Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lab Testing Flame Retardants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bureau lab reports most furniture samples passed flammability tests; DTSC finds three samples with added flame retardants
Summary
Lab testing presented to the advisory council showed high pass rates for furniture flammability tests; 40 samples were sent to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for chemical analysis, with 34 confirmed free of added flame retardants and 3 confirmed containing added flame retardants; failed cases were forwarded to enforcement.
The bureau’s testing laboratory reported to the Advisory Council that the majority of furniture and mattress samples submitted during fiscal 2017–2018 passed required flammability tests, while a targeted chemical analysis found a small number of samples contained added flame‑retardant chemicals.
Sue Xu, the bureau’s testing laboratory engineer, told the council the lab received 137 furniture samples for TB 117‑2013 smoldering tests; 95 percent of completed furniture samples passed. For full‑scale mattress flammability testing (16 CFR 1630), 84 percent of the 69 completed tests passed. The lab also completed a range of label reviews and other tests that were reported to the council.
Xu said the bureau requested chemical screening from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on a subset of 40 samples that had manufacturer documentation; DTSC analysis showed 34 of the 40 samples contained no added flame retardant chemicals and 3 samples contained added flame retardants; three remaining tests were pending at the time of the presentation. “Available results provided by DTSC showed that 34 out of 40 samples passed the AR analysis and contained no added AFR chemical. 3 samples contained added AFR chemicals,” Xu said.
Council members asked whether failed samples lead to enforcement. Xu and Bureau Chief Nicholas Oliver said failed lab results are forwarded to the bureau’s enforcement unit; enforcement then determines next steps. Shalom Rojas Cardenas of the enforcement unit told the council the bureau forwards cases to the Attorney General’s Office in specific circumstances such as license denials appealed after criminal‑history findings; one case had been forwarded for the 2017–2018 fiscal year and one was pending at the time of the meeting.
A council member asked whether lab test results and related citations are publicly available. Xu said settled cases and finalized enforcement actions are posted on the bureau website but that posting can take time while the agency coordinates with manufacturers and retailers.
Members asked about sample selection and whether the bureau distinguishes domestic versus imported products in the sampling. Xu said the 40 DTSC samples were chosen with some material‑type targeting (foam, batting, shredded foam) and were generally randomly selected from different manufacturers; she said a manufacturer breakdown (importer vs U.S. manufacturer) was not currently in the published summary but the lab would investigate whether that breakdown could be produced in future reporting.
Council members requested regular follow‑up on enforcement outcomes for failed samples and asked the lab to report back at the next meeting on rechecks, re‑inspections and enforcement trajectory. The lab said the bureau has a contract for chemical testing and has increased the testing budget for the current fiscal year to expand pre‑screening and sample testing.
