1. Upcoming challenges: flame retardants Stamatis Sivitos, 30.10.2013 UK SNS annual event

2. Outline Context Potential use of flame retardants Health and environmental impacts NGO work and results

3. 2008: New requirement proposed in an international standard (IEC 62368) on the safety of Audio/Video and ICT technology Initiated by the U.S. National Association of State Fire Marshals Supported by the Alliance for Consumer Fire Safety in Europe (ACFSE), front group for the bromine industry, now Fire Safety Platform... Background

4. IEC 62368/ 60065 and EN 60065 Amendment 11 “A television set shall be so designed that the likelihood of ignition and the spread of fire caused by a flame is reduced” and tested according to TS 62441 CLC/TS 62441: “the combustible materials used in candle flame accessible areas do not exhibit flaming for more than 3 min”

5. Aims of this meeting Aims of this meeting 1.Background and update on current developments 2.Call for your support 3.Share information/ brainstorm 4.Need for coordinated approach – counteraction

6. Products affected

7. Is there a need for this clause?

8. “How eight TV fires spread across the world” Source: Chicago Tribune reporting

12. Use of statistics Source: Green Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, USA

13. Why is this important?

14. Flame retardants The most cost effective and commonly used chemicals to meet this requirement are flame retardants (BFRs and CFRs). DecaBDE (used in the past). Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) Decabromodipheny lethane (DBDPE) 1,2-Bis(2,4,6- tribromophenoxy) ethane (BTBPE) Dechlorane Plus (DP)

15. Environmental pathways Much higher levels of BFRs in dust, food, and breast milk. US levels are 10 times than those in Europe. California has the highest levels of fire retardants in consumer products in the US Found in increasing levels in dust, human fat, body fluids, and breast milk worldwide.

16. Health and env. impacts Serious adverse health effects in experimental animals and accumulation in humans - documented in many hundreds of peer reviewed articles (Blum et al, 2008 – The Case against Candle Resistant Electronics)

17. Other env impacts  Plastic products containing FR are hard to recycle  Flame retarded plastic is either being incinerated, landfilled, or exported to developing countries

18. What about the legal framework?

19. EU legislation RoHS Directive & REACH Regulation: banned or restricted only a small fraction of the chemicals of concern Complicated and long process via REACH Applicable only in the EU => Regulatory framework not sufficient

20. Views of US organisations Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) “potential risk was too low to justify the implementation of a candle flame ignition requirement”

22. The coalition (Blum et al, 2008 – The Case against Candle Resistant Electronics)

23. ECOS work Alerted the relevant standardisation bodies (CENELEC & IEC) Contacted the national members of IEC and CENELEC, providing the relevant scientific input Raised awareness among env NGOs in the EU

24. Outcomes Majority of IEC TC 108 members voted against IEC 62368 Vote in CLC not in parallel with the IEC : => the CENELEC EN 60065 Am11 on TVs was approved in late 2008 –into force since July 2010

25. State of play Relevant IEC and CLC draft standards have been repeatedly voted down (May 2012, March 2013) Final standards should not contain the external ignition clause!

26. Conclusions Increased attention to energy and environmental issues but room for improvement Standards should be set on a robust evidence base Vigilance essential at all levels Important role of Env NGOs

27. Support the UK SNS!

28. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Mundo-B Rue d’Edimbourg 26, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium Direct line: + 32 2 894 46 56 stamatis.sivitos@ecostandard.org http://www.ecostandard.org