this important child health issue to ban the use of organo halogen flame retardants and children's products upholstered furniture mattresses and mattress pads and the plastic casings of electronic devices Organo halogen flame retardants have a well documented association with significant deleterious Child health effects and are extensively used in these four product classes These chemicals are known to leach from those products resulting in widespread human exposure CPSC is well positioned to act on this public health threat through its FHSA authority And we urge you to move forward and develop a proposed rule to ban this chemical class in these four product categories Not only do children have more opportunities to be exposed to environmental chemicals But as children grow and mature their unique physiologic developmental and behavioral differences make them especially vulnerable to chemical exposures Because children are smaller than adults their surface area to body mass ratio is greater Children eat more food and drink more water per unit of body weight than do adults and they breathe at a faster rate Infants and children of all ages spend more time on the floor or ground than adults Therefore children will come into more contact with contaminants on these surfaces Chemical exposures can disrupt the critical and rapid stages of development that occur in prenatal and early childhood life exposures particularly those involving the neurologic and endocrine systems Organo organo halogen flame retardants are associated with a wide range of serious adverse health effects Including reproductive impairment Neurological effects including IQ decrements and learning deficits Endocrine disruption and interference with thyroid hormone action Genotoxicity cancer and immune disorders Children exposed to these chemicals can face serious and irreversible health consequences And banning these flame retardants will help to prevent these adverse health effects in children In addition to the extensive evidence for the detrimental health effects these chemicals post to children the CDC is Biomonitoring program estimates that 97% of us residents have measurable quantities of these chemicals in their blood Further the highest level of harmful flame retardants in the general population are found in young children from communities of low socio-economic status and communities of color and especially in children under the age of 12 with the majority of them being under the age of 5 Flame retardant exposure is ubiquitous in the US presenting a serious public health threat to children In fact these chemicals have been found in human breast milk, which can be the sole source of nutrition for many infants Given the documented health threat these chemicals pose and the evidence of significant exposure action is critical The child health risk risk these chemicals pose are all the more troubling given that they are not necessary for products to meet any mandatory flammability standard Most fire deaths and injuries result from inhaling carbon monoxide irritant gases and soot The incorporation of organohalogen flame retardants can increase the yield of the toxic byproducts during combustion Thus the risk of these chemical class far outweigh their intended benefit and organohalogen flame retardants are Unnecessary to protect against fires and instead pose their own serious risks to children an FHA span FHS a ban of this entire chemical class in all four product categories Is necessary because history and extensive scientific research demonstrate that the health threats from these chemicals are present across the chemical class Warning labels are insufficient to protect children and families from the risk flame retardants pose Previous attempts to address the health effects of flame retardants on a chemical by chemical basis led to regrettable Substitution whereby the banning of one problematic compound led to the adoption across the cut industry of a chemical with Similar health risks, but less available research demonstrating them The AAP strongly supports this petition and we urge you to expeditiously put forward a proposed rule to address this child health threat Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and the AAP looks forward as well I do look forward to working with you on this important issue. Thank you very much. Mr. Morrison Good morning commissioners, and thank you for allowing the International Association of firefighters to testify before the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission on the petition requesting rulemaking of the product containing organohalogen flame retardants I'm Patrick Morrison with the International Association of fire firefighters, and I'm with the health and safety and medicine for that organization The IFF is an international union that represents over 300,000 paid professional service employees in the United States and Canada The IFF has been actively involved in proving health and safety for firefighters for more than 90 years This is a critical activity for the workforce and in which fatalities and early retirement due to work-related injuries and illnesses occur regularly firefighters dying from occupational related cancer cancers now account for more than half of our members line of duty death This is the largest health related issue facing the firefighter profession We must reduce this number in removing toxic flame retardants in products as a positive step forward in protecting first responders from the harmful effects of these toxic flame retardants in the vast majority of the U.S Workplaces Occupational exposure levels have greatly declined in the past two to three decades Improved workplace conditions can be attributed to the many factors including governmental occupational safety and health agencies Legislation training programs for occupational health professionals and good business practices include the need to keep highly skilled Workers healthy and working Unfortunately firefighters have not been Benefited from a lot of these improvements. They are still entering uncontrolled hazardous environments regularly a study has shown that firefighters have higher levels of flame retardant chemicals in their body than the general population Firefighters come into contact with toxic flame retardants in their daily lives just like the rest of the population But firefighters have a much higher risk of suffering the negative cancer-causing effects of our carcinogenic flame retardants as those chemicals burn in fire Whether it is the air they breathe Exposure during the overhaul of the fire the absorption through their skin during and working at that fire or after the incident as they exposed to the Toxic soot that covers their turnouts and equipment It is the IFF's position that this exposure contributes to the reason that our members have a significantly higher incident rate of certain types of cancers The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH recently conducted a landmark study of cancer Among US firefighters that included data from over 30,000 career firefighters employed from 1950 to 2010 The research found that firefighters compared to the general population has statistically significant increases in both diagnosis and death from certain cancers The IFF supports Banning the use of toxic flame retardants that are known to or found to be carcinogenic carcinogens that contribute to cancer and have Additionally negative effects on the health of our members Giving this increasing body of evidence that indicates this persistence bio accumulation and potential health concerns of these flame fire retardants We believe the health risks so do we the use of these chemicals is greater than the fire risk without using these chemicals This is even more factual with the use of advanced fire safety technology that is in place today to include sprinkler systems smoke and fire detection systems and modern early warning devices In addition, it is widely known that there has been a significant reduction in the use of tobacco products across the United States Which has contributed to the reduction of fires across it across the US There are two key ways to impact the use of toxic flame retardants in products One is through the standard-setting process since flame retardant chemicals are commonly used as means of complying with these test Requirements the other is through regulation of chemicals themselves by banning or restricting the use of specific flame retardants These strategies can be most effective in combination since restricting use of one hazard flame retardant Cannot guarantee the future flame retardants will be safe for human and environmental health On a standard-setting front one of the most broad-based reforms that has been of the adoption of the smoldering standard TB 117 2013 We strongly at the IFF Support the change to this TB 117 2013 which now creates a toxic-free fire safety option This new testing option mirrors today's fire safety problems using utilizing barriers to slow the spread of a smoldering fire However, there is an effort on the horizon at the National Fire Protection Association NFPA that could potentially impact this modern toxic-free Option We are concerned with the approach to this being taken at the end to create a new open flame standard The main task group that is working on the draft standards moving towards Proposing adoption of TB 133 a large open flame that could require the application of an increased use of flame retardants and residential upholstered furniture The IFF has one represented it on this test committee. This committee has been developing a draft titled NFPA 277 method Standard methods of tests for evaluating fire and ignition resistance upholstered furniture using an existing source Mr. Morrison your time has expired. I'm going to yield an additional 30 seconds to you to finish your testimony Thank You chair. I appreciate that We very much hope to commission or grant this petition to ban the additive Organo-Halligans in the consumer products which have been a broad impact on firefighters in the public across the United States Enclosing over-the-years deceptive practices and misuse of data by companies that produce toxic flame retardants have misled the public in the name of fire safety The IFF will continue to fight for the elimination of these toxic chemicals I thank the commissioner for allowing first responders to have a voice in projecting our job Environment while still maintaining the highest level of protection for the citizens we protect every day and thank you commissioner for that extended time Thank you so much. Mr. Torres welcome. We look forward to your testimony We have volunteer members in 37 states the district of Columbia in Puerto Rico now in July of 2009 thousands of our members gathered To vote and adopt a an environmental justice resolution The resolution asserts that Latino communities in the United States have a right to be safe from harmful exposure Or right to prevention a right to know what we're exposed to a right to participate in decision-making Processes that have implications in our community and a right to protection and enforcement of policies that promote and safeguard the well-being of workers Families and our communities Now I sit here before you today not just on behalf of LULAC on behalf of the 54 million Latino Hispanic families who are concerned about toxic chemicals Now as an organization that advances the economic condition Educational attainment political influence housing health and civil rights of Hispanic