[Pharmwaste] The couch cleanse (removing fire retardants), and Chemical industry fights for flame retardants (keep using fire retardants)

[DeBiasi, Deborah (DEQ)]

http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-13273-the-couch-cleanse.html

Thursday, August 28,2014
The couch cleanse
By Caitlin Rockett<http://www.boulderweekly.com/by-author-896-1.html>
[http://www.boulderweekly.com/imgs/hed/art13273nar.jpg]<http://www.boulderweekly.com/imgs/hed/art13273widea.jpg>
Distorted science. Fabricated watchdog groups. False testimonies. Decades of public deception. It's the stuff of a summer blockbuster - but truth is stranger than fiction, they say.
And so it is with the story of how, over the course of nearly 40 years, flame retardant substances ended up in nearly every piece of furniture, every electronic, every household ware and article of clothing in the U.S. In a four-part series from 2012, the Chicago Tribune used thousands of government, scientific and internal documents to expose the intricate web of lies that made it possible for chemical companies to fill American homes (cars, classrooms, hospitals...) with compounds known to cause cancer, disrupt sexual and neurological development and impair fertility.
But things seem to be moving in a new, less toxic direction as the California law that has required California manufacturers to include flame retardant chemicals in their products, the law that essentially set the national standard for furniture production since 1975 -Technical Bulletin 117 - was revised last year to allow California manufacturers to produce upholstered furniture without flame retardant foam. The revised standard, TB 117-2013, went into effect on Jan. 1, giving many environmentalists, toxicologists and concerned citizens hope that the Golden State will again lead the way - this time on a less poisonous path. And taking things one step further, if everything goes well on the floor of the California Senate in the last week of August, furniture manufacturers who sell in California will also be required to label whether furnishings do or do not contain flame retardant chemicals, yet another promising step forward for the nation as a whole.
"Chemicals are continually coming out of furniture and dropping into dust and you get dust on your hands and you get [the chemicals] in your body," says Arlene Blum, an environmental scientist and executive director and founder of the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, Calif. Blum conducted research in the late 1970s that led to a flame retardant known as chlorinated tris being removed from children's pajamas because the compound was capable of damaging DNA and perhaps causing cancer. Blum founded the institute in 2008 after she learned that the same compound was being used in furniture and baby products. Blum has since been working to stop the use of flame retardants in home furnishings and children's products.
"California is the only state that can make flame retardant laws easily because we're the only state that has a bureau," Blum says. "After our great earthquake and fire in [1906, California developed] a Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation that could make fire standards, and no other state has that. In the '70s ... the idea came about that maybe we should have a standard for furniture, but it turns out it was not a good standard. I think TB 117 was done out of good motives, but it has not been a good standard."
The original standard required California furniture manufacturers to use foam that could withstand a small open flame, like that of a candle, for at least 12 seconds - the material failed if it ignited. To avoid failing the "open flame test," manufacturers used ominous-sounding halogenated flame retardants containing chlorine or bromine bonded to carbon (like chlorinated tris or penta-BDE).
And while, as Blum says, no other U.S. state has any comparable standard, California's market is so large that manufacturers across the nation chose to meet what was essentially the most stringent standard in the country in order to produce efficiently.
TB 117 not only mandated the use of flame retardant chemicals in the foam padding of upholstered furniture in California, but also its application on foam used in baby products. And use of chemical flame retardants spread to more products. Research from the Green Science Policy Institute found that penta-BDE was being used at levels of 3 to 6 percent of the weight of a piece of foam (that's often measurable in pounds of chemicals injected into home furnishings). Octa-BDE was being used in plastics for circuit boards and small appliances, and deca-BDE was used for televisions and computer casings as well as in textiles.
