Based on the testing of a representative sample of the U.S. population, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 99 percent of Americans have flame retardant chemicals present in their bodies, numbers much higher than those measured in Europe and Asia.
And perhaps it’s not as surprising as it should be: Flame retardant chemicals have been used for the last 40 years in a number of products, ranging from mattress toppers to baby furniture to electronics to building insulation. Some of these same flame retardants, and others, have been added to furniture upholstery foam to meet California’s 1975 Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117), and although TB 117 was a flammability standard specific to California, manufacturers generally produced upholstered furniture using these chemicals for distribution across North America. Technical Bulletin 133 (TB 133) was later added to California’s furniture regulations to govern use in public buildings or public assembly areas, which further increased the number of furniture products containing retardants.
However, research has shown that use of these chemicals in furniture doesn’t prevent ignition or reduce fire severity and that they can actually make fires less survivable by giving off higher levels of toxic gases, carbon monoxide, soot, and smoke than untreated furniture.
Flame retardant chemicals leach out of furniture into air and dust continuously and may accelerate as the foam ages. These chemicals get into our bodies when we breathe and when we touch contaminated dust. They are ingested from food—especially dairy and meat—as they’re absorbed by plants and animals in the environment and move up the food chain to people. They’re also widely found in fire fighters’ bodies, with studies revealing elevated rates of cancers for firefighters that are associated with exposure to these chemicals, specifically dioxins and furans. Some flame retardants contaminate soil, wastewater, rivers, the ocean, fish, marine mammals, and the food supply.
Furthermore, these chemicals have been linked to a range of health conditions, including memory problems, diabetes, immune system damage, thyroid disruption, obesity, and cancer. And once these chemicals are released into the environment and into our bodies, there’s no known remediation strategy.
This research and concerns about continued use of toxic flame retardants prompted California Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. to order the state’s Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation to review TB 117 and recommend changes to reduce their use while still ensuring fire safety. The bureau responded with the regulation TB 117-2013, which became effective in January 2014, as an option, with mandatory compliance by 2015.
Market reactions
While some manufacturers have already expressed a desire to move away from all flame retardants, others are more hesitant and have expressed concerns about discontinuing their use due to potential liability issues. And since TB 117-2013 doesn’t specifically prohibit the use of flame retardants in upholstery foam, designers and/or end users would need to specifically request compliance with TB 117-2013 in specifications and purchase orders.
However, the public-space minded TB 133, which applies to seating for areas such as long-term care communities and hospitals, has been adopted in several states and is usually required for buildings that aren’t fully covered by a sprinkler system. California’s Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation specified in TB 117-2013 that public occupancy buildings that are fully sprinklered may choose to comply with either TB 133 or TB 117-2013.
The city of Boston as well as the state of Ohio reference California’s TB 133 standard, too, but don’t currently have an exemption for compliance with TB 133, even if a building is fully covered by sprinklers. Massachusetts and Illinois reference TB 133 but provide an exception for buildings that are fully protected by sprinkler systems.
Choosing wisely
TB 133 products typically contain flame retardant chemicals in foam, fabrics, and/or a barrier cloth. (There are furniture options that meet TB 133 without the use of flame retardants, using materials like latex foam and wool barriers, but these tend to be more costly.) TB 133 furniture tends to cost more than alternatives because the full construction of the furniture is typically tested in a large chamber to confirm it meets the standard—an expense that’s passed onto the consumer and can add anywhere from $100 to $350 per item, for example.
Due to the expense of the addition of the flame retardants and the testing, as well as the known health risks associated with flame retardant chemicals, designers and organizations should carefully evaluate whether TB 133-compliant seating is necessary. One key consideration is if the seating purchased is only specified to meet TB 117-2013, then it should not be moved into an area that isn’t fully protected by sprinklers if that area is considered public occupancy, which includes all spaces in a healthcare environment.
Designers, healthcare facilities, and long-term care providers can play an important role in addressing the use of flame retardants in furniture, and for those fully covered by sprinklers, now there is a choice.
Jean Hansen, LEED Fellow, FIIDA, CID, EDAC, AAHID, is sustainable interiors manager and senior professional associate at HDR (San Francisco). She can be reached at [email protected].
For more information from the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (BEARHFTI) on the clarifications for meeting TB 117-2013 and TB 133 in California, see: http://www.bhfti.ca.gov/about/laws/tb_noticeapproval.pdf .