Americans We are increasingly concerned about exposure to talk to chemicals and its impact on the health of our communities now this time we are dealing with an invisible and What we feel is an incident assailant that threatens the sanctuary that is our home and hinders our community's ability to defend itself now you've heard from other Panelists that the science indicates that the highest human levels of harmful flame retardant chemicals in the general Population have been found in young children from low-income communities and from communities of color in particular the 2003-2004 national health and nutrition Examination survey conducted by the CDC found that at least one form of organo halogen flame retardants in 97% of the Participants this biometrics study also showed that Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic blacks at higher levels of flame retardants Then they're not his non-Hispanic white counterparts Teenagers ages 12 to 19 had higher body burdens than adults for all flame retardants measured What we know is that exposure to organo halogen flame retardant chemicals can lead to serious health concerns such as reduced IQ disruption of hormones cancer reproductive impairments These exposures threaten the health and educational attainment of our children and then doing so their prospects for the future in economic condition Now a 2012 study of Mexican American children in the state of California found that children who lived in areas with limited access To safe out their play spaces tend to have higher levels of toxic flame retardant chemicals in their blood now nearly half 45% of the nation's Latino population lives in 10 metropolitan areas When you consider that urban areas where nearly half of our community lives and combine that with findings that show that racial and ethnic minorities and low-income people have less access to green spaces and they're not then the non-Hispanic counterparts What that signals to us is that minority and low-income children are spending more time indoors instead of being safe They're being exposed to flame retardant chemicals and toxic chemicals Now if we continue to allow toxic flame retardant chemicals to invade our home We're diluting Latinos and all families into believing that we are safe in our home and an equal footing as those who can afford to live in green and Purchase their way out of exposure to these toxic products Now this is not a lot not an option for a lot of Latinos with medium annual personal income is 21,000 and the medium household income is 41,000 Latinos also have the highest uninsured rate of any ethnic or racial group When you take into account the economic status with health insurance coverage You begin to imagine how our community is already limited in its ability to protect itself from these chemicals Our family shouldn't have to worry about flame retardant chemicals off-gassing from children's products furniture mattresses and the casings around electronics into our homes Entering our bodies and polluting our children When you look at our demographics and the range of socioeconomic factors affecting us I am hopeful that I've provided you with a deeper understanding of our community and the sense of urgency That I feel as I sit before you today Our members have submitted public comments on this petition and I've done my part as well Now it's up to you and I hope that you will use the power that you have To take swift action and ban these harmful and pervasive chemicals. Thank you. Thank you so much miss Swanson Thank You commissioners for the opportunity to comment My name is Maureen Swanson and I direct the Healthy Children Project for the Learning Disabilities Association of America LDA is the oldest and largest national volunteer organization advocating for children and adults with learning disabilities With chapters in more than 40 states our members are teachers parents health professionals and people with learning disabilities We are also submitting written comments in support of the proposed rule with our partner organizations Including the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities the Autism Society of America and the ARC We are witnessing an alarming increase in neurodevelopmental disorders that cannot be fully explained by changes in awareness or diagnosis One in six children in the United States has a reported developmental disability including autism attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other learning and developmental delays in 2000 the National Academy of Sciences stated that environmental factors Including exposures to toxic chemicals in combination with genetics Contribute to at least a quarter of all neurodevelopmental disorders in the US in the 15 years since that NAS report Scientific evidence linking toxic chemical exposures and neurodevelopmental disorders has reached a critical mass Mounting scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that babies and young children are regularly exposed to halogenated flame retardants And that those exposures pose an unreasonable risk of serious and lasting harm to brain development Halogenated flame retardants cross the placenta to the fetus and are detected in umbilical cord blood and in breast milk These chemicals migrate from furniture electronics and closures mattresses and baby products into dust and are ingested by young children a 2011 study of baby products found that 80% of the items tested contained halogenated flame retardants a 2014 study of 40 daycares and preschools in California found halogenated flame retardants in 100% of dust samples at the facilities What do these constant exposures to halogenated flame retardants mean for the fetus and young children the science on Polybrominated diphenyl ethers and neurodevelopment answers that question In the last five years three separate studies of hundreds of pregnant women and children have resulted in strikingly similar findings Children more highly exposed prenatally to PBD ease have lower IQ scores Cognitive delays and attention problems the decrements in IQ scores persist throughout the children's school years Many halogenated flame retardants are structurally similar to thyroid hormones, which are essential to healthy brain development Earlier this year scientists with the endocrine society concluded that PBD e exposures interfere with thyroid hormones Recent studies of halogenated flame retardants that have replaced PBD ease show that these chemicals also can disrupt thyroid in plain English this class of chemicals alters babies brains I'd like to briefly highlight two replacement halogenated flame retardants that present increasing concerns to brain development in the late 1970s TD CPP was one of several halogenated tris flame retardants banned from children's pajamas in light of grave risks to health instead of halting production and use of TD CPP Manufacturers instead added this toxic chemical to other children's products mattresses and furniture a recent study found that TD CPP was the most commonly detected flame retardant in baby products containing polyurethane foam in 2011 scientists found that TD CPP and other tris flame retardants may affect neuro development with similar or greater potency than chemicals already known or suspected to be neurotoxic Firemaster 550 is the second most commonly detected flame retardant in polyurethane foam It's used in furniture and baby products including nursing pillows and changing pads two of its main components TBB and DBPH are brominated compounds and high production volume chemicals that migrate into house dust In 2012 research implicated Firemaster 550 as an endocrine disrupting chemical at very low exposure levels The study suggests that Firemaster 550 disrupts thyroid and may harm the developing brain As an advocate for children and adults with learning and developmental disabilities and as a parent I cannot imagine why we would allow this class of toxic chemicals to continue to be manufactured and used in products Halogenated flame retardants look like PCBs and dioxins They are similar to known neurotoxins their main mode of action is thyroid hormone disruption and some halogenated flame retardants are also directly neurotoxic in Conclusion restricting a few flame retardant chemicals at a time is a failed approach that results in unreasonable and increased risks to Children's health and development We urge the Commission to issue the proposed rule and end the cycle whereby chemical makers replace one halogenated flame retardant with another Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Pinchina Good morning. Thank you. My name is Daniel Pinchina. I'm testifying today on behalf of the breast cancer fund in support of the petition to ban The sale of four categories of consumer products if they contain non polymeric additive organo halogen flame retardants I appreciate the opportunity to speak today Breast cancer fund is a national nonprofit organization committed to preventing breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals and radiation linked to the disease Today an astonishing one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime a number that has risen significantly in the past four decades We base our policy work on a foundation of sound peer-reviewed science Showing increased risk of breast cancer from exposure to chemicals including carcinogens and endocrine disrupting compounds The breast cancer fund has long advocated for the removal of phthalates from toys and child are child care articles Based on the science showing the links to numerous negative health impacts Organo halogen flame retardants raise many of these same concerns This classic chemicals has been associated with serious health problems including cancer Cognitive and behavioral changes reproductive impairments and endocrine disruption Studies show that flame retardants migrate out of products into our homes and ultimately into our bodies one class of organohannock excuse me organo halogen flame retardants PBD ease has been used extensively in both consumer products and Industrial products and although PBD ease have been banned in the EU and have not been produced in the US since 2004 Products containing them remain throughout the world Due to their persistent nature PBD ease are found ubiquitously in the environment and are detected in the air dust soil food wildlife and in humans a 2003-2004 CDC biomonitoring study Demonstrated that 97% of the study participants were exposed to at least one PBD Organo halogen flame retardants are endocrine disrupting compounds exerting effects on a number of hormonal systems including androgens progestins and estrogens The major system affected by PBD ease the thyroid hormone has a prominent role in regulating brain development And as you've heard from many of my fellow presenters Research has also shown that exposure to PBD ease can promote breast cancer cell growth and interrupt the action of tamoxiflin breast cancer treatment drug As the use of PBD ease has declined Chemicals used as substitutes including firemaster 550 are increasingly contaminating our environment Emerging research is raising serious concerns about the toxicity of firemaster 550 Firefighters are particularly at risk of exposure to flame retardant chemicals and biomonitoring studies have found extremely high levels in firefighters Faced with concerns about multiple cases of pre-menopausal breast cancer among their ranks San Francisco female firefighters have partnered with scientists Advocates including the breast cancer fund To study