# California to Ban Flame Retandants



## conarb (Oct 27, 2013)

Governor Brown has signed AB127 banning flame retardants.



			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> Emerging scientific studies  link persistent toxic flame-retardant chemicals found in most foam  insulation to hormone disruption and developmental problems in animals. These chemicals have been found in food, human blood and breast milk around the world.
> 
> Adding  these unnecessary flame-retardant chemicals not only adds costs to  insulation manufacturers that are then passed on to consumers, but they  also result in downstream costs to our health and the environment.
> 
> ...


This puts the responsibility on the State fire Marshal to determine what to ban, obviously the intumescent coatings on foams, but all foams burn like crazy when exposed to fire, witness the Rhode Island Station fire.   The foam industry fears that all foams will be banned:



			
				John Ferraro Executive Director said:
			
		

> Set aside the fact that the use of flame retardants in building insulation and these other products saves lives and reduces fire-related injury and property damage. AB 127 could create unintended consequences when it comes to the energy efficiency, cost and reliability of buildings in California.
> 
> Foam insulation products like the one my company installs are widely used in homes, offices and public buildings because they are high-quality, cost-effective and energy efficient. If AB 127 becomes law, architects, builders and contractors like me could lose the option of using foam insulation because of ill-advised changes in fire safety standards. Without foam insulation, buildings would become less energy efficient, and would have much heavier roofs, thicker walls, and air gaps that let heat out during the winter and in during the summer.²


This legislation was promulgated and financed by the Green building industry, including the USGBC and the Sierra Club.  Now we will have to wait and see what the State fire Marshal does, of course we all know he is in the pocket of the fire industry.  BTW, I see that Nevada has a bill following California on this issue.

¹ Real costs of California's outdated flammability standards - ContraCostaTimes.com

² AB 127 Threatens Energy Efficiency Goals and Bypasses Green Chemistry Program :: Fox&Hounds


----------



## beach (Oct 29, 2013)

> of course we all know he is in the pocket of the fire industry.


Most of us in California know that "he" is actually a she........ and I highly doubt that SHE is in the pocket of the fire industry!


----------



## kilitact (Oct 31, 2013)

beach said:
			
		

> Most of us in California know that "he" is actually a she........ and I highly doubt that SHE is in the pocket of the fire industry!


How would one know this, not being in CA?


----------



## Architect1281 (Oct 31, 2013)

Just associate it with California where all options are available.


----------



## beach (Oct 31, 2013)

> How would one know this, not being in CA?


CONARB is from CA and proclaimed that "he" (the State Fire Marshal) is "in the pocket of the Fire Industry"....... naturally, one should deduct that CONARB must have intimate knowledge of the fire marshal's dealings with the fire industry, and of course, HER gender....which obviously isn't the case. This would lead me to believe that CONARB was pressurizing products of combustion out the exit end of his colon... unless he has proof of his accusations.

To answer your question,f you read my quote: "Most of us in California...." I was referring to the people of CA (CONARB), I have no idea how people from other states would know...... however, Fire Marshal William knows, and he's not from CA.....:geek:


----------



## mark handler (Oct 31, 2013)

"He" is a She...and not in the pocket of the special interest groups

Don't believe everything you read on this board....

California State Fire Marshal is Tonya Hoover


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Oct 31, 2013)

Pure as the driven slush.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 1, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> "He" is a She...and not in the pocket of the special interest groupsDon't believe everything you read on this board....
> 
> California State Fire Marshal is Tonya Hoover


And the regulations have been around long before she joined the State Fire Marshals office, in approx 2006


----------



## peach (Nov 3, 2013)

I always kind of question "emerging scientific studies"..

We are too quick to pull the trigger based on what may be limited studies (that some student did as their post doc work).

Certainly, that's not always the case.. but... I grew up in a house with lead paint and probably water lines, ungrounded receptacles, and mold on my closet walls... seat belts were an OPTION in the first new car my parents bought (for our vacation to California.. my brother and I spent the entire trip alternating in the back window of the Buick.

I'm alive and well.


----------



## conarb (Nov 5, 2013)

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST



> (a) To improve energy efficiency and to reduce global climatechange, the use of plastic insulation materials, such as polystyrene,
> 
> polyisocyanurate, and polyurethane, is increasing in buildings and
> 
> ...