"In 1999 and 2001, 98 [percent] and 95 [percent] respectively, of the usage of penta-BDE was in North America, in large part to meet TB 117," reads the Green Science Policy Institute's 2013 report.
According to Richard Gann, a senior research scientist emeritus in the Fire Research Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the roots of TB 117 trace back to the years just following World War II.
"American families ... started buying more furnishings and a lot of the older wood furniture got replaced by softer, more comfortable stuff," Gann says. "A lot of those things, whether they were wall coverings, carpets, whatever, were made from the synthetics, many of which were developed as part of the war effort. The polymer industry was in a period of incredible scientific growth. All sorts of different [polymers] were created and the ones that found a practical use flourished. At that point we started to see fires become more of a part of consciousness in society."
Along with this shift to plusher home furnishings came a steep rise in cigarette smoking. Gann notes that television personalities, such as news commentator John Cameron Swayze, pushed smoking. Swayze, on NBC's "Camel News Caravan," would announce which military unit got that week's free Camel cigarettes.
"Cigarette companies understood this was an approachable group of habit-forming men and they would come home and spread the habit," says Gann. "Here we have this congruence of awareness of fire problems, more furnishings, more smoking - it was not hard for people operating [the chemical industry] at the time to say, 'We've seen a lot of cigarette-initiated fires.' Tampering with the cigarettes didn't work. What I've been told is the cigarette industry was better organized and funded than furniture industry."
And the proverbial fuel was added to the fire: Big Tobacco, with all its money, was able to easily shift the focus away from deaths caused by cigarette fires while the chemical industry created a profitable market for their products in the form of flame retardant chemicals that could be added to foams for home furnishings.
But as the decades passed, concern began to grow about the effects flame retardant chemicals were having on human health and the environment. Blum's research removed chlorinated tris from children's pajamas, but chlorinated tris and penta- BDE were still pervasive in furnishings and plastics. Research found that these chemicals leached out of landfills and into the environment - researchers found flame retardant chemicals in the Arctic. To add insult to injury, it turns out the chemicals don't actually provide any valuable protection from fire - they just help manufacturers pass the TB 117 open flame test. And when furnishings treated with chemical flame retardants do catch fire, they increase carbon monoxide and soot, the most frequent causes of firerelated deaths.
With all of this evidence mounting and calls from environmentalists to change standards growing louder, California Gov. Jerry Brown announced new flammability standards for California in November.
The revised test, TB 117-2013, replaced the 12-second open flame test with a smolder-only test that exposes a mock up piece of furniture to a lighted cigarette. A material fails the test if it becomes an open flame or if it is still smoldering after 45 minutes.
According to Patricia Bowling, vice president of communications for the American Home Furnishings Alliance, a trade organization for the furniture industry, the response within the industry has been positive and the change has been a long time coming.
"Back in the 1970s when California was developing their flammability standard, we proposed a different standard based on smolder resistance, because in the '70s, and still today, the primary cause for home furnishing fire is ignition from a smoldering source - a cigarette," says Bowling. "The smolder test addresses the primary cause of fire. The new TB 117 is based largely on that standard. We were delighted to see finally, after all this time, a standard addressing the primary cause [of fire in home furnishings]."
But environmentalists like Blum still harbor concern that the federal government will implement a national standard that will keep the country mired in toxic flame retardants.
"Right now there is, unfortunately, work toward a federal standard that would really be problematic, I think, that would lead to more flame retardant, so it really is complicated," Blum says.