women's to study women firefighters exposure to organo halogen flame retardants and other chemicals linked to breast cancer Another study found that more more than two and a half fold increase in breast cancer risk among women firefighters age 50 to 55 and Research also suggests a slightly elevated risk for male breast cancer The most effective way to protect first responders is to remove these chemicals from products in the homes They fight to save The strong science showing the toxicity of organo halogen flame retardants provides a solid scientific basis for the Commission to act to ban The cell of these chemicals in these product categories The Commission should not rely on the EPA to take action under the toxic substances control act Tosca has long been acknowledged as failing to protect the public health Even in the few cases where the EPA has initiated safety reviews of specific chemicals The chemical industry has been extremely adept at delaying any final action sometimes for decades The health the American public and the children being exposed to organo halogen flame retardants today cannot wait for this unworkable system The continued sale of household products made with these chemicals place women children firefighters and other vulnerable populations at risk of breast cancer and numerous other negative health impacts The breast cancer fund strongly urges the Commission to act now to ban the sale of these consumer of consumer products covered by this petition That contain dangerous and ineffective organo halogen flame retardants. Thank you for the opportunity to comment to you this morning Thank you so much and thanks to all the members of the panel Mr. Morrison If I might start with you first of all Let me just say on behalf of what I'm sure is a grateful nation and also my fellow colleagues I want to thank the firefighters for the wonderful contribution they make and for the incredible dangers they Face every day. So thank you for the wonderful job that you do What's fascinating to me is that you're a firefighter So one would in the abstract think that you would say the more FR chemicals and products the better because that would be more protective to consumers and more protective of firefighters And yet I hear you saying what seems to be the exact opposite And I was wondering if you could elaborate on just why you think it is that we don't need FR chemicals in so many products in homes and why you think it's so useful and important for firefighters To protect them by not having these FR chemicals, right? I think what you've what you heard me state was the toxic and the carcinogenic Flame retardants in there is what I stated if we could find a substance that you could put in there that could retard The fire absolutely firefighters would be all for that but given the fact of the information and how the additives are put in There and the toxicity on that it's really the cost-benefit analysis on this right now And I think right now it's costing more of our lives than it is protecting the lives that we have And I'm probably asking you to speculate But would you say the same thing with respect to consumers as opposed to firefighters regarding the FR chemicals? Absolutely, I think the statistics that you seek commissioner with the reduction in fire deaths have come as I stated in my testimony from Smoke smoke detective smoke alarms sprinkler buildings fire prevention programs So we've seen a drastic a decrease in those deaths because of those programs Do other people use those same statistics to support toxic flame retardants and I think that is misrepresentation of the information Thank you so much. Dr. Lowry you state the children are disproportionately vulnerable to toxic chemicals And I'm wondering where these organohalogens fit into the notion of toxic chemicals. Do they are they is dangerous as other toxic chemicals Equally dangerous or somewhat more dangerous just putting it in into a context of relative priority I Think it's more about The exposure I mean obviously I'm also a medical toxicologist So we think about the acute high exposures and poison control centers and and that's not what I'm talking about here I'm talking about those low level exposures where we Have the science that dr. Birnbaum actually spoke to where those low level exposures occur and kids children are more highly vulnerable just because of the High amount that these chemicals have in dust organohalogens flame retardants are one of them And and there have been association studies that state that they cause risk In order I don't necessarily think I can put like This is more important than that is more important. I think all chemicals should write we would love to be able to do that Right. I know you're looking at thowates in it So it's a kind of a long that same line all of them are endocrine disruptors And I think that if we more importantly I can look at the risk and benefit And if the there is no benefit and there's actually risk then I think that puts it may be a little bit higher on then if there's so much more benefit and No risk But we just know that there's really no benefit to these chemicals and so why I put the children at risk Miss once and you made an interesting observation that I just I think I understand But I'd like to pin down a little bit more you say we are witnessing an alarming increase in neurodevelopmental Disorders that cannot be fully explained by changes in awareness or diagnosis Which I take to mean that the risk is growing But could you expand on that point just a little bit to help me understand? So that does mean that children aren't at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in part because of increased Exposures to toxic chemicals like halogenated flame retardants So there have been some studies showing that while changes in awareness and different diagnostic criteria Are Responsible for some of the increase in diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders There's a large portion of that increase that is not explained by those factors and that represents the scientists say a true increase In autism and ADHD yeah, that's such an important point because if people are more worried about something They may tend to see it but you're saying setting all that aside or even factor net in we seem to have an increasing problem Thank you very much for your testimony Commissioner Robinson Thank You Commissioner Adler and thank you to all of you for coming in today. We really really appreciate this This is a critically important area for us to hear your testimony on a couple follow-up questions Mr. Morrison, I want to ask you you were you were talking about the what you attribute the Decrease in fire deaths too, but I'd like to just have you comment on one more limitation that we have in this petition And that is with respect to these four product areas And that is children's products outer casings of electronics mattresses and residential furniture Do you have any reason to think that taking this category of flame retardant out of those four product lines? Will in any way affect safety? No, no, I don't I think that there are ways especially what we've seen so far Especially in the in the furniture different ways that you can use barrier methods to protect without using those chemicals in the furniture And that's one of the biggest exposures that we're seeing in the fire service. We don't see that We we do not see that we're gonna have an increase and that would would you know would be the big panic that if you take this out More people are gonna die from the lack of these flame retardants That's not what we see and we think that the use of the data that they are using are skewed toward Making you think about and you've told us the heartbreaking statistics with respect to the firefighters and first responders with respect to the toxicity Could you just quickly comment on what it is about those chemicals and fire that make them so toxic to the first responders? It's just the nature of our job of firefighting itself when you're in that environment people think that we have this protective Ensemble that's gonna protect us. We're not gonna be exposed the exposure is through the that smoke And that soot and then the products in that soot lay on to our skins and it is the latest studies that we've had We have four recent landmark studies really look at the absorption rate So if you heard from the other panelists, we are extremely concerned that that absorption rate with the firefighters at a much higher level than the General population and we get it. We are the general population also that increase is the is the the factor that we're Truly concerned with on the on the cancers that are increasing every year And just quickly dr. Lowry and and miss once and I've spoken to the effects on children But dr. Lowry could you just quickly just amplify on what you said in response to commissioner Adler's question that children have a higher susceptibility to dust why is that physiologically Largely because when you're born you're not done. Okay, so I think we know that right so you're both are gonna be Well, you know, that's that's a whole another discussion Um So the the brain growth is actually more prominent in the first three years of life five years But probably the first three years. So there's high amount of high end of mouth Activity children are lower to the ground. So they're more exposed to this dust And I think if you look at the data from the CDC and the NHANES the majority of those PBDEs by far are in children one year old and or less than three And so because of the high amount of it when it gets back to Commissioner Adler's discussion they have much higher exposure and they're not done and so any and they have The blood-brain barrier is not Finished and so they have more ability for these chemicals to actually get into the brain and cause the harm and so It puts them at added risk. Thank you, mr. Torres I'd like to follow up just for a moment on your testimony about with respect to your specific community the Hispanic community and what we found with respect to the underserved communities you talked a bit about the underserved communities and living in urban areas specifically that the Hispanic population and not having access to green spaces And I don't want you to speculate too much, but do you have we do have statistics? I know that show that the underserved communities are affected more by the toxicity Of the of the dust, but do you have further? Information as to why it is that those communities have higher level of flame retardants in their children and in particularly pregnant mothers, I suppose Right, and I think we do have some information on that There's low-income populations may also face Disparate high exposures to to due to the presence of older or deteriorated or poorly Manufactured furniture in these homes many of these families can't just buy themselves out and get rid of this furniture It's cost-prohibited and this is this is a problem because they're getting exposed at higher rates There are less spaces for them to go alternate alternative spaces If you can't go to your home without being exposed then where can you go? And I think that's a huge issue for us And it makes it a civil rights issue because our folks at that point They don't have a safe space to raise their children like everybody else. Thank you. Mr. Torres Thank you very much commissioner Burkle. Thank you, mr. Chair. I Was going to single out mr. Morrison and thank him for your service and the industry and the profession