[Pharmwaste] Hazardous flame retardant found in household objects

[DeBiasi,Deborah]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=771917


JOURNAL SENTINEL WATCHDOG REPORT

Hazardous flame retardant found in household objects 

By SUSANNE RUST and MEG KISSINGER

srust at journalsentinel.com

Posted: July 12, 2008

A flame retardant that was taken out of children's pajamas more than 30
years ago after it was found to cause cancer is being used with
increasing regularity in furniture, paint - even baby carriers and
bassinets - and manufacturers are under no obligation to let the public
know about it.

The chemical, known as chlorinated Tris, one of the three most commonly
used flame retardants, is considered harmful by several international
and national health and regulatory agencies, including the National
Cancer Institute, the World Health Organization and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission. 

One program within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
identified the chemical as a cancer hazard and notes that it caused
reproductive problems, developmental defects, anemia, liver failure and
eye and skin irritation in laboratory animals.

But another EPA program, which was established to warn the public about
dangerous chemicals, makes no mention of these concerns on its Web site
or in any other descriptions it distributes. The program, known as the
High Production Volume Challenge, established a registry of the most
common chemicals. But it does not refer to research that shows the
chemical causes cancer in lab animals even at low doses. 

Instead, the government Web site lists 16 studies that each conclude the
chemical does not harm people. The Journal Sentinel examined those
studies and found that all were funded by chemical-makers; all but one
were conducted more than 25 years ago; and only one was published or
peer-reviewed, a standard of rigorous scientific scrutiny.

This lopsided assessment is the latest example of how the EPA gives
preferential treatment to the chemical industry. Instead of conducting
independent reviews of chemicals, the EPA allows chemical manufacturers
to characterize the safety of the products they make. The EPA then posts
those claims on its Web site, often without verifying or correcting the
information.

In recent months, the Journal Sentinel has reported that the EPA gives
greater weight to industry-funded science in its endocrine disruptor and
voluntary children's chemical evaluation programs.

Richard Denison, a senior scientist for Environmental Defense Fund, the
group that helped 
the EPA design the chemical registry, has filed a complaint with the EPA
as a result of the Journal Sentinel findings. He calls the EPA's public
description of the chemical full of "serious omissions and inaccurate
and misleading conclusions." 

"This unfortunate example negates any presumption that the EPA can rely
on sponsors to have conducted a thorough and objective review of
available data," Denison said. 

Dale Kemery, a spokesman for the EPA, said companies are responsible for
submitting the information about the chemicals they make.

"Any errors or problems reside with the submitter," Kemery said.

He said the EPA is still collecting data on the chemical, and the final
assessment has not been made.
But the Web site shows that the last entry was dated 2001, and the EPA
has not updated or corrected anything. Kemery did not respond to
questions about why the EPA has taken so long to issue its final
assessment. 
Chlorinated Tris is meant to make products like upholstered furniture
and mattresses safer by preventing them from catching fire. But
consumers could be trading one danger for another, scientists say.

Arlene Blum, a scientist from the University of California-Berkeley
whose work led to the chemicals being taken out of children's sleepwear
in the 1970s, said she was astonished to learn that chlorinated Tris is
back in such widespread use in other consumer products, particularly
couches and places where children play.
"We are going from one toxin to another with no requirement to tell
people about the threats to their health and safety," Blum said. "It's
been more than 30 years and the chemical industry hasn't bothered to
come up with alternative? We can't do any better than this?"

Used in the 1970s

Chlorinated Tris was developed in the 1950s and introduced as a flame
retardant commercially in 1962. It was given the trade name Fyrol FR-2
but has since been produced by several chemical companies under various
trade names, including Antiblaze 195. 

Chlorinated Tris and its chemical cousin, brominated Tris, were widely
used as flame retardants in children's pajamas until 1977, when studies
linked them to cancer in animals. Brominated Tris, the more dangerous of
the two, was banned. Chlorinated Tris was not. 

Today, chlorinated Tris is quietly but widely used as a flame retardant
in foam for furniture, car upholstery - including baby carriers - wall
hangings and mattresses, including bassinet pads. It's also used as a
lacquer for paints.

Chlorinated Tris is added to foam in the same way a flavoring would be
added to bread, before it is baked. Typically, about 12% of the weight
of foam in tainted products is chlorinated Tris. The chemical can be
inhaled or ingested or absorbed through the skin.

Estimates of how much is produced each year in the United States range
from 10 million to 50 million pounds. Precise figures are not known
because manufacturers are not obligated to report actual production
volume and many do not, claiming proprietary privilege. 

'We're trying not to use it'

The use of chlorinated Tris as a flame retardant has increased, foam
manufacturers say, particularly since 2004 when a chemical known as
penta-BDE was banned in Europe and discontinued in the United States
after it was found to cause neurological defects in animals.

