Fire marshals speak out on mattress safety
By Furniture Today Staff -- Furniture Today, October 6, 2003
A mattress must be comfortable, durable, affordable, clean and safe. For the past several years, we — the National Assn. of State Fire Marshals — have regarded ourselves as a full partner in the pursuit to decide how best those five criteria can be met.
We helped the Sleep Products Safety Council study mattress and bedclothes fires in the real world. We actively supported the National Institute of Standards and Technology's development of what is clearly a spectacular test method for mattress flammability. We have sought guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other environment protection experts and authorities on the safety of using various fire prevention technologies. We are committed to much tougher enforcement of all current and future mattress requirements. Throughout, we have worked closely with technical staff at the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. I personally serve as a director of the Sleep Products Safety Council, and count myself fortunate to know people throughout the industry. Suffice to say, we are not a casual observer. We have tried hard to be an honest broker. So that our views are based on science, we have relied heavily on our Science Advisory Committee, which includes many acknowledged experts who have advised the mattress industry. Our opinions are ours alone, but the SAC's guidance always is heeded.
Perhaps because of the many ongoing discussions we have on the subject of mattresses and bed clothing, some of our positions and observations appear to have been distorted as they have been repeated. We have learned that Furniture/Today is the most effective and efficient communications tool in your industry, and thank the editors for making space available for this letter. Furniture/Today has shown an interest in the facts, and so should everyone involved in these important issues.
Where do we stand on these issues?
We support the use of the testing device developed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
We regard the pass/fail criteria in the February 2003 draft of California Technical Bulletin 603 (TB 603) as being most likely to save lives and protect property from fire. We have seen evidence that some companies cannot meet these pass/fail criteria while others can.
Americans are more likely to die in mattress fires than in jet airline crashes, yet we do not hear jet engine manufacturers asking for relaxed rules because some can and some cannot meet U.S. Federal Aviation Administration safety requirements. The fact that some manufacturers can meet the tougher TB 603 standards suggests that all must do so because it can be done. There is no question the weaker version of the standard ignores the real-world circumstances that are most worrisome, e.g., escape by the elderly, the very young and the physically challenged, and fire department responses in rural communities. Time very much counts.
We have concerns about the use of certain flame-retardant chemicals likely to be used with mattresses. Our European colleagues have raised serious questions about the safety of borates, and the World Health Organization now is engaged in this work.
We will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to initiate an inquiry into these chemicals used in the surfaces of mattresses. It may be that these chemicals are fine for these uses, but we have seen no data — and we have repeatedly requested it — to suggest the Europeans' concerns are not valid. We renew our request for data here, and would additionally like information on the durability of these technologies.
This matter is far from resolved. The State of California has not yet issued a final rule and cannot do so until it seeks and then receives a waiver from the CPSC, which will take time, especially given the political uncertainties in our largest state.
With so many lawsuits threatened, no doubt the California standards are headed for court. We have heard that CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton has said the commission will adopt the most recent version of California TB603.
Chairman Stratton is devoted to the rule of law and we do not believe that he has or would even contemplate prejudicing future rule-makings. He has a wonderful quality of being candid, but at the end of the day, we have every confidence that Stratton will make up his mind only after he has carefully reviewed the facts as presented in the process defined by federal law.
We do not regard mattress safety as a matter of legislation, regulation, litigation, recalls or any of the other pressures your industry must feel. This is about using what we know to save lives, and doing it now.
We commend the North Carolina Mattress Guild and Serta for moving forward now. Both have told me they can meet the pass/fail criteria in the February 2003 draft of TB 603. Good for them, and good for American competition. We hope they both sell lots of safe mattresses.
We reserve the right to change our minds as new data are presented. But, for now, this is what we know and believe.
Donald P. Bliss, president, National Assn. of Fire Marshals