service and being first responders But each one of you at the table have a unique and valuable perspective for us And so I do want to thank all of you for being here. It's critically important that we hear your testimony today The only question I have is for mr. Morrison. So Given the fact that this exposure to firefighters occurs in the workplace Does OSHA have any authority to address this issue and could they help out here? We would love for OSHA to have something We're actually working with NACOS right now on a panel rulemaking to to get that protection to the firefighters We are we work for the public in that domain and a lot of firefighters aren't covered under the the OSHA Regulations and the laws where we're working on changing that but on the fire ground itself We do not have that protection of the level of exposures to firefighters in an OSHA standard that would allow us to really address this Thank you very much Thank You commissioner moho rovick. Thank You mr. Chairman I'd like to also echo the comments made so eloquently by my colleague commissioner Burkle to the whole panel Mr. Morrison, I have a question for you with regards to your testimony and the concern of these chemicals and the possible Tracinogenic effects of them on your association and firefighters in general if the CPSC moved forward with rulemaking and was able to make a finding of toxicity But not based on On the chemicals potential to be a carcinogen but based on other elements of toxicity as mentioned by other members of the panel Either mutagen or reproductive toxin or the other kind of Impacts would would you still support the the agency moving forward? Yes, we would I mean that Obviously what we're looking at is a reduction of those toxic chemicals and exposure for us I mean that is our primary reason to be here in front of the Commission's and we we're looking at this and knowing that they are Carcinogenic, I mean that's that that's the problem is that this group. We're just trying to reduce that exposure for us as firefighters That's the only way that we know we're going to be able to combat the increase in the cancer is to do that in a Lot of different ways. It's not just in this in this one little area that we're addressing But this one little area really is significantly for us. Anyway, it's significantly Alarming for us and on the rates that we're Mr. Morrison Would you also support CPSC adopting TB 117 13 as a national mandatory standard for upholstered furniture? I would love for the Commission to Thank you, Mr. Torres as Commissioner Robinson was I was very interested in your testimony and the Concern for the disproportionate representation of communities of color as mentioned in the previous panel, but with your association and Hispanics and Latin American Latin American children and the the California study that you cited in your in your testimony you mentioned you mentioned the availability of open spaces and In evaluating that California study were you familiar whether or not they evaluated Children not of color living in urban populations and whether or not they also I'm trying to understand whether or not We've got a correlation or a causation situation And whether it's race-based or or based principally upon Where where children are being raised whether it's in a urban environment or in a more rural environment in California? Being what it is and with the Association and Hispanics being in very many rural Areas of California as well as urban Was there a difference between was there any differences you might be able to? Relate to the Commission here. I think I'd have to get back to you on the correlation correlation Point but the point that I was making was that low-income minority children have higher levels of exposure And when their blood has been tested they have higher levels of that chemical toxic toxicity and thank you And I do recognize also that you mentioned another concern of an inability because because of Economic conditions of being able to buy oneself out by being able to make price purchases for green products So I recognize your testimony there as well. Thank you very much. That's all I have mr. Chairman Thank you very much. We will now excuse this panel and move to panel number four. Thank you We're now going to proceed to panel four Judging by some of the body language have observed you're raring to go and you have a number of comments And we certainly appreciate your attendance, and we look forward to hearing from you We have mr. Robert Simon from the American Chemistry Council and the North American flame retardant alliance Mr. Michael walls from the American Chemistry Council dr. Matthew blaze Southwestern Research Institute dr. Thomas awesome it's awesome it's From science strategies mr. Chris fleet information technology industry council and the consumer technology association and Mr. Timothy Riley from Clarence Corporation, and we welcome you all mr. Simon Thank You commissioners My name is Robert J. Simon. I'm here today representing the American Chemistry Council and its North American flame retardant alliance The NAFRA member companies are the primary producers of flame retardants including but not limited to organo halogen flame retardants the NAFRA member companies produce a range of products that are designed to enhance fire performance of various end uses including both commercial and industrial and They're committed to both a you know a strong and transparent regulatory system that provides both And I think we heard this from commissioner K's strong fire protection as well as safety chemical safety Appreciate the opportunity to be here today also wanted to say thank you to the commissioners for taking time last month We tried to come in and give a little bit of briefing about our industry, so we appreciate your time I'm speaking today in opposition to the petition because of its overly broad nature as well as its potential impact to reduce or undermine fire safety I'm trying to I'm gonna try and tailor my remarks a little bit to some of the discussion that's already happened this morning But I'd like to emphasize basically three key points So first is as the CPSC well knows fire safety is a critical factor to consider particularly for this petition And as part of that flame retardants are important part of the overall fire protection measures that are put in place The good news is that fires have dropped dramatically since the 70s And that is that's a that's directly as a result of a comprehensive set of fire protection measures Including flame retardants that been in put in place and in some cases the CPSC is led in that regard At the same time fire represents a real ongoing challenge fire fire fires and departments respond to a fire every 25 seconds in the US and as the CPSC is recognized and it's a most recent chairman's challenge Just on an annual basis over 2000 fire deaths over 13,000 fire injuries over six billion in fire damages So while fire safety we've made progress. It's still a real issue And the CPSC's own recall data reinforces this in the last several years There's been over 7,000 product recalls as it relates to fire hazard including the product categories that are identified in the petition And just I would note yesterday. There was another product recall as it related to electronics and furniture So sort of a timely issue, but the reality is is that the changing nature of our consumer products has increased fire safety risk We have a lot more synthetic products in our homes and that we use and on their own those synthetic materials are more flammable And that's why we have these fire safety protection measures Flame retardants have been proven to be effective and helping not only prevent fires But also where there is a fire slowing the rate of that fire progression which gives both consumers and our families more time to Escape but also for firefighters to get to a fire and help respond So bottom line is fire safety is a critical factor and encourage you to think about this as you evaluate this petition second key point I want to make flame retardants include a broad range of substances and the petition outlines a broad range of Substances that would be covered these have different properties different structures different uses There was a lot of discussion this morning about the differences and the similarities I think I just want to emphasize these are very different substances And while I understand the petitioners have tried to narrow or at least clarify the original intent of the scope of the petition If you just look at the 25 substances that were referenced in there In the initial petition some are solid some are liquids some are volatile some are non-volatile Some are soluble some are non-soluble so very different and I just want to emphasize that point and the reason they're different is that You use different flame retardants for different materials something in electronic casing is going to be very different than say the foam in your Firmature, so there's a reason for those differences But this petition ignores those differences and would ban a broad range of products including those that have been Determined to be safe for their intended use and did not present a risk and as well as substances that haven't even been invented yet And the third one I'll just close with is that you know again our from our perspective the petition is overly broad It has the potential to undermine fire safety and does not set forth sufficient facts to ban these substances under the FHSA I've already stated some of the comments with regards to why it's broad Also why it has the potential to undermine fire safety but I'll just focus on the last issue which is a lot of the claims in the petition tend to focus on hazard and Just you know there's really no consideration of the actual risk that might be presented and that's important for two reasons One is that's a potential requirement is evaluating these under the FHSA But I'm just gonna use one case study so TBB PA is one of the flame retardants that is potentially covered underneath this petition It has both additive and reactive applications most recent comprehensive study showed that that chemical is 7 million times below the established safety and health margins first up for for that chemical and on top of that It's been reviewed by multiple government agencies including comprehensive reviews by the European Union by Canada that have determined that substance does not present Potential adverse risk to human health or in the environment So in this case we'd be adopting a petition that would ban a substance that has been approved by other government agencies and does not Present a risk to human health or in the environment and that's a question is why would why would the CPSC choose to take that action? So that's an example. There's a lot of flame retardants that are covered I'll end there and I just would emphasize it again. We support a very strong and transparent regulatory system We don't think that the petition meets the standard and encourage the CPSC to deny that petition Thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Walls. Thank you very much. Good morning commissioners Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Michael Walls I'm the vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council and I'm here basically just to also support the comments of my colleague Rob Simon ACC overall represents the leading companies in the business of chemistry We our members apply the science of chemistry to make people's lives better