But chlorinated Tris is a strange choice as a substitute because of its
known health risks, industry executives and scientists say. 

"We're trying not to use it," said Lynn Knudtson, regulatory compliance
officer with Future Foam Inc., a manufacturing company with plants in 14
states, including one in Middleton. 

Still, Knudtson says, they do use the chemical. Of the three other
foam-makers contacted by the Journal Sentinel, all said they use
chlorinated Tris. 

Whatever foam is not treated with chlorinated Tris is likely to be
treated with Firemaster 550, a chemical compound whose ingredients are
kept confidential by its manufacturers. The EPA allows companies to keep
their formulas a secret to protect them from competitors. 

You won't find out what kinds of paints or cushions contain chlorinated
Tris by looking at labels either. 
In the production chain - from the foam manufacturers to furniture
retailers - very few actually know if chlorinated Tris is in their
products. No one is obligated to label which products contain it. 
Even Knudtson says he is not certain exactly which of the foam products
his company makes contain chlorinated Tris. 
"It's not like we have a toxicological research department in our
plants," he said. 

Foam-makers say they do not like using chlorinated Tris for two reasons:
it's expensive and there are concerns about its health effects on
humans. But they use it, they say, to comply with state fire safety
codes. 

"Why in the world are we using something that we don't know anything
about?" said Bob Luedeka, president of the Polyurethane Foam
Association.

Luedeka says he is concerned about the safety of foam-makers who work
with chemicals found to cause so many health problems in animals tested.

Future Foam spokesman Knudtson said his company does get questions about
the chemical's safety from workers.
"Anytime you have someone handling chemicals, you have concerns," he
said.
The key is to use the chemicals carefully, he said.

"A person can drown, but we don't outlaw water," he said.

Older information

The EPA's chemical registry program was supposed to clear up any such
uncertainty about the safety of chlorinated Tris.

The program started 10 years ago as a way to track the safety of
chemicals produced in quantities of 1 million pounds or more a year. It
was designed as a voluntary program with hopes it would be quicker and
less expensive than an adversarial one.

Chlorinated Tris is one of more than 2,000 chemicals included in the
EPA's registry. The program was designed so concerned consumers could
punch in the name of a chemical and find the research on it.
All of the information on chlorinated Tris was submitted in 2001 by
AkzoNobel, a chemical company based in the Netherlands. That company,
which no longer makes chlorinated Tris, did not respond to requests for
an interview. 

A company called Supresta, based in Ardsley, N.Y., bought the division
that makes chlorinated Tris. Supresta is now owned by Israel Chemical
Limited.

Richard Hooper, Supresta's president and chief executive officer, said
no one at the company's American facility worked for AkzoNobel when the
company submitted its description of the chemical to the EPA in 2001.
He said he was not a toxicologist and, therefore, not "really qualified
to answer the questions." He said he was not able to find anyone who
could remember anything about the company's submission to the EPA seven
years ago.
The public accounting of chlorinated Tris that was submitted to the EPA
is hardly a comprehensive accounting of the scientific findings of the
chemical. Its one published and peer-reviewed entry was based on a study
completed more than 25 years earlier. That experiment was conducted
between 1979 and 1981, before more sensitive tests were developed. 

Conclusion at odds

The one published summary, highlighted on the EPA's Web site, claims the
chemical is safe - a conclusion dramatically at odds with reports
released about the same time by the World Health Organization, the
National Cancer Institute, the National Research Council and even the
EPA's own internal assessment. That summary, published in 2000 in the
International Journal of Toxicology, was written by one AkzoNobel's own
employees. 
The article concluded that the chemical did not cause cancer in lab
animals. The company bolstered its conclusion by citing published
research that showed that the chemical did not cause harm.
But the chemical company's submission fails to mention at least four
other reports released earlier or about that time that did find harm.
Those reports include ones from the International Programme on Chemical
Safety, the National Cancer Institute, the National Research Council and
even the EPA's own Design for Environment Program's Furniture Flame
Retardancy Partnership.

In each case, the organizations found that chlorinated Tris caused
cancer in lab animals. But those conclusions were diametrically opposed
to the report submitted by AkzoNobel that drew upon the exact same
study.

For example, the International Programme on Chemical Safety released a
study in 1998 that found chlorinated Tris caused cancer in lab animals
at all exposure levels that were tested in both sexes of rats. Animals
developed tumors in the liver, kidney, testicles and brain.
 
The AkzoNobel submission notes parts of some of these same studies but
cherry-picks the conclusions, citing only those parts that minimize
harm.

