Sacramento, CA, July 18—-With less than a year before California's ban on a class of flame retardants takes effect, no substantive discussions at any level of state government are taking place on how to enforce it, according to interviews with regulators at various levels in several agencies, according to the Oakland Tribune.
As a result, the much-hyped ban appears likely to go into place next June with the chemicals still tainting consumer products — namely carpet padding and cheap, imported upholstered furniture.
The banned compounds, two flame retardants within a class of chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, are extremely effective at stopping fire in foam and certain plastics. But they also are potent neurotoxins and, in animals, disrupt thyroid activity at low levels.
Studies show increasing contamination of the blood of almost every U.S. adult, with levels 10 to 100 times higher than elsewhere in the world,near concentrations causing harm in animals. California, with some of the most stringent fire safety standards in the world, has proven to be a particular hot spot.
In an effort to stop that trend, two years ago California became the first state to prohibit the sale of two common commercial PBDE mixtures, known as "penta" and "octa."
Several states followed suit. But industry moved faster. Facing a similar ban in Europe, major global producers — including penta's sole U.S. manufacturer and the entire domestic furniture industry — abandoned penta and octa, shifting to different flame retardants earlier this year.
Frustratingly for consumers, almost no manufacturers say what ingredients are in their foam. Determining whether a particular couch or foam mattress is flame retarded with PBDEs isn't easy. But industry groups say they know of no one worldwide making either penta or octa now.
Federal and state regulators say that may be true, but they and others caution that such a statement cannot be verified without product testing.
And that is where California's moratorium could come up short.
"First you have to find where these (PBDEs) might be, then you have go do testing ... It's a difficult issue," said Mark Rossi, the Massachusetts-based research director of Clean Production Action.
"I can empathize with the state. I can see how they'd say, 'Well, if nobody's going to make a big deal about this, we're not going to do anything.'"
The ban prohibits "manufacturing, processing, ... or distributing in commerce" any product containing more than one-tenth of one percent of either penta or octa, meaning some lines of furniture, mattresses and carpet padding on sale today could not be legally sold next summer. Certain appliances made with high-impact polystyrene will also be affected.
Calls to state agencies overseeing chemical policy or product safety requirements found the question of enforcement playing like a game of hot potato:
-The California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Safety, within the Department of Consumer Affairs, said "not us" and palmed responsibility off to the California Environmental Protection Agency.
-Within Cal-EPA, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment cited a lack of enforcement authority, with one official saying "you don't have Ph.D toxicologists" — who make up the agency's staff — "going out to sofa factories and that sort of thing." He suggested the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
-DTSC deals primarily with hazardous waste sites. To ask enforcement officers to sniff out banned compounds in furniture and mattresses "seems odd," said spokesman Ron Baker. "It should go to (the Department of) Consumer Affairs."
A bill introduced this year by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, D-Oakland and author of the original 2003 ban, gave DTSC enforcement responsibilities. But Assembly Bill 263 was gutted in committee.