healthier and safer and safety and and and Health has been important drivers for our for our industry In developing new products and bringing them to market We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments to you and we want to ensure you assure you of our Of our interest in working with you to provide additional information as you consider this petition I'm here to oppose the petition Before you today And I'd like to focus on two major points first That the substances that are under review have already been or are currently Undergoing a review for their safety by the Environmental Protection Agency Under what we consider to be a fairly comprehensive regulatory system That work at EPA is very relevant to your decision on this petition and we'd strongly encourage you to Look for an opportunity to consult with the EPA on this clearly the CPSC has a As a role in regulating consumer products, but this petition would have you duplicating work at EPA You know flame retardants that are on the market are like many other chemicals subject to the top to the toxic substances control act as well as Other regulatory systems now Tosca confers broad authority on the EPA to regulate chemicals Including all of the uses cited under the petition in addition Tosca confers specific authority to EPA to consider categories of classes of chemicals for regulation It does not the agency does not have to take an individuals chemical by chemical approach to regulation In addition EPA has developed in regulating these substances as developed Considerable expertise in toxicology exposure assessment and risk assessment to address Unreasonable risks posed by by chemicals and we believe that that expertise is again relevant here in terms of New chemicals that are coming on the market EPA has considerable authority in reviewing new chemical substances And in fact EPA can prohibit new new substances coming onto the market for their use in particular products Has a wide range of regulatory authority with respect to existing chemicals It's certainly true that the agency has been the EPA has been criticized in terms of its implementation of the toxic substances control That but nonetheless beginning in March of 2012 EPA actually began to exercise its authority to Prioritize existing chemicals on the market and begin review of those substances for their Potential toxicity and potential regulatory needs. It's called the work plan for chemical assessments It currently has 90 chemicals on that list of that 90 Flamer tarts was a particular class that was singled out by EPA for a particular review of the 70 Flamer tarts at EPA reviewed they've apparently they have said that Approximately 50 of those are unlikely to pose a risk to human health For the remaining 20 those assessments Are underway? We think that that information is particularly important for the Commission as you Consider the most current scientific information that's applicable to these substances the efficient use of resources here at the Commission and the avoidance of duplication with with the work of other agencies the second point I'd like to make is that this petition It is is overbroad. It's a troubling application of the FHSA in our view and should be rejected We believe the petition doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the act And specifically that it tends to ignore the complexities of product evaluations Whether a product's harmful depends on multiple factors including the the ingredients themselves How those chemicals might be integrated into the product the actual exposure levels arising from them? So the mere presence of a chemical substance seems to be the focus of this petition rather than the actual risk And this is not a scientifically accurate Approach to regulating these substances so In our view the petition doesn't meet the standards established by the FHSA We appreciate your time and we'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much Dr. Blase Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you commissioners I'm also opposed to the rule and I have a presentation and I'm gonna present a few fire facts I run a fire research laboratory We do between three and four thousand fire tests a year looking at materials reaction to fire What that means is we look at the propensity to ignite how much energy they releases they burn how fast it releases it and How much toxic smoke is emitted as a result of that and we do again almost 4,000 of those tests a year Can we go to the third slide, please? Next one, please some basic fire facts the three The third fourth and fifth bullets there under the first line the leading cause of accidental death The fourth leading cause of accidental death in ages one to four Is fire for children. These are 2013 statistics about 129 children died in 2013 in that age group five to nine It's the third leading cause and again, that's only 87 deaths, but it's still a significant number the really startling number is it's the seventh leading cause of death for Ages 65 and over and we're talking more than 1100 deaths a year related to fire injury So it's a significant killer of the elderly Next slide, please fire safety is best when it's layered We test sprinklers on a routine basis even sprinkler systems can't suppress all fires We did a test where we were looking at commodity storage of Sulfone fluids in polyethylene tote containers stacked three high And we designed the test to withstand the fluid inside the containers Ignored the polymers that made up the casing of the container and one of them drained and the fire got so large The suppression system couldn't handle it So to say that a single layer of fire protection is adequate is probably an inaccurate statement You need multiple layers Looking at Cal TV 117 the 2013 standard It talks about fire barriers as being an optimal type of barrier and that the smolder only standard is adequate to test the Materials we've done a series of tests on furniture and we found that a fire barrier is a great thing But if it's over a foam that's highly ignitable and releases lots of energy It will burn it better than a megawatt heat release rate Which will ignite a room reach flash over and cause mass death So it's important to have layers of fire protection whether it's layers within the furniture that's being designed or layers within the house itself Next slide, please As a couple of panelists have said already the use of polymers in the home has increased the fuel load in homes today Polymers have tremendous heat content. The human body stores fat. That is basically a polymer. It's a hydrocarbon The reason it does that it's the most efficient energy storage system there is and as a result It releases that energy rapidly when combustion occurs So it's pretty important to understand that when you're dealing with polymers The heat load in a home is huge compared to what it was in the 60s In addition, you have batteries and everything today So there's plenty of ignition sources out there that could potentially ignite those polymers whether the cases or not next slide, please We'll skip over this next slide only have five minutes. There's only so much I can cover fire tartans mode of action They prevent ignition of materials from small ignition open flame sources They slow the rate of fire growth and they reduce the overall peak heat release rate that reduces the impact of a fire next slide, please This is what's important here. These are two television sets that we tested as a part of a larger study We used a 500 watt ignition source with a two-minute exposure What you're seeing is a time-lapsed a video of the effect of that when you remove the Ignition source you can see that the other TV with the fire retardants in it on the right Barely burns while the one on the left with no fire retardants, which does not come from a US market From Brazil burns rapidly so without fire retardants in the casing material You get a fairly large fire which can spread and cause a larger fire in the home so obviously there's a lot more safety in the one on the right hand side and The peak heat release rates are pretty significant. We get up to A half a megawatt of total energy released from a 30 inch television That's not a large television in today's market the larger the surface area the larger the heat release rates going to be Next slide, please No next slide, please The problem with showing fire retardants add values you're proving a negative If a fire never happens you can't say there's a benefit because it you're not recording it There's no data to support that But we know they work from our testing in the laboratory when you test against standardized testing We find all the time that fire retardant materials end up having longer time to ignition lower peak heat release rate Overall, they're more fire resistant and as a result of that they're safer in our homes That's I guess my last slide. So thank you so much. Dr. Ausimitz Thank you for thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today I'm coming to you as a toxicologist with a doctorate degree in toxicology and board certified in toxicology in the US And also in the European Union. I've got over 30 years of experience looking at hazard exposure and risk to a variety of different chemicals We're going to company called science strategies and principal scientist I'm here as an independent scientist by have to add as well I chair the science advisory council for the North American flame retardant Alliance and the SAC has members from the toxicology community like myself and members from the fire safety community as well So I'm fairly familiar with this this set of chemistry really two points I want to make regarding the petition and it's Taylor I've tater just a little bit to what I heard this morning probably the most concerning is the idea of grouping all these chemicals together and Is someone who's looked in detail at the various hazard assessments and the risk assessments that have been conducted on them? They are not the same I can give several examples the written testimony has a couple of them in more more detail than I'll do here But TCPP is one example, and I know the nomenclature you can get pretty complicated with TCPP TCE PD CPP etc But TCPP although it's structurally related to these other molecules some of which do have problematic properties TCPP is not considered neurotoxic It's not toxic to the reproductive system It's not classified as a carcinogen mutagen and reproductive toxin so when you see in the petitioner You hear people say something to the extent that human exposure to all state flame organo halogen flame retardants is associated with long-term chronic health effects It isn't true for all the molecules and a careful look at the data that are available publicly and available But the data that the EPA has used in their assessments, especially through the design For the environment the DFA program you'll note that The other point I think it's important to stress is considering exposure and risk That's often a difficult subject because estimating exposure can be problematic depending on the population you have But it's essential because we know that every day we're exposed to many chemicals Which are hazardous when they're tested in toxicology laboratories But we use those chemicals safely our body can handle them etc Not all chemicals operate that way, but it really does need to be looked at in a case-by-case basis Mr. Simon mentioned the assessments that have been done in the European Union The European Union as well as