"This is nothing short of an egregious effort to distort the facts and
provide the EPA with a highly selective set of data," said Denison, the
scientist whose group helped develop the EPA's chemical information
program.

He called the chemical company's submission "a breach of the most basic
ground rules" of the EPA's program.

Independent study sought

Blum, the scientist whose work led to the removal of chlorinated Tris in
children's pajamas more than 30 years ago, said she is disappointed in
the EPA's actions.

"The public has no way to know that this data is not meaningful," Blum
said. "If the EPA puts their name on data, they give it legitimacy, and
need to make sure it is the best data available."

The EPA reserves the right to review a company's submission of its
chemical information and correct any errors. The EPA has not flagged or
corrected the AkzoNobel submission.

Denison has called on the EPA to conduct an independent evaluation of
chlorinated Tris to determine how dangerous it is. He also asked the EPA
to take steps to correct the information about the chemical on its Web
site.

He said such incomplete characterizations call into question the
integrity of the EPA's program.
The problems with the report on chlorinated Tris should "serve as a
wake-up call," he said. 

Denison sent his request on June 2 but has not yet gotten a reply.

Chemicals 

 Chemical Timeline 
 
    1950s: Chlorinated Tris is developed

 1962: The chemical is introduced as a commercial flame retardant.
Commercial names include Fyrol FR-2, Antiblaze 195 and Firemaster T33P 

 1977: University of California-Berkeley scientists publish a study in
the journal Science showing the chemical is carcinogenic. Manufacturers
later begin to voluntarily remove the chemical from children's pajamas.

 1995: The National Cancer Institute, a branch of the National
Institutes of Health, lists nine studies that show the chemical is
hazardous.

 1998: The EPA launches the High Production Volume Challenge, a program
to warn the public about common chemicals that are dangerous. Companies
self-report details to the EPA. This same year, the World Health
Organization concludes that chlorinated Tris causes cancer "at all
levels that were tested" in male and female rats.

 2000: The National Research Council concludes that the available animal
data on chlorinated Tris provides "sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity" in rats.

 2001: AkzoNobel, the major manufacturer of chlorinated Tris, submits
data to the EPA. The company finds no evidence of harm. The EPA reviews
the AkzoNobel entry on chlorinated Tris and asks for clarification but
does not question the company's conclusion.

 2004: Manufacturers of the most commonly used flame retardant in foam,
penta-BDE, voluntarily cease production of the chemical because of
environmental and health concerns.

 2005: The EPA bans the production of penta-BDE for use as a flame
retardant. One EPA program also concludes that chlorinated Tris is a
moderate human health hazard. But the EPA program designed to warn the
public still cites no health risks.

 2007: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission concludes that
chlorinated Tris is a probable human carcinogen.

 2008: The U.S. Geological Survey finds that chlorinated Tris is
detected in drinking water sources, such as rivers and lakes, throughout
the United States.

Groups Agree On Harm 

Between 1979 and 1981, Stauffer Chemical, a former maker of chlorinated
Tris, conducted a two-year study that looked at the effect of the flame
retardant on rats. Since that time, numerous national and international
governmental bodies have reviewed that study.

Here's what they concluded:

 The World Health Organization: Chlorinated Tris causes cancer "at all
levels that were tested" in male and female rats. The organization said
the exposed animals showed an increase in liver, kidney, brain and
testicular cancer.

 The National Cancer Institute: Chlorinated Tris is carcinogenic.

 The National Research Council: Chlorinated Tris causes cancer.

 The EPA's Design for Environment Program: Concurred with the National
Research Council's conclusions.

Here's what AkzoNobel concluded, in its published summary of the work in
the International Journal of Toxicology:

 Chronic feeding of the chemical resulted in benign (not harmful)
cancers in the liver, kidney, testes and adrenal cortex.

Related Link  EPA's High Production Volume Challenge 

Key Findings  An EPA program that is supposed to warn the public about
dangerous chemicals lists no harmful health effects of a common flame
retardant known to cause cancer in lab animals.

 Chemical-makers paid for all the studies that contend the flame
retardant is safe. The studies are listed on the EPA's Web site.
 Manufacturers are under no obligation to inform the public if the flame
retardant is in their products.

Related Coverage  Watchdog report: Hazardous flame retardant found in
household objects
 Q&A: Widely-used chlorinated Tris is hard to detect, hard to test for


Deborah L. DeBiasi
Email:   dldebiasi at deq.virginia.gov
WEB site address:  www.deq.virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Permit Programs
Industrial Pretreatment/Toxics Management Program
PPCPs, EDCs, and Microconstituents
Mail:          P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA  23218 (NEW!)
Location:  629 E. Main Street, Richmond, VA  23219
PH:         804-698-4028
FAX:      804-698-4032