When you put the money of the environmental industry together with the money of the fire industry you get  --  LAWS

http://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB127/id/828198


----------



## mark handler (Nov 10, 2013)

Maintaining high standards of fire safety

By Lee Salamone, guest commentary © 2013 Bay Area News Area

POSTED:   11/09/2013 08:00:00 AM PST

http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_24476670/maintaining-high-standards-fire-safety#

California Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed into law AB127, which requires a review of flammability standards for all building insulation materials used in the state. A guest commentary published recently in the Contra Costa Times mischaracterized the law and spread misinformation about the use of flame retardants in foam insulation.

AB127 directs the state fire marshal, in consultation with the California Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings, and Thermal Insulation, to reassess -- not to "update," as the authors of the previous commentary claimed -- flammability standards for all building insulation materials.

After this review, the state fire marshal may propose updated flammability standards to the California Building Standards Commission by July 1, 2015.

The commission would then decide independently whether to adopt or reject any proposal from the state fire marshal. Importantly, the law takes special care to emphasize that any proposal must maintain stringent fire safety standards.

The group I represent, the Energy Efficient Foam Coalition (EEFC), believes that the fire marshal's reassessment will validate existing standards.

The law does not change current building codes or flammability standards for building materials. The law also does not ban the use of flame retardants in foam insulation sold in California, nor does it comment on the effectiveness of flame retardants.

Foam insulation is widely used in roof and wall applications, insulated windows and doors, and appliances such as water heaters, refrigerators and freezers, to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Its use in California is one of the reasons Californians use far less energy per capita than the rest of the nation. Flame retardants are added to the insulation to meet important fire safety standards.

Notably, this year the International Code Council twice rejected code change proposals that would have had the effect of lowering fire performance standards by allowing the use of foam insulation that is manufactured without flame retardants.

Research shows that flame retardants play a crucial role in reducing the devastating impact of fires, and provide an important layer of protection to people, homes and buildings.

According to the Materials Flammability Group of the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), products treated with flame retardants significantly slow fire spread when compared to untreated products.

In fact, no fire test studies have been published to date establishing that foam insulation not treated with flame retardants, even when protected by a thermal barrier, provides equivalent performance to flame retardant-treated foam insulation.

Flame retardants currently in use, like all manufactured chemicals, are subject to regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and regulators around the globe.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and more than a dozen other federal laws and regulations, including consumer product safety laws and product liability laws, provide further oversight of chemicals in commerce.

Foam plastic insulation manufacturers are committed to product safety and effectiveness, and they support research and innovation to continually improve the performance of these materials.

The EEFC looks forward to extensive consultation with the state fire marshal and others to validate the existing flammability standards and explore potential improvements.

Lee Salamone is senior director of the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry, a member of the Energy Efficient Foam Coalition.


----------



## conarb (Nov 10, 2013)

Mark said:
			
		

> The EEFC looks forward to extensive consultation with the state fire  marshal and others to validate the existing flammability standards and  explore potential improvements.Lee Salamone is senior director of the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry, a member of the Energy Efficient Foam Coalition.


Which means, as expected, that the chemical industry is going to spend many millions of dollars "influencing" the decision of the State Fire Marshal, whomever she or he may be.  The question is which is more important, fire safety or the health of the occupants and first responders?

Are we going to go the way of the Japanese and encourage "chemically active homes"?



			
				Architecture of Travel said:
			
		

> *Traditionally Constructed Houses*The Japanese government does not actively encourage traditional houses  but instead makes it quite difficult to build them. The government has  the view that more chemically active materials are more fire proof and  thermally effective. It is a strange view, considering that traditional  houses have already proved their effectiveness over the last few hundred  years. ¹


¹ http://architectureoftravel.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/satoyamasha/


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 11, 2013)

"Traditionally Constructed Houses

The Japanese government does not actively encourage traditional houses but instead makes it quite difficult to build them. The government has the view that more chemically active materials are more fire proof and thermally effective. It is a strange view, *considering that traditional houses have already proved their effectiveness over the last few hundred years.* ¹"

Except when facing the B-29 loaded up with the M47a1.

They had a little trouble with that.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 27, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> Governor Brown has signed AB127 banning flame retardants.


More misinformation

The state is not banning flame retardants. they are rescinding the requirement of the use of flame retardants.

They can still use flame retardants if they want.

The bill ensures that builders and consumers have a choice in selecting insulation that is both less expensive and equally fire-protective without subjecting occupants, workers, firefighters or communities to the risks of harmful and ineffective chemicals.


----------

