Study Finds Cost of CPSC's Draft Flammability Standard Underestimated by $2
[2008-12-23 17:05:45]
Study Finds Cost of CPSC's Draft Flammability Standard Underestimated by $2 Billion — Benefits Overestimated
February 7, 2001, Washington, D.C. — A cost/benefit analysis of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) draft flammability standard for upholstered furniture found that the CPSC substantially underestimated the cost of implementing such a regulation by $2 billion while significantly overestimating the benefits. This was the conclusion of an independent study released today by the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI).
The study also notes that the CPSC's draft proposal does not address the flammability of the major fuel source of upholstered furniture fires - foam and other filling materials — with upholstery fabric being treated as the only line of defense against small open-flame ignition. The CPSC draft proposal would require upholstery fabrics to serve as fire barriers to protect foam and filling materials from fires started by small open-flame sources.
“The findings of this study illustrate CPSC's lack of understanding of the complexity of both the industry's products and its distribution chains,” said Roger Berkley, Weave Corporation, and chairman of ATMI's Upholstery Fabrics Committee. “The massive increase in fire-retardant (FR) treatment and testing costs for compliance threaten the viability of the industry, particularly the smaller firms.” Berkley also pointed out that the draft standard would increase the cost of furniture, which would disproportionately impact those proven to be the most vulnerable to furniture fires - low-income households with young children.
The study, prepared by Glassman-Oliver Economic Consultants, Inc., a Washington, D.C.-based economic consulting firm, was conducted for ATMI, the Decorative Fabrics Association, the Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics, the American Fiber Manufacturers Association, the National Cotton Council and the American Society of Interior Designers.
With regard to benefits gained, the study shows that the CPSC's draft small open-flame standard for upholstered furniture did not take into account a number of critical findings and that these factors reduce the estimated benefit of the CPSC's draft regulation. These include:
A failure to consider the effects of the base of untreated furniture currently in use in American homes. If the draft proposal were adopted, many years would pass before a significant portion of furniture in use would meet the proposed standard. According to the study, the CPSC draft proposal “measures benefits in the early years of the regulation as if the upholstery fabric on all furniture had a fire retardant (“FR”) backcoating, which greatly overstates the potential benefits that might be obtained.” In fact, very few consumers replace all of their upholstered furniture at one time.A failure to recognize that most small open-flame upholstered furniture fires are started by children playing with matches and lighters. Fires that now begin on upholstered furniture may begin on some other household items, as children continue to play with matches, candles and lighters.
A failure to address the fact that FR backcoating sufficient to pass the CPSC's draft proposed test may only last a fraction of the life of upholstered furniture due to cleaning, the spilling of liquids on the fabric, vacuuming, etc. Very little is known about the durability of FR backcoating.
A failure to address the fact that there is no foundation for the assumed benefits from fewer cigarette-ignited fires. Preliminary tests have shown that some fabrics, particularly cellulosics, may become more prone to smoldering cigarette ignition after FR treatment for small open-flame ignition.
The study notes that cigarette-related benefits can be achieved through much less expensive methods, such as mandating the manufacture of self-extinguishing cigarettes that are now available. According to the study, the state of New York has already adopted legislation requiring that by July 2003 all cigarettes sold in the state be self-extinguishing when not actively smoked. A regulation similar to New York's will likely reduce the deaths and property damage currently attributed to cigarette-ignited upholstered furniture fires. Such a regulation will likely have a more immediate impact, while imposing less cost to consumers.
According to the study, without the addition of cigarette-related benefits, the draft regulation does not meet the CPSC's own cost/benefit test.
The Glassman-Oliver study also points out that the CPSC's
analysis “substantially underestimates the
cost that the draft proposed regulation will place on the fabric
industry and, ultimately, on consumers.” Critical findings
related to cost not included in the CPSC draft include:
A failure to address the fact that the costs of fabric testing to ensure compliance with the draft regulation will be “substantially more” than the CPSC assumes due to more frequent testing of smaller fabric runs and cuts of fabric, as opposed to the CPSC's assumption of fabric testing at every 1,000 yards.
A failure to address the “tremendous increase” in the use of FR chemicals that will require fabric manufacturers that do their own finishing and independent commission finishers to invest substantial amounts of capital in pollution abatement equipment, face higher disposal costs and lose income from lost sales of imperfect fabric.
A failure to address the increased costs of protecting the safety of workers handling the FR backcoated upholstery fabric. The study notes that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well as similar state agencies, “will be much more involved in the oversight of fabric production and finishing.” Firms will face greater regulatory compliance costs, including engineering controls, protective equipment, and the production of written materials and training programs.
A failure to address the fact that the CPSC's draft proposal will “greatly increase the exposure of all firms in the upholstery fabric and furniture business to product liability litigation.” The study continues, “Any household fire caused by a small open flame or a cigarette will expose firms to the charge that the furniture (or fabric) did not comply with the small open-flame rule. To defend against such charges, records of fabric tests will have to be maintained for the life of each piece of furniture.”
A failure to address the cost of replacing all showroom samples, sample pieces and sample books because FR backcoating will affect the feel and color of fabric, thus making existing sample books and samples unrepresentative of the treated fabric.
A failure to address the fact that many of the most expensive and decorative upholstery fabrics, those that are predominately composed of silk, cotton, linen or rayon, or fabrics that are highly textured, will likely not pass the draft test even with the backcoating and will, therefore, no longer be available.
A failure to address the increased costs of inventory and delivery for those manufacturers and finishers that might need to keep two inventories of each upholstery fabric - one that has an FR backcoating for use as furniture upholstery fabric and a second that does not have FR backcoating for use as draperies, bedspreads, pillows and other non-furniture items, as well as for export.
A failure to address the fact that “the burden of the regulation will not be borne evenly throughout the economy,” with poorer households and smaller firms bearing a disproportionate share.
According to the study, “households with less income are more likely to buy less expensive furniture manufactured with less expensive fabric and the effect of the regulation on the cost of cheaper fabrics will be very large … As a result, rather than purchase new FR-treated furniture, poorer families will be more likely to keep older furniture longer or buy used furniture. The result will be that poorer households, which the (CPSC) Staff identifies as the households most likely to experience an upholstered furniture fire caused by a small open flame, will receive far less of the benefits from the draft proposal than will more affluent families.”
“We urge the CPSC to carefully and critically review the results of this important cost/benefit study and to reexamine their draft proposal in light of this new information,” Berkley said. “We all need to work together toward a comprehensive standard, including all upholstered furniture components, for small open-flame ignition that is based on scientific research, is technically feasible and is economically viable for both the industry and the consumer. In addition, such a standard must be based on treating upholstered furniture as a synergistic combination of foam, filling materials, fabric and other components and continues to allow consumers access to the diverse array of upholstery fabrics in the marketplace,” he said.
# # #
Editor's Note: A complete copy of "An Economic Analysis of the Draft Small Open-Flame Regulation of Upholstered Furniture" can be found on ATMI's website, www.atmi.org in the Newsroom.
The American Textile Manufacturers Institute is the national trade association for the U.S. textile industry. Member companies operate in more than 30 states and process nearly two thirds of all textile fibers consumed by plants in the United States.
Contact:
Gail
A. Raiman, 202-862-0552
home • feedback
