Welcome back to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission our hearing which started this morning at 9 a.m. We'll now continue Just a reminder that this is a public hearing to solicit comments on the petition requesting the Commission initiate rulemaking under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act to declare several categories of products containing additive Organo halogen flame retardants to be quote banned hazardous substances end quote We have heard from four panels this morning, and we are going to now hear from our fifth On this panel, we are pleased to have Ms. Katie Huffling from the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments Ms. Jenna Reed Union of Concerned Scientists Mr. Robert science excuse me, Mr. Robert Simon from the American Chemistry Council and While Mr. Simon is presenting I would just say that mr. Mike walls from the American Chemistry Council will also be available to answer questions And on the phone we have miss Sonia Lunder from the environmental Working group joining us along with dr. Hubble's Heather Stapleton from Duke University and miss Pamela Miller from the Alaska Community Action on toxins Thank you all very much for joining us today and again each one of the panelists will testify for up to five minutes Yellow light indicates you have one minute remaining and for those of you on the phone Miss Mills will alert you when you have one minute left Once all the panels have concluded their testimony We will turn to the Commission for five minute rounds of questions with that miss Huffling. You may begin. Thank you Thank you, and thank you for this opportunity to comment today on the petition requesting Role-making on products containing organic halogen flame retardants and the CPSC staff briefing package Again, my name is Katie Huffling, and I'm the executive director of the Alliance of nurses for healthy environments I'm also a nurse and a nurse midwife The Alliance is the only national nursing organization that focuses solely on the intersection of health in the environment Our mission is to promote healthy people and healthy environments by educating and leading the nursing profession advancing research Incorporating evidence-based practice and influencing policy We have over 3,000 members throughout the country our members include nurses from all walks of our profession Hospital-based public health school-based and advanced practice to just name a few Nurses are the most trusted profession and we take our duties very seriously when providing education to patients and working to prevent disease The main work of our organization occurs through the generous volunteer work of our nurses through our policy and advocacy work group These nurses have led engagement of health professionals on the serious issues related to flame retardants and health Our work has been guided by the American Nurses Association's resolution Nursing practice chemical exposure and right to know which advocates a course of action that reduces the use of toxic chemicals Demands adequate information on the health effects of chemicals and chemicals and products before they are introduced on the market And creates more streamlined methods for toxic chemicals to be removed from use Based on this resolution nurses need to advocate for consumer products that are free of toxic chemicals as part of their standard of practice I am highly concerned that pregnant women the growing fetus and our children are being exposed to halogenated flame retardants every day It's my job to help women have the healthiest pregnancies possible As such I recognize the importance of having normal levels of thyroid hormones during pregnancy and Monitor for symptoms of thyroid dysfunction so that action can be quickly taken if an abnormality is found That this class of flame retardants are structurally similar to thyroid hormone and have been shown to disrupt thyroid hormone function is highly concerning Thyroid disruption during pregnancy can have a negative impact on fetal brain development as well as other poor pregnancy outcomes As you've heard from other others here today With one in six kids in the US now facing the lifelong challenge of developmental Disabilities such as autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder We need to seriously address chemicals that could be a component of this alarming trend I'm also concerned with the effects of halogenated flame retardants on for fertility Elevated PBDE levels in human breast milk has been correlated with cryptocortism as well as decreased testee size and decreased sperm counts as Infertility is increasing in this country need we need to be addressing these possible chemical origins As a nurse midwife, I'm frequently asked which products are safe to use with their baby. Which nursing pillow would I recommend? What's the best group to buy? Due to the limited consumer information we have on many of the flame retardants addressed in the petition It can be very challenging as a provider to offer advice on the safest products This is especially frustrating when it's been shown that these toxic chemicals are not even providing added flame protection When speaking with my pediatric nurse colleagues, they have described that they have many ways we can counsel parents to reduce Risks of fire such as having working smoke detectors and not smoking in the house But they have no meaningful advice to give to parents on how to reduce the risk of kids exposures to flame retardants Manufacturers are able to add these flame retardants to their products without labeling nor testing them for health effects This entire class of halogenated flame retardants all have similar molecular structure and all are likely to react similarly in the body We believe that due to the hazardous nature of these flame retardants and the high potential for harm Especially to the growing fetus and children due to critical developmental windows of susceptibility But the CPSC is compelled to regulate these