Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Safety Benefit Cost topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California bureau study finds fire-barrier rule’s costs exceed benefits under baseline assumptions
Summary
A benefit‑cost analysis presented to the Bureau Advisory Council concluded that adopting a fire‑barrier performance standard for upholstered furniture would not produce net benefits under the study’s baseline and most sensitivity scenarios; authors published their modeling materials for independent review.
A cost‑benefit analysis presented to the Bureau Advisory Council on August 1 found the projected costs of a proposed fire‑barrier performance standard for upholstered furniture exceed the estimated benefits under the study’s baseline assumptions.
The analysis, presented by Nathan Fessler, a graduate student working with Professor Rossner, estimated annualized benefits to California households from reduced deaths, injuries and property losses and compared those to the anticipated increase in manufacturing costs and state enforcement testing. “From a benefit cost analysis perspective, just this perspective alone, we don't find any evidence for the adoption of the 5‑area performance standard,” Fessler told the council.
The study modeled two ignition scenarios where fire barriers could matter: (1) an upholstered item ignited first by an open flame and (2) upholstered furniture that contributes significantly to room fire spread and time to egress. The presenters used state fire data (2010–2016) as the primary input, adopted a 19 percent risk‑reduction assumption drawn from Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) precedent, and ran sensitivity checks including an alternative, larger fire‑loss baseline. Even with aggressive alternative assumptions, the report found costs exceeded benefits in the scenarios presented.
Council members and external participants pressed the presenters on inputs and uncertainty. Antoinette Stein (Environmental Health Trust) and others questioned whether the model adequately accounted for public‑health impacts related to flame retardant chemicals or recent trends in electrically actuated furniture; Fessler and Professor Rossner said those effects were not included because the bureau lacks direct authority to regulate chemical content and because data tying chemical exposure changes to the proposed standard were not available to the authors.
Andrew Locke of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said national CPSC estimates differ from the state figures used in the study and suggested CPSC staff would examine the model; Fessler and Rossner said the study’s Excel model and a report will be posted on the bureau website to allow external re‑weighting and alternate inputs. Rossner said the authors aimed for transparency: “We did not want to do [a] black box,” he said, and encouraged stakeholders to run alternate datasets through the spreadsheet.
The bureau told the council the full cost‑benefit report, a 30–40 page technical paper and supporting Excel worksheets will be posted on the bureau website and distributed via the bureau listserv. The presentation did not propose immediate regulatory action; it was provided as a technical input for the bureau’s larger barrier study and any policy decision would require bureau staff, stakeholder review and possible rulemaking.
Questions from council members included requests to test the model with national datasets (for example NFPA/CPSC weighted series) and to examine whether barriers affect fires caused by embedded electrical systems or arson. Presenters said the model can accept alternate inputs and that they would make the spreadsheet available for independent testing.
The bureau did not announce a formal decision at the meeting. The study is being added to the bureau record for use in future regulatory analysis and stakeholder discussion.