Blum and other environmentalists point to the fact that after the U.S. began to phase penta-BDE out of consumer products beginning in 2003, replacement chemicals haven't proven to be any better, often coming from the same family of compounds, used at similar concentrations, and are linked to cancer and hormone disruption just like penta-BDEs. A recent study conducted by the Environmental Working Group and Duke University detected a biomarker of TDCIPP, a chlorinated tris flame retardant that has replaced penta- DBEs, in the urine of all 26 children and 22 parents who participated in the study. Because children are commonly on the floor, putting their hands in their mouths, their levels of TDCIPP were, on average, nearly five times that of their mothers. One extreme case showed a child with a level 23 times higher than the mother.
When asked about the importance of the study, Blum clarifies before she answers.
"By the way, this study is of cholorinated tris, which is a replacement, but what was also used back in the '70s in kids' pajamas," she says. "It's really pretty awful. But if you know about it, you can hope to change it. That's really the hope, that with this information things can be changed. I think it's a really important study. I think people didn't really know that chemical was chlorinated tris because the name has sort of changed, but that's what it is."
Johanna Congleton, a scientist at the Environmental Working Group who contributed to the recent TDCIPP study, says that Environmental Working Group hopes that any national standard will not keep the country's furniture manufacturers bound to heavy use of flame retardants.
"We hope that any national standard would focus on, first of all, the main causes of fire-related injury and death, which is smoldering sources," Congleton says.
But Patti Davis, a spokesperson for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency tasked with protecting consumers against things like toxic chemicals in couches, says that while the agency hasn't come to any definitive conclusion, they are working on a standard that includes both smolder and small open flames tests, but she says the commission will not require flame retardant chemicals to meet these tests.
"We have a mattress standard in place since 2007 that is the same type of performance standard that doesn't require [flame retardant] chemicals," Davis says. "We've found that the [mattress] industry has responded [without using chemicals] in terms of building in barriers inside of mattresses."
However, it is up to the industry to develop ways in which to avoid using flame retardant chemicals, and if a national standard requires manufacturers to pass an open flame test but doesn't prohibit them from using flame retardant chemicals to do so, U.S. consumers could see more of the same old toxic furniture.
"Something important to note, is that [TB 117-2013] doesn't prohibit them [from using chemicals] in any way," says Congleton. "We are hoping that manufacturers will move away from their use, but the decision to do that is voluntary. One of the things we are advocating for is if these chemicals are used, we'd like products to be labeled so consumers can identify what they are buying."
And, trailblazing once again, during the last week of August California's Senate will vote on Senate Bill 1019, a consumer right-to-know bill that will let people known whether the furniture they are purchasing contains flame retardant chemicals through labels on furniture. Judy Levin, pollution prevention co-director at the Center for Environmental Health, says that the new labeling initiative would also provide language that lets consumers know that flame retardant chemicals are associated with adverse health effects.
"So we want consumers to understand - some people might think, well flame retardant, that sounds like a good thing, and they need to understand [these chemicals] are not needed to get protection and they are related to health effects," Levin says.
While Levin acknowledges that TB 117-2013 and SB 1019 only apply to manufactures who sell in California, she and other proponents of the bill believe it will change a good part of the country.
"I think it's unusual to get a 39-year-old law to change, so this really is a big deal and a great thing," Blum says of the revisions to TB 117, but she warns that people concerned with chemicals in their couch should be proactive as they try to purge their homes of flame retardant chemicals.
"I think it's important for people to realize that right now we're still in quote 'a messy transition,' and if they want to reduce the flame retardants in their house by buying new furniture they should probably wait a little while," she says.
Respond: letters at boulderweekly.com<http://www.boulderweekly.com/letters@boulderweekly.com>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-retardants-furniture-met-20140828-story.html#page=1