flame retardants under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act Also, the staff brief states that OFRs may not be pervasive as they've been found in only 22% of the children's products Tested by CPSC. This is not an insignificant number as children has numerous toys in their toy boxes 22% can lead to significant exposures amongst this vulnerable population Our next generation deserves to be able to grow up healthy and free of these toxic chemicals Let's not make the mistake of regrettable Substitutions and adopt the current proposal to restrict these unnecessary and health harming class of flame retardants. Thank you Thank you very much. Ms. Reed Good afternoon. First, I'd like to thank chairwoman Burkle and the CPSC commissioners for the opportunity to testify before you today on this Important issue. My name is Jenna Reed I am the science and policy analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists With more than 500,000 members and supporters across the country We are a nonpartisan, non-profit group dedicated to improving public policy through rigorous and independent science The Center for Science and Democracy at UCS advocates for improved transparency and integrity in our democratic institutions Especially those making science-based public policy decisions The Union of Concerned Scientists stands with other members of the scientific community in Supporting this petition calling upon the Consumer Product Safety Commission to declare organic halogen flame retardants OFRs as a hazardous class of chemicals and to ban their use in children's products furniture mattresses and the casings surrounding electronics The scientific evidence laid out in the petition supports this regulatory change The CPSC has the authority to protect the public from toxic substances That may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness Since the Center's inception we've worked to protect scientific integrity within the federal government and called attention to Incidences of special interests mischaracterizing science to advocate for specific policy goals The chemical industry and its trade association the American Chemistry Council's work to sow doubt about the science revealing harms about Chemicals impacts on our health including flame retardants is an egregious example of this inappropriate behavior The companies that manufacture OFRs have put significant time and money into distorting the scientific truth about these chemicals as The 2012 Chicago Tribune investigative series noted the chemical industry has twisted research results ignored findings that run counter to its aims and Passed off biased industry funded reports as rigorous science In doing so the American Chemistry Council and its member companies has promoted the prevalent use of OFRs at the expense of public health Looking at these chemicals through a strictly objective lens illustrates the needs need for CPSC swift action Toxicity and exposure data support the assessment of organic halogen flame retardants as a class of chemicals under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act Properties that are shared by OFRs include their semi-volatility and ability to migrate from consumer products into house dust and exposure has been associated with a range of health impacts including reproductive impairment Neurological impacts, endocrine disruption, genotoxicity, cancer, and immune disorders. As a class There is an inadequate body of evidence supporting the conclusion that these chemicals have the capacity to cause personal illness and Therefore meet the definition of toxic under FHSA Perhaps most egregiously biomonitoring data have revealed that communities of color and low-income communities are Disproportionately exposed to and bear high levels of flame retardant chemicals Adding to the cumulative chemical burden that these communities are already Experiencing from increased fine particulate matter from power plants or refineries in their neighborhoods to higher levels of contaminants in their drinking water I've seen firsthand the persistence of the earliest form of flame retardants Polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs that still plague the sediment and water of the hack and sack metal ends just a couple of miles from where I grew up in New Jersey One of my first jobs was working in the chemistry division of the metal ends environmental research Institute where I spent my days extracting PCBs and organochlorine pesticides from the soil and sediment of them of the metal ends and analyzing that data Despite being banned in 1977 these chemicals are still found Dangerously high amounts all over industrial hot spots of the country and continue to bioaccumulate in a range of species The ban of PCBs happened decades ago And we are still managing the damaging impacts of the chemicals prevalence across the country The next generation of these chemicals organo halogen flame retardants are inside of our own homes in a range of products Thanks largely in part to the disinformation campaigns sewed by special interests The fact remains that the science does not support their continued use Seen firsthand the persistence of PCBs in my local environment inspired me to use my scientific training to work to design or improve Policies that minimize public health and environmental risks and prevent future scenarios of chemicals overburdening ecosystems and households That is why I'm here today to ask the CPSC to act with urgency to grant this petition and further regulate Of ours to protect our children and future generations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Simon Thanks chair Burkle and commissioners My name is Robert Simon and I'm here today testifying on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and the North American flame retardant I know there's a lot of interest in this issue and we were trying to help facilitate the commissioners request to consolidate some of the Testimony so I'm going to present remarks on behalf