environment Canada has looked carefully at TBB PA and found the uses are posing no risk to humans Or the environment and most recently, and I think this is probably one of the more informative reports I cite this in the submission coal not at all did a comprehensive assessment of exposure As well and they include a dust exposure you've heard about that this morning Which is something you really do need to take a look at it's a legitimate Concern about exposure chemicals and dust But you do need to put it in perspective as to how much dust people actually get and even when you factor in exposure to children You'll see that there's large margins of safety that would be acceptable by most standards in the United States And also in the European Union and I refer to you to that report And you'll see that there actually has been an awful lot of work considering all the types of exposures Back to TCPP the European Union completed a 400 page risk assessment and this was completed in back in 2009 and then Reviewed again by a DG Sanko one of the European Union agencies in 2011 and found to be credible Two other important points when we talk about exposure The idea that you can have safe exposures is something again that needs to be considered And this is something that has to be done a case-by-case basis and to some extent a use-by-use basis And it has to be different for adults versus children. So those are very important points I'll close here in a moment, but I Urge you to take a look at the organohalogens as a class of molecules that are similar structurally But the structural similarities do not necessarily translate into hazard nor potential for exposure so by looking at the carefully the work that's been published and additionally the work that's available through the Authoritative regulatory bodies. I think you'll see that so in in conclusion, I Urge you to take a look at them individually And second of all, please take a look at exposure and risk and you can come up with priorities There's been questions about how do you prioritize? It's very difficult when you have all the chemicals in the environment and products and as someone who is in the consumer product Industry for 15 years at SC Johnson. We had to do that all the time But what we did is we prioritize my prior to our is based on exposure and ultimately on risk And I think that works pretty well, so I'd recommend you consider that Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you very much Dr. Clee The technology and industry sectors are presented by the Information Technology Industry Council and the Consumer Technology Association Thank the Commission for the opportunity to provide comments on petition requesting a rulemaking on products containing additive organo, halogen flame retardants My name is Chris cleat, and I'm the director of environment and sustainability at ITI My background is in chemistry and environmental science, and I've been working on materials product stewardship and sustainability issues for the technology and electronic sectors for over 10 years I'm testified today on behalf of both associations ITI and CTA and we're the manufacturers of electronic devices Whole bunch of them that we list in our written comments that are mentioned in the petition Our member companies have long been recognizes for their commitment in leadership and innovation sustainability Taking measures to exceed regulatory requirements and environmental design energy efficiency product stewardship, which includes of course consumer safety given our share goals and commitment to consumer safety and Our scientific and technical expertise experience in product safety We respectfully request that the Commission deny this petition and not not to initiate a rulemaking in my testimony We discussed how the petition before you is overly broad Insufficiently justified and its goals are already being met through numerous other voluntary and government initiatives because of this The action proposed is unneeded unnecessarily expansive and could do more harm than good The CPSI includes a comprehensive certification Requirements for banned materials a rule banning of ours and electronic products will impose unprecedented regulatory regulatory challenges With no clear link to consumer benefit or safety the electronic sectors support continuing Participation in existing and proven industry and government-led initiatives Which provide methods to reduce the use of of ours while maintaining product integrity and enhancing consumer safety? Consumer safety has always been our top priority It's a moral imperative and it's essential to the trust of our customers the technology and electronic centers have been voluntarily phasing out a lot of OFRs in electronic devices for years When and where the technology science and advances in new materials support these changes For examples our sectors phased out the use of octa BDE decades ago, and we're phasing out the very few remaining uses of deca PDE That said it's important to recognize the flame retardants are essential for consumer safety One industry effort the IEEE 1680 Family of standards. They're also related to the EPT Green purchasing program have incentivized manufacturers to remove additive brominated and chlorinated flame retardants from the products covered in these standards There are many other industry efforts underway that we detail further in our written comments as part of our sectors Continuing commitment to the environment Our companies continually reassess the use of all materials and our products substances used in electronic products have been selected Due to their unique physical and chemical properties We work to substitute when these could produce when these could pose concerns and once we identify compounds that are suitable and effective to use We we replace them improve techniques and technology was available today Enable to accurately evaluate potential human health effects of chemicals in their use and help manufacturers select the best chemicals and Substances to minimize potential for introduction of regrettable substances We believe applying these measured and database approaches rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all band is the proper way To reduce some of the issues related to some of ours Potential fire hazards and high-tech and electronics are routinely managed using well-established best design practices and appropriate material selections the product standards prescribe the appropriate level of flame resistance in accordance with how the materials are used and How the product operated while the use of flame retardant compounds is not required by any national law or regulation There are very stringent fire safety law Specifications and standards for electronics the outright ban of these chemicals will have the unattending consequences of Alternating the proven approach that is long insured the fire safety electronic products If OFRs are banned as an entire class the path forward for new products will be very unclear in Summary like to thank the Commission again for the opportunity to provide comments today ITI and CTA believe that the petition being considered is overly broad Fails to justify the need for the Commission to initiate a room like you Both myself and Alice and Shoemaker. She's in the other room We're happy to answer any further questions and as I said before we'll be submitting detailed written comments Thank you so much. Mr. Riley. Thank you Good morning. My name is Tim Riley. I have a technical marketing position involving flame retardants at Clarion Corporation Clarion there's a Swiss based global specialty chemical company with 17,000 employees Including 2000 here in North America Clarion manufacturers halogen free phosphorus based flame retardants which are used in different plastics coatings and adhesives Our products are widely used in green consumer electronic products such as laptops handheld devices and other electrical equipment The environmental and hazard profile of these products are in the public domain Such as the US EPA designed for the environment alternatives assessment Today the focus of my comments relate to meeting fire safety requirements With an improved environmental health and safety profile It is possible to maintain a high level of fire safety while Simultaneously protecting human health and the environment these two requirements can coexist I will now provide several examples where industry has provided viable technical solutions In North in the North American market concerning the replacement of certain organo halogens Example one furniture polyurethane foam to meet California TB 117 1975 a Reactive halogen free flame retardant can be used in this commercial application to meet the open flame test The flame retardant becomes bound and part of the polyurethane There is no migration of flame retardant therefore no exposure Example two interior automotive polyurethane foam to meet federal standard FMV SS 302 PCP has been used in interior automotive applications such as headliners and seating a Halogen free reactive flame retardant can be used to pass this same test Again the flame retardant becomes bound into the polyurethane structure and does not migrate Example three building and construction Poly iso cyanure it roofing board insulation to meet you well class a Currently many Thousands of tons of the organo halogen TCPP are used for insulation in buildings throughout North America a Commercial technical solution now exists using a reactive halogen free flame retardant The Johns Manville company won a green building award during 2014 with this first to market halogen free insulation board TCPP can be replaced in this application Example for building and construction rigid polystyrene foam thermal installation to meet ASTM E84 historically Thousands of tons of the organo halogen HBCD has been used for the building and construction Application the Dow chemical company has invented a new Brominated polymeric molecule and has licensed three different flame retardant companies to produce and sell this product Due to its molecular size this additive flame retardant does not migrate HBCD can now be replaced in this application Example five deca BD replacement in electronics housings and other applications to meet you L 94 and other tests if an OEM manufacturer Chooses either the pile of polymer alloy PCABS or PPE hips for the electronic enclosure and halogen free solutions are possible One final example mattresses polyurethane foam to meet 16 CFR 1633 in California TB 129 There has been some recent work done as part of a joint industry academia government project using commercially available halogen free flame returns to meet the mattress fire tests the goal is commercial commercialization of a migration free solution for Polyurethane mattresses and so far the results look quite promising and the work continues my conclusion fire safety and consumer products should be maintained either either by the use of alternative flame retardant chemicals or Inherently fire retardant materials. We urge the CPSC to consider alternative Technologies and any future rulemaking this will keep the door open for continued R&D investment and Innovation by our industry. Thank you and thank you very much. I see we have six panelists So we're going to try to ask our questions crisply and mr. Simon and mr. Walls And other members of the panel mentioned that you think the petition is overly broad now one of the abilities of the Commission is to Grant a petition fully granted in part Or deny it