Chemical industry fights for flame retardants
[http://www.trbimg.com/img-53ffd199/turbine/ct-edit-aj-flames-0829-jpg-20140828/450/16x9]
Chicago Tribune 2012

Chemtura manufactures Firemaster 550 at this chemical plant in El Dorado, Ark. The company says the flame retardant is safe but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has targeted it as a potential health hazard. (Chicago Tribune 2012)


By Michael Hawthorne<http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-michael-hawthorne-staff.html>,Tribune reportercontact the reporter<mailto:mhawthorne at tribune.com?subject=Regarding%20Chemical%20industry%20fights%20for%20flame%20retardants>

As furniture makers phase out toxic, ineffective flame retardants, chemical industry fights back.
Chemical industry returns to tactics documented in Chicago Tribune investigation on flame retardants.
California lawmaker says chemical industry flame retardant efforts are 'the last gasps of a fraudulent war.'
As furniture makers move to phase out toxic, ineffective flame retardants, the chemical industry is waging an aggressive last-ditch campaign to preserve a lucrative market that reaches into virtually every American home.
One of the world's leading manufacturers of flame retardants is suing California to block a new flammability standard that starting next year will allow furniture manufacturers to eliminate the chemicals from new upholstered sofas and chairs sold nationwide. The lawsuit, scheduled to be argued Friday in a Sacramento courtroom, is backed by the American Chemistry Council, the industry's chief trade group.
The trade group also lobbied fiercely to thwart a California bill that would require labels on any new furniture that still contains flame retardants. Ads in the online editions of local newspapers urged people to tell state lawmakers "to oppose legislation that misleads consumers about weakened fire safety standards."
[Playing with fire]<http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html>
Playing with fire<http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html>Open link<http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html>
Philadelphia-based Chemtura, the chemical company leading the legal challenge, commissioned a poll that described flame retardants as safe chemicals "used to make different materials more difficult to catch fire and help slow the spread of fire."
Based on the questions asked, the poll found that consumers "see a clear link between fire safety and flame retardants" and "view CEOs who ... discontinue use of flame retardants to be putting customers at risk and putting profits first," according to a summary prepared for Chemtura.
But much like earlier tactics embraced by the chemical industry, the latest legal and political maneuvers rely on flawed data and questionable claims about the effectiveness of flame retardants. A 2012 Tribune investigative series<http://www.chicagotribune.com/flames> documented how the chemicals actually fail to provide meaningful protection from furniture fires.
lRelated <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-retardants-furniture-met-20140828-story.html> [Surgeon rebuked for flame-retardant falsehoods] <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-heimbach-met-20140314-story.html>
Surgeon rebuked for flame-retardant falsehoods<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-heimbach-met-20140314-story.html>
There are signs that after years of success, the industry's latest efforts aren't having the same effect.
With the furniture industry declaring that it can maintain fire safety without using worrisome chemicals, a California judge signaled in a preliminary ruling Thursday that the state was within its legal authority to adopt a new flammability standard. The state Legislature overwhelmingly approved the labeling bill this week, sending it to Gov. Jerry Brown for his expected signature.
"These are the last gasps of a fraudulent war the chemical industry has been battling to protect their billions of dollars of sales," said California state Sen. Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat and chief sponsor of the labeling bill. "They know that with adequate information, consumers will move away from chemical-filled products."
The Tribune's "Playing With Fire" series<http://www.chicagotribune.com/flames> documented how the chemical and tobacco industries waged a decadeslong campaign of deception that loaded upholstered sofas and chairs with flame retardants linked to cancer, neurological deficits, developmental problems and impaired fertility.
For decades, manufacturers have added the chemicals to furniture sold nationwide largely because of a California flammability standard that required foam cushions to withstand a candlelike flame for 12 seconds.
When Brown ordered a new standard last year, the action broke a long deadlock between advocates concerned about the health hazards of flame retardants and those arguing that the chemicals were necessary to save lives.
Leading the defense of the old standard was a front group for makers of flame retardants that tapped into the public's fear of fire.
Known as Citizens for Fire Safety, the now-defunct group took out full-page newspaper ads and distributed videos featuring ominous music and footage of burning houses. It made flame retardants a racial issue by arguing that poor minority children would be disproportionately harmed if flame retardants were removed from household products.
The group, led by a former tobacco industry lobbyist, also sponsored a retired burn surgeon who told lawmakers stories about horrifically burned babies. The Tribune investigation<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-flame-retardants-20120506-story.html%23page=1> found that the infants he described did not exist.
Under the new flammability standard<http://www.bhfti.ca.gov/about/laws/propregs.shtml>, expected to be adopted for furniture sold nationwide, upholstery fabric must resist a smoldering cigarette, which federal statistics show is by far a bigger cause of furniture fires than small open flames.
[Study: Flame retardants found in moms, kids]<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-flame-retardants-child-study-met--20140804-story.html>
Study: Flame retardants found in moms, kids<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-flame-retardants-child-study-met--20140804-story.html>
Michael Hawthorne, Tribune reporter<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-flame-retardants-child-study-met--20140804-story.html>
One flame retardant is linked to cancer and was voluntarily taken out of children's pajamas in the 1970s after researchers discovered it mutated DNA.  ( Michael Hawthorne, Tribune reporter )<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-flame-retardants-child-study-met--20140804-story.html>

