Andre Laroche, Chair, ULC Standards Committee on Fire Tests

c/o National Research Council of Canada, 1200 Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6
Email: andre.laroche2@canada.ca
Gary Lougheed, Chair, ULC Standards Task Group on Upholstered Furniture
c/o National Research Council of Canada, 1200 Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6
Email: Gary.Lougheed@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
John Cooper, Acting Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Health Canada
Email: John.Cooper@hc-sc.gc.ca
James Van Loon, Acting Director General
Consumer Product Safety Directorate, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
Health Canada
Email: James.VanLoon@hc-sc.gc.ca
David Morin, Director General, Science and Risk Assessment Directorate, Environment Canada
Email: david.morin@canada.ca
Suzanna Ersoy
Program Manager, ISO & Regional Programs, Standards Solutions
Standards Council of Canada, 600-55 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, ON K1P 6L5
Email: Suzanna.Ersoy@scc.ca
May 2, 2016
RE: CAN/ULC S131-YY: Standard Method of Test for Fire Growth of Upholstered Furniture
(Open Flame Test)
Dear Mr.s Laroche, Lougheed, Cooper, Van Loon and Morin, and Ms. Ersoy,
A month ago we became aware of discussions involving Health Canada that could lead to
passage of an open flame standard for upholstered furniture in public buildings. As scientists,
we have been researching various aspects of flame retardants in the Canadian environment and
beyond. The passage of a flammability standard, without public scrutiny, that could result in
further releases of flame retardants, is of concern. Below we lay out the key points of concern.
1. The need for the standard has not been demonstrated. It is imperative that decisions are
made based on evidence. We are not aware of data showing that an open flame flammability
standard for furnishings will benefit fire safety. Furthermore, we are not aware of Canadian
fire incident data that demonstrate the need for a new furniture fire test. Experience from
other jurisdictions indicates that open flame furniture standards are generally not needed to
provide fire safety. Fire data from the U.S. shows that furniture fires in public buildings
such as hospitals, dormitories, and office building are exceedingly rare and are not the cause
of fire deaths or injuries. Furniture is not even listed as a source of fires in these reports
because the incidence of any fires falls below their reporting threshold of two percent.
1

2. The proposed flammability standard will result in the use and release of additional chemical
flame retardants with uncertain health and ecological impacts. Like similar standards in
other jurisdictions, the draft test method does not prescribe how the furniture manufacturers
can meet the standard. However, furniture manufacturers have stated that standards requiring
an open flame test often are met by the addition of additive flame retardant chemicals to
furniture foam and upholstery textiles.
Ample scientific evidence shows that additive flame retardants migrate from foam and
textiles, enter the indoor environment, with resultant exposure to Canadians with uncertain
but potentially adverse effects on health (particularly for toddlers and children). For
example, results from the Canadian Health Measures Survey published by Health Canada
scientist show widespread exposure to the flame retardants polybrominated diphenyl ethers i
Some of these chemicals also enter the environment and are known to present risks,
especially to Arctic ecosystems, as many are either persistent or are used in large quantities
that renders them continually present. The Chemical Management Plan (CMP) is currently
reviewing a range of additive flame retardants to determine if they are toxic under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and to decide if their use should be
discontinued or controlled. The effort to pass a flammability standard that may increase
exposure to these chemicals, or others yet to be adjudicated, seems to be at cross-purpose to
Canadas efforts under CMP. We believe that Canada should be seeking to achieve fire
safety without additive chemical flame retardants.
3. Fire safety standards should be based on a comprehensive benefit-risk approach. The
flammability standard setting process needs to consider multiple lines of evidence in a
benefit-risk context. The process needs to consider benefits to fire safety (based on clear data
demonstrating effectiveness) as well as risks to public health and the environment from the
use of additive chemical flame retardants. Through long and expensive regulatory initiatives,
several flame retardants have already been declared Toxic and are listed in Schedule 1 of
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or are currently being evaluated and subject to
controls in other jurisdictions. It is not appropriate to assume that a standard can be met by
substituting a "safe" flame retardant as the chemical functionality needed for flame
retardancy will often be associated with toxicity, persistence and/or bioaccumulative
properties. Thus, we recommend that policies and actions taken to maximize fire safety need
to simultaneously consider minimizing risks to long-term human and environment health
arising from the methods used to achieve fire safety. This requires a fulsome discussion of
benefits and risks.
4. Canadians deserve a transparent, evidence-based process. The scientific community warmly
greeted the new Liberal government's call for evidence-based decision making. The current
standard setting process, which is not transparent, appears to lack balance, involves minimal
consultation, and is not appropriate when considering an issue as complex as a flammability
standard. As noted above, we incidentally became aware of this initiative from an outside
source in the United States, which is unfortunate given the potential impacts to Canadians of
adopting an open flame standard. It is imperative that setting a flammability standard with
potential for human and ecosystem effects be subject to public review. Without this review,
it is not possible to judge whether the decision-making process is based on complete
evidence and has been subject to unbiased adjudication.
2