and so I guess the question is When you're saying that it's overly broad Are you in effect asserting that we should not pay any attention to these non-polymeric? organic Organo halogens that are intentionally added to consumer products So from a from an association perspective that operates on our antitrust law It's hard for us to speak to specifics in the marketplace, but I think what to your question It's more about what might be done here So our I guess our feedback to the CPSC would be is deny the petition. It's overly broad Let's identify those substances if there are those that do you know present a risk and would be consistent with the standards Under the FHSA and then have the CPSC initiate rulemaking on those you know those Substances in those applications that really present a risk, and I think that would be our feedback Mr. Simon you have been here explaining why they don't present a risk. I'm assuming that the That the industry has done risk assessments on its own Are you unable to share those risk assessments with us? No have to and in fact mention some of those today and we'll definitely share that and also provide that as part of our Comments, I think I was trying to just be responsive to your questions of are there you know to the extent of their things that should be focused on I think there are substances that are out there and you heard a little bit about those from today But again our view would be as any regulation should focus on those that present a risk and not you know Just not based on mere presence and take into account those factors. Thank you. Mr. Wallace I would only add commissioner that we think that there's a need to distinguish between those individual substances, right? So I think the problem here is that it's so the petition is so sweeping that you haven't had an opportunity to really understand Well, are these substances different do they have different characteristics as they're applied in these product groupings? That's the basis for our recommendation that you consult with the Environmental Protection Agency to understand Which of those 70 flame retardants that they looked at are potentially covered by this petition and which might Which might which of those might fall into that group of 50 for example that the agency has already concluded are safe for their uses Yeah, and about that 50. I did want to ask you a specific question. How many of those 50 are Non-polymeric organo halogen flame retardants and additive form. That's an excellent question Unfortunately, the agency hasn't hasn't released the cast numbers the chemical abstract service numbers relevant to those substances So I cannot answer that specifically, but we'll try and get you that I'd really appreciate it And I guess the other question I would have is When you look at the pharmaceutical industry, they have moved towards publishing all studies that have been done including those that are inconclusive and those are Demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their product to your knowledge. Is there a set of Studies done by the industry known to them not known to us unpublished that would have Direct bearing on this issue It's to your knowledge. Yeah, I mean I guess to answer your question, you know from an ACC perspective when our groups do a study We make that available and I mean that's part of our policy now I can't speak to every company in terms of how everything's been done, but that there are also requirements under law under Tosca to you know make information available if you determine that there are health and environmental effects so I think there's both regulatory and Company policies there and just to quickly add to that commissioner the toxic substance control act doesn't require Negative studies to be submitted to the agency, of course So it's only studies that have where there's been a determination that there's a health or safety impact that they're submitted So there may in fact be Information on these substances as well as others that are that are not otherwise have not otherwise been made available I only have one minute, but I would like to throw open this question to the others You've heard the concern about this concept called regrettable Substitution and I was wondering if any of you would care to make a very very quick Observation about it in the minute that I have remaining and dr. Osmits. It looks like I can do fairly quickly I sure understand the concept and it's something you do want to avoid many of the regrettable Substitutions in the past occurred in a different era a different era I think of how toxicology testing was done how regulatory agencies performed Since many of those regrettable substitutions that you heard about earlier today and some of them I would agree with not all of them I would think I would agree with but on the other hand there's a much more comprehensive testing by industry the risk assessments have been done in the European Union and the Environment Canada give me a lot of confidence that there's a lot more science being produced on all these molecules and there would have been 10 or 15 years ago Thank you very much commissioner Robinson Thank you commissioner Adler when in looking at this petition and what we're being asked to do It's been very very important to my analysis that I really really focus on the limits of the petition and I confess to being Enormously frustrated with the people who are opposing this petition that those same Specifics have not been part of the presentations either written or oral So I'm hoping in my five minutes to do a little bit on that these are non-polymeric Additive organo halogen flame retardants in four product areas. That's it And so when we hear things for example from you, Mr. Simon about TBB PA, which we know is used in a reactive form Not an added form. That's not helpful. Mr. Blaze it's not helpful when we see the innards of a TV burning when we're not talking about the innards of a TV Nobody's asking that we ban them there They're asking for the casings only and we know that in Europe They don't have flame retardants in the casings and they have exponentially Fewer fires that involve casings than we do in the United States So I'm just hoping in response to my questions that we can limit this to what the petition is asking for So let me ask any of you do any of you know of and I'm focusing on the scientific grouping of these particular Chemicals and when it is appropriate for the structural differences that would reach a different end point to be something that we should be Considering so that we would say it's not appropriate to lump these together So let me ask it specifically do any of you know of a non-organic additive organo halogen fire retardant flame retardant that is structurally different enough from others in that category to bring about a different end point in terms of the toxic effect and Commissioner I can understand your frustration I guess what I just like to emphasize in the case that I used to the example with TBP a it is used in additive applications Very rarely and only in really recent times the only studies we have a reactive form inside Electronics primarily. Okay. Well, I just again it may not meet your needs But I think that was the example we were using as one that would be covered under this that is used in an additive way And when done a risk assessment did not present a risk to human health in the environment So what I would do is it would limit it in additive form not a reactive form By definition of the petition right those but those it would still be included And it would be one of those that would be restricted despite the fact that it's been determined to be you know not present a risk And that's that was the point. I was just trying to we just try my question Are you aware of any any chemicals without me that go fall in this category that are structurally different enough that They would result in a different end point. So we should exclude those from the grouping Okay, let me try it you can you can answer this later, too I mean I've got five minutes, but if you've got it quickly one quick correction That was a casing fire on the television the one that I showed in the video that was the casing that was burning not the interior That certainly looked like an interior with what we were watching. No, it was the back panel the plastics of the casing Okay, thank you But let me ask you this mr. Walls You do understand that the we're on the EPA and the CPSC operate on completely different statutes under completely different statutes And you understand that the EPA is looking at industrial chemicals And we're looking at chemicals in consumer products and for this petition specifically four categories of consumer products, right? Yes, commissioner. Okay, and when you told us yet that 50 of them had been found there'd be no threat to human Help again, they may not even be in this grouping because you just don't know I think commissioner that's important to find that out EPA clearly under Tosca has the has the authority to reach articles even consumer products So my question is specifically do you know because that's no, I don't I'm I did So the the Dr. Ossamets in terms of this grouping that you're troubled by because I think anybody looking at the petition even Dr. Birnbaum this morning said when you first look at it you think this seems to be really Expansive in terms of the grouping but again, I get back to the scientific explanation of groupings appropriate groupings for regulatory purposes and what is it about this grouping that's not Appropriate in terms of structural differences that change the end points. Well at first I think there's two points one if you have no information at all And we've got a new set of molecules never seen before by humankind you want to do grouping and you want to Structure activity relationships, and you maybe take a couple of chemicals to represent the whole class that's completely appropriate It's good science, but in the case here, and I could follow up with some specifics where you have actual toxicology studies in some cases Dozens of toxicology studies that they conducted on similar molecules within that are relatively similar But they have different results. You really do have to look at the results So even though the structures may be relatively similar you do have to you know real data should trump a model assumption The non-Polymeric and the polymeric right that's true my time's up Commissioner Herberco Thank You mr. Chair. I have a series of questions, and if I can't get to them all I will do Q of ours You know follow up with some questions, and so with regards to that if you could keep your answers Short and crisp. I'd really appreciate it Number one, I don't know if you heard the first panel one of my questions is can we prioritize those 83 chemicals? And so I guess I'd ask that question Is there a way to prioritize the chemicals in terms of risk and exposure? Commissioner I think one place to start would be the Prioritization process that EPA has applied in its work plan chemical process. It looks at a number of factors Again, it's not making a conclusion about their risk at that point. It's It's a prioritization screening process But I think that has the type of elements that we could commend you for consideration. Thank you. Is there data? With regards to what FRs what flame retardants one of these one of these chemicals are used in each of the four categories You don't need to be specific But just is there data available that you can provide to me to us