Phased in during the past year and officially effective Jan. 1, the new rule is modeled after a voluntary standard adopted by the furniture industry and a national smolder standard proposed by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The safety commission has found that specially designed furniture fabric is far more effective at preventing fires than adding flame retardants to the foam underneath. Though the California standard does not ban chemical flame retardants, furniture industry leaders say many manufacturers plan to comply without using the chemicals.
Some companies already have changed their manufacturing processes but aren't yet advertising the availability of flame retardant-free furniture - in part because retailers are allowed under the California rule to sell off inventories of products that could still contain flame retardants.
As a result, it is a confusing time for consumers in the market now for new furniture.
The nonprofit Center for Environmental Health has created a website<http://www.ceh.org/campaigns/flame-retardants/ceh-action/finding-safer-products/> that lists companies selling furniture and baby products made without flame retardants.
But when the group asked major retailers in late July if they offered such products, several companies responded that flame retardant-free furniture was not available.
"Although we cannot provide specifics about our confidential business plans, please know that we are committed to refining our approach as laws, regulations and science evolve over time," a Pottery Barn customer service representative wrote in an email to one of the group's staff members.
"When our component suppliers have completed testing and evaluation, it is reasonable to expect that we will offer upholstered furniture with less or no fire retardant," wrote a representative from Ethan Allen, another furniture retailer. "We are hoping to begin production of reduced fire retardant and fire retardant free upholstery later this year."
Andy Counts, chief executive officer of the American Home Furnishings Alliance, the furniture industry's main trade group, said he expects some retailers to make a "huge marketing push" next year for products that meet the new flammability standard.
"As a consumer, I would feel pretty good that there are plenty of products out there, both now and in the future, that are free of flame retardants," Counts said in an interview. "If you are interested in that sort of thing, you can certainly request it from your retailer."
Chemtura, the chemical company challenging the California standard, contends the state overstepped its authority by changing furniture flammability regulations first adopted in 1975. The company is asking a California Superior Court to throw out the new rule, known as Technical Bulletin 117-2013, and reinstate the old regulations.
[Chart: Flame retardant study results]<http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-chart-flame-retardant-study-resuls-20140804-htmlstory.html>
Chart: Flame retardant study results<http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-chart-flame-retardant-study-resuls-20140804-htmlstory.html>
Tribune Graphics<http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-chart-flame-retardant-study-resuls-20140804-htmlstory.html>
Tribune Graphics<http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-chart-flame-retardant-study-resuls-20140804-htmlstory.html>

"As longtime advocates for fire safety standards, we believed that the (state) ... weakened fire safety when it removed the open flame requirement from the California flammability standard," Marshall Moore, Chemtura's director of innovation and sustainability, wrote in an email. "The result is a standard that we - and many others in the fire prevention community - believe goes against public safety interest, putting families and children at risk."
Federal officials say a sharp drop in fire deaths and property damage nationwide can be attributed to declining smoking rates, increased use of smoke detectors and the development of cigarettes that self-extinguish.
Surgeon rebuked for flame-retardant falsehoods<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-heimbach-met-20140314-story.html>

Testing by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Northbrook-based Underwriters Laboratories has found that flame retardants provide no meaningful protection from small open flames - the type used in tests that industry relied on to meet the old California flammability standard.
In the safety commission tests, scientists in a federal laboratory touched a candlelike flame to a pair of upholstered chairs - one with a flame retardant in the foam and one without. Both were engulfed in flames within four minutes.
The amount of smoke produced by both chair fires was similar, said researchers, who noted that most fire victims die of smoke inhalation, not the fire itself.

Sam Roe and Patricia Callahan<http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-flame-retardants-david-heimbach-20140521-story.html>
As one of the nation's top burn surgeons, Dr. David Heimbach was a perfect choice to enlist as a star witness. His dramatic testimony about babies burned to death in furniture fires helped convince lawmakers they shouldn't scale back use of flame retardants.  ( Sam Roe and Patricia Callahan )<http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-flame-retardants-david-heimbach-20140521-story.html>

The chair with a flame retardant in the foam contained a chemical made by Chemtura known as Firemaster 550, according to federal records obtained by the Tribune under the Freedom of Information Act.
Chemtura says Firemaster 550 is safe and has promoted it for years as an eco-friendly chemical. But signs of the flame retardant are showing up in people<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-flame-retardants-child-study-met--20140804-story.html%23page=1>, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has targeted it as a potential health hazard.
On websites and in public testimony, the chemical industry cites other government-sponsored studies as proof that flame retardants can give people enough time to escape a fire. The lead author of one of the studies told the Tribune that the industry has misrepresented his findings and that the amount of flame retardants added to household furniture doesn't work.
In another study, the key finding cited by industry relied not on upholstery fabric but on cloth used in theatrical curtains that are designed to self-extinguish in case of fire, the Tribune found.
With many consumers clamoring for more information about their exposure to toxic substances, California lawmakers approved legislation that would require labels on new upholstered furniture that contains flame retardants.
cComments<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-retardants-furniture-met-20140828-story.html>

  *   There was a special investigation published about flame retardants in Chicago Tribune not to long ago. The flame retardant chemicals touted to save lives is ineffective and is very bad for our health. Read it here: http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html or Google: Flame...
Leigh Segel
at 6:03 AM August 29, 2014
Add a comment<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-retardants-furniture-met-20140828-story.html>See all comments<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-retardants-furniture-met-20140828-story.html>
1<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-flame-retardants-furniture-met-20140828-story.html>
The bill<http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml%3Fbill_id=201320140SB1019> passed the state Assembly 56-17 on Wednesday after the furniture industry announced its support. The Senate sent it to Brown on a 28-5 vote.
Ads taken out by the American Chemistry Council directed readers to a website<http://www.flameretardantfacts.com/sb-1019/> that contends the proposed labels would "include misleading information about flame retardants, making sweeping generalizations about these important chemistries." The site urges people to support an open flame standard like the old California rule that increased the use of flame retardants.
The labeling bill "would negatively impact consumer safety by requiring furniture labels to contain inaccurate and incomplete information about flame retardants and fire safety," Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the trade group, said in an email.
Sharp differences remain among government and independent researchers about whether furniture fires started by open flames are common enough to demand a standard that would address them. California officials are conducting a study, but advocates say that shouldn't prevent lawmakers from acting now.
"Consumers have a right to know when unnecessary, untested and harmful flame retardants are used in furniture," said Judy Levin of the Center for Environmental Health. "That is what the labeling bill would do, which is why the chemical industry is opposing this important consumer bill."
mhawthorne at tribune.com<mailto:mhawthorne at tribune.com>


Deborah L. DeBiasi
Email:   Deborah.DeBiasi at deq.virginia.gov
WEB site address:  www.deq.virginia.gov<http://www.deq.virginia.gov/>
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Permits
Industrial Pretreatment/Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Program
PPCPs, EDCs, and Microconstituents
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/PermittingCompliance/PollutionDischargeElimination/Microconstituents.aspx
Mail:          P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA  23218
Location:  629 E. Main Street, Richmond, VA  23219
PH:         804-698-4028      FAX:      804-698-4032

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20140829/2728f7f2/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 80418 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
Url : http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20140829/2728f7f2/image001-0001.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 33985 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
Url : http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20140829/2728f7f2/image002-0001.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7221 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
Url : http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20140829/2728f7f2/image003-0001.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4897 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
Url : http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20140829/2728f7f2/image004-0001.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4898 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
Url : http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20140829/2728f7f2/image005-0001.jpg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6811 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
Url : http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20140829/2728f7f2/image006-0001.jpg