5. Learn best practices in flammability standard setting from other jurisdictions. The State of
California recently updated its flammability standard for residential furniture to improve fire
safety without the use of chemical flame retardants. The Bureau in charge of this standard is
currently rigorously evaluating potential benefits from an open flame standard. It would be
prudent for Canada to await the outcome of this process before taking any further action.
Also notable is that very recently the City of Boston, that for decades has required
compliance to a large open flame standard for all public buildings, has announced that they
will amend their standard to remove the requirement for an open flame standard in fully fire
sprinklered buildings.
In closing, we ask that the current and future initiatives involving flammability standards
be conducted within an open, balanced, and transparent evidence-based process that is the
hallmark of our Parliamentary democracy. We ask that all science be brought to the table and
that the public has the opportunity to respond.
Sincerely,
Miriam Diamond, PhD, M.Sc., M.Sc. Eng.
Professor, Department of Earth Sciences
Associate Editor, Environmental Science and Technology
University of Toronto
22 Russell St., Toronto, ON M5S 3B1
Phone: (416) 978-1586
miriam.diamond@toronto.ca
Jules Blais, PhD
Professor of Biology and Environmental Toxicology
Director, Laboratory for the Analysis of Natural and Synthetic Environmental Toxicants
Editor-in-Chief, FACETS
Associate Editor, Environmental Reviews
University of Ottawa
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Phone: (613) 562-5800 Ext. 6650
jules.blais@uottawa.ca
Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH
Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences,
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Dr. Blusson Hall 11518
Burnaby, BC V5A1S6
Phone: (778) 782-8650
blanphear@sfu.ca
Jonathan Martin, PhD
Professor, Division of Analytical and Environmental Toxicology
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology
3

Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry

University of Alberta
10-102 Clinical Sciences Building
Edmonton, AL T6G 2G3
Phone: (780) 492-1190
jon.martin@ualberta.ca
Jeffrey Siegel, PhD
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Associate Editor, Indoor Air
University of Toronto
35 St. George St.
Toronto, ON M5S 1A4
Phone: (416) 978-7975
jeffrey.siegel@utoronto.ca
Dayna Scott, LLB, MES, PhD
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University
4700 Keele St.
North York, ON, M3J 1P3
Phone: (416) 736-5721
dscott@osgoode.yorku.ca
Tim K. Takaro, MD, MPH, MS.
Professor and Chair, Masters and PhD Committee
Faculty of Health Sciences
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Dr. Blusson Hall 11518
Burnaby, BC V5A1S6
Phone: 778-782-7186
ttakaro@sfu.ca
Jonathan Verrault
Professeur, Dpartement des sciences biologiques
Centre de recherch en toxicology de lenvironnement
Universit du Qubec Montral
C.P. 888, succursale Centre-ville,
Montral, QC H2Y 2E7
Phone: (514) 987-3000 poste 1070
verreault.jonathan@uqam.ca
c.c. Kevin Wu, ULC Kevin.HF.Wu@ul.com
i

Rawn, D.F.K., Ryan, J.J., Sadler, A.R., Sun, W.-F., Weber, D., Laffey, P., Haines, D., Macey, K., Van Oostdam, J.,
2014. Brominated flame retardant concentrations in sera from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) from
2007 to 2009. Environment International 63, 26-34.