that takes the the FRs or the Chemicals and applies them to each of the four categories. So we know what what we're talking about rather than this broad I'm trying to break this down. I've heard you know from all of you that this is overly broad And I'm trying to understand a way for a non-scientist to approach this issue We plan to provide that data in our written comments Definitely do that and one of our prioritization issues as well is looking at the chemicals that haven't been already removed So one of the points I made is that we've got this long process of the evaluating individual chemicals removing them where it makes sense So putting regulatory restrictions on things that have already been happen that have already basically happened Could be a good way to prioritize. Thank you I would just say we'll also Provide that information and along those lines as well as try and outline why some of those aren't interchangeable I think that's important thing. We were trying to emphasize is that you just can't mix these and that's that's but that's important To know because that'll help with that. Thank you Any one of you can answer this but I'll address it to mr. Walls Do you think that in your opinion we would need to convene a chap to get to Into this inquiry Commissioner tell you the truth. I haven't really thought of that approach Not really competent to respond to that out right now. Is anyone else Interested in responding to that Mr. Simon, I would just say maybe given what mr. Wall said is that because there are some ongoing work at US EPA I think a lot of that work has been done and we can look there as part of that information I know there's been ongoing exchanges between the CPSC and EPA and I think that would be a good place to start that and I know it's not directly responsive to your question, but maybe commissioner Robinson I think another point would be is as Mike said There's a there's a prioritization tool in place by EPA to look at flame retardants as they looked at this class of chemicals They recognize they couldn't group all of these together and so for the priorities that they have identified They've looked at at least four different groupings and I'm not saying those groupings are right But I think there is some recognition that there are some different endpoints and you need to look at these different uses Even within that broad class of chemistry and so again, that might be a place to look to help prioritize I have two quick questions, okay good a minute of peace Dr. Blaze you've heard this morning that a flame retardants don't work Could you speak to that and you have now 50 seconds? It's pretty easy. They do work. It's a measurable fact It's a function of how big the ignition source applied to material is will obscure whether they work or not A really large ignition source will hide the fact that they retard flame retardant or the flame growth If anything that you put in a really big fires going to burn That's just a fact But the point is that materials don't become the first item ignited and contribute to the growth of the fire And that's where fire retardants really add value And To any one of you I've heard throughout the course of your testimony this morning that They're different chemicals with different effects and they need to be looked at separately. I've heard Adults versus children. I've heard carcinogenic versus some of the other issues that have been identified whether it's a Endocrine disruptor is that a way to look at these chemicals? And I know I recognize you've mentioned the EPA and how they are looking at this, but is that a way? that we look at endpoints and we Distinguish and separate them them out that way I can comment on that Commissioner with regard to endpoints what you mentioned are hazard endpoints and that's an important step to start with But the next piece that has to go on it really is exposure because there are a number of chemicals for which you would be less Concerned about the hazard if there's essentially minor or no exposure But on the other hand you could have a lesser of a hazard But if there's a greater exposure that would be something that you'd come back to and then it gets under risk You have to start with a hazard because you're trying to estimate the probability of some hazard occurring So you would want to at least start with categories of hazards hazard and then exposure And then the hazard will will normalize everything so you can compare relative risk between the different hazards Thank you all very much. My time has expired. Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you mr. Chairman And thanks to the panel for their testimony and it's good to see you again Tom old friend time outcast numbers Like a walk down memory lane here. I do want to talk about the the the way the petitioners have have organized their their recommendation to ban Be on a class basis commissioner Robinson got to this and I'll eventually want to make my way back around a TBB PA So for the based on the petitioners recommendation The the product would be a ban hazardous substance if it include an organo halogen with two qualifiers right one That's additive and one that is non-polymeric and I asked dr. Birnbaum this morning whether or not TBB PA was now We're being seen to be being used in the casings of electronics as I was distinguishing between the interior Componentry and she said yes, it's emerging as a flame retardant alternative. So TBB PA has been studied by governments and determined to be Safe and if you could briefly what what governments have studied TBB PA? Oh, I'm sorry But mr. Simon, mr. Walls because you you are focusing on I beg your pardon Yeah, and we'll provide this in our comments as well But the specific ones that I would point to our recent recent determinations both by the European Union underneath Its regulations as well as by Canada both environment and health Canada that came to similar conclusions It is also being evaluated or should they reevaluated by EPA as part of its priorities And so all three of those would be relevant and things that I think would be important to consider earlier today I Mentioned my my curiosity with hexa-bromo cyclodotocaine. I do time All right, thanks, and I was curious how they were rendered by CPSC and NRC to be and doctor to be safe For pollstered furniture for some rulemaking we're doing there dr. Birnbaum explained to me But that was qualified specifically with an exposure pathway with dermal exposure with regards to TBB PA was the The end conclusion that TBB PA is safe for use or whatever the conclusion of safe and how they qualified it Was it with a specific exposure pathway that doesn't include some of the exposure pathways that have been identified in this testimony and future testimony? Dr. Oz this might raise this as well, but I think it varies by agency So I think the EU did not necessarily look at all of the exposure routes But other agencies have and the data that I had referenced in which we'll be including in our comments the 7 million times below Safety margins that included all exposure routes including dust and so I think it is important to look at all those exposure routes I think it's varied by government agency in terms of how they've looked at that But yeah, I would agree with that also and I believe EPA is doing that very carefully as well looking at all exposure routes The approach that suggested here and I think Commissioner Birkel brought this up and looking at a contrast with Phthalates and in the phthalates of this situation. We're not saying that all the phthalates Act in the same way and therefore we can draw conclusions from all of them. In fact, we're distinguishing between phthalates this approach from a methodology Suggests that organo halogens non-polymeric will act in the same way and therefore we can ban not only what exists today, but future Incarnations perhaps of non-polymeric additive organo halogens Tom, could you talk about a class-based approach and whether or not TBB PA and its rendering is as safe? Then kind of obviates that that approach is scientifically valid sure commissioner There's two points. I go back to the question that Commissioner Robinson asked if you have no data at all The class approach makes a lot of sense. You can do some structure activity relationships and brick some kinds of properties But once you start accumulating millions of dollars of data for which tens of thousands of animals have been sacrificed You start to have to use the empirical data And if you use the empirical data, you'll see that there are members of this class some of which to either Have hazards with other ones don't and TVP is a good example or if they have a hazard the potency is greatly different So the potency is how strong that effect is that figures into my common theme of risk If you have data, which we do we have a lot of knowledge of these molecules It makes sense to use that and not step back and close your eyes and say we just don't like this category Thanks, Tom. I apologize for being brief. I only have one minute left. I'm just a cleat in looking at I was a I'm interested in demand drivers for the incorporation of flame retardants and the what's been brought up here is a small open flame Testing for electronics. I think it's ul 94 and is it generally thank you So generally is you all 94 applicable to most consumer electronics TVs Computers, etc. Is it very specific? It is it's it's not actually it's not very specific Oh, a big part very broad to most electronics and it's referenced quite often, right? And that it that's a safety standard that most of our products get certified to I beg your pardon for speaking over yet Gotta be really quick too, but that is the demand driver for the incorporation to pass a small open flame Yes, has it been any recent study in terms of that being a hazard pattern? I mean is it really a concern in terms of Electronics catching on fire from small open flames Actually, not not necessarily from open flames, but the fact that we have an internal power source That's usually our biggest driver. So the fact that we have batteries. We have power supplies There's current running through it, which could spark so that's usually where we end up looking for our safety Apologize my time is up. Mr. Chairman. I regret the fact that I wasn't able to ask a flame from our flame expert dr. Blaze Question on the record today Okay Before I make a lunch announcement our executive director Patricia Atkins would like to make an announcement. I Just like to offer some guidance as far as administrative Lee That we will you will see that there will be CPSC staff in the in the hallway that will be able to direct you Preferably to that direction and this is related to lunch as well That there are two sites that are locally down low in the lobby and just out the out the door When you return we will ask that you go to the area where you had checked in for security you will not have to Go through security again But we will certainly be available to escort you again up up here So just wanted to make sure again that you will have to go to the fourth floor 4330 but there are lunch areas that are nearby And there will be some a one-pager that will give you the information about where the lunch sites are located And with respect to lunch by my watch not that clock by my watch It's roughly twelve twenty four. We will take one hour for lunch. So be back roughly at twelve and one twenty four And please thank you so much and thank you for being willing to address QFRs that will be submitted