Fire Safety and Technology Editorial

 

US Phase-Out of Deca

In an agreement negotiated with the US EPA, the agency and three major FR producers - Albemarle, Chemtura and ICL-IP - announced on December 17 a voluntary phase-out intended to put an end to the US use of deca-BDE (decabromodiphenyl oxide), a widely used flame retardant, within the next three years (FS&TB Dec. 09). This is bad news for fire safety.

Let us look at the pros and cons.

On the one hand, deca-BDE is an extremely effective flame retardant. Moreover, it has been the focus of numerous studies and none has demonstrated any serious adverse health or environmental effects. In fact, one of the three companies talked about "hundreds of science-based and peer-reviewed studies" that have shown "deca-BDE to be safe in use and one of the most efficacious flame retardants in the world".

On the other hand, studies have shown that deca-BDE is persistent in the environment (i.e. it does not easily decompose) and that the substance itself, or its metabolites, have been found in many animals (and perhaps even in humans).

A number of reports have examined alternatives to decaBDE as a flame retardant and it has been noted that any substance used as an alternative will carry its own risks, and we may not even be aware of them because no alternative has been studied as extensively as deca-BDE. In the US, at least three states have evaluated deca-BDE alternatives (Washington, Maine and Illinois). Washington concluded in 2006 that "there do not appear to be any obvious alternatives to deca-BDE that are less toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative and have enough data available for making a robust assessment" and that "there is much more data available on deca-BDE than for any of the alternatives." Maine studied, in 2007, several alternatives and saw none that were associated with lower risks. Illinois reported, in March 2007, that several deca-BDE alternatives were "Potentially Problematic," "Insufficient Data," and "Not Recommended."

A different series of reports have been generated, many of them with little or no basis in science, that stated that flame retardants like "PBDEs" were dangerous and had adverse health and environmental effects. Several of these studies confused (accidentally or purposefully) polybrominated diphenyl oxides (i.e. any one of the many brominated diphenyl oxide, with one or more bromine atoms substituted on the phenyl rings, including deca-BDE) with pentabrominated diphenyl oxide (i.e. a material where exactly five bromine atoms are substituted on the phenyl rings). The latter, penta-BDE, is a chemical that was voluntarily phased out by manufacturers years ago; as opposed to deca-BDE it was indeed found to have adverse effects.

However, in spite of the lack of effective technical substantiation, the European Union "Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS)" has resulted in a phase-out of the use of deca-BDE in electrical and electronic equipment. In the US, several states had implemented or were considering restrictions on the use of deca-BDE: Washington, Maine, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, and Oregon. This must have looked to the manufacturers like an unstoppable steam-roller.

It appears to me that the reason that the manufacturers agreed to a voluntary phase-out in the US is that they thought the trouble associated with defending deca-BDE was soon going to outweigh the financial benefits potentially accruing from their commercialization. That may well have been a sound commercial/financial decision. I can understand that argument. However, unfortunately, I am not a person who understands finance.

I find it sad that this voluntary phase-out of deca-BDE has come about for non scientific reasons. Many of the attacks on deca-BDE have not really been addressed specifically at deca-BDE but much more generically at "flame retardants" or even at "chemicals", because of a fear (or mistrust) of the chemical industry. I hope this action on deca-BDE is not the precursor of further actions on other materials that are safe and protect society from the scourge of fire, just because they are made by fire retardant manufacturers or by chemical companies.

I am someone interested in fire safety and also interested in sound science and technology. Therefore, I find it sad that an excellent material will now cease to be used to decrease fire hazard and fire risk and to lower fire losses.


Marcelo M. Hirschler