of both myself and Mike walls from the American Chemistry Council. I'll try and be brief Just a quick comment and I know we've been before the commissioners before on several issues And I just want to emphasize that the American Chemistry Council represents the principal manufacturers of chemicals in the U.S. And we are fully committed to product safety That by nature of membership in the American Chemistry Council You are obligated to comply with our responsible care program, which includes eight different codes Including a product safety code and that's mandatory for obligation that includes third-party verification in our new product safety code But I just wanted to emphasize our commitment to overall product safety I'm here today speaking in support of the staff briefing package as it relates to the petition HB 15-1 and the staff recommendation to deny the petition I'm going to emphasize five key points today But our overall message to the commissioners to the public to some of the other stakeholders are today This petition is overly broad. It will increase fire risk and It is not consistent with the FHSA So my testimony focus on five key points first fire safety as the commissioners well knows a critical issue for the CPSC to consider We've made a lot of progress over the last 40 years in reducing fire risk a lot of that has come as a result of the CPSC's CPSC's leadership on that issue and flame returns have played a role in that in terms of helping reduce the fire risk of products having said that as you all know from from the number of Product recalls and product challenges that are out there that fire risk is still a very real issue According to the CPSC's own data that we respond to a fire every 23 seconds in the US so that important notion of fire safety needs to be considered as part of this And I would just emphasize that in the review of this petition This has the potential to undermine fire safety and even compromise the fire safety of some products So encourage the CPSC to carefully consider that in the context of its review of this petition second point would be As you've heard I think even acknowledged by some of the advocates for this petition This is an incredibly broad petition. You're you're banning an entire class of chemicals flame retardants include a broad range of Products with differing characteristics Formulations and intended uses and it's just not appropriate to group all of these things together To take that one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't make sense The hazard and risk profile of even these substances within this class of chemicals is just not the same And that's been recognized by government agencies including the US Environmental Protection Agency. So emphasize that point the petition as it is currently defined would ban Substances that other government regulators have determined do not present a risk and would also ban substances that haven't even been developed yet So again, I urge the Commission to look at this holistically in terms of the the broad implications of this Good example would be under both Democratic and Republican Administrations new flame retardant products have been approved including under the new Lawtenberg Chemical Safety Act This would run counter to that a related point would be is The substances that are the subject of the petition have already been or are currently being reviewed for their safety by US EPA under a comprehensive new regulatory system in place for regulating chemicals The CPSC clearly has a critical and important role to play in consumer products But this petition would duplicate some of the work that's already underway or has been done by US EPA to assess the safety of chemicals and regulate those chemicals and A big piece of this we were here with the last time testifying about hopefully the potential of the new Lawtenberg Chemical Safety Act After the last hearing in January of 2016. It's glad here to say and many of the people around this room Not just the chemical industry, but environmental groups labor unions, etc We work to help pass the bipartisan Lawtenberg Chemical Safety Act that is a new law that has gone into effect It significantly enhances the way we regulate chemicals in the US and I think that's an important factor to consider And I'll just end with a final point Which is because we we believe this the petition advances an inappropriate and very troubling application of the FHSA and and should be denied I would just end with a Comment just directly from the staff package that I think emphasizes the broad nature of this the FHSA requires consideration of the connection between the toxicity of a substance Exposure to that substance through customary and reasonably foreseeable use of a product and resulting in substantial personal injury or substantial illness associated with the exposure Staff considers that the OFRs represent a broad class of chemicals defined largely by their functional use and the presence of either bromine or chlorine The data on offer of our show varying toxicity and exposure potential among individual of our compounds these varying properties of individual Individual of our compounds indicate that of ours in fact represents several subclasses of chemicals and should not and should be Examined separately and one cannot conclude that all substances would be considered Hazardous substances under the FHSA That's part of the reason why we encourage the commission to take into account the staff report and the science on these issues Appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Mr. Simon. Ms. Lunder Hello, thanks for including me and allowing me to testify by phone My name is Sonya Lunder and I'm a senior analyst at the environmental working group a non-profit organization Over the past 14 years my organization EWG has performed original biomonitoring studies to document human exposure to organo-halogen Maternites. We've collaborated collaborated with academic laboratories to measure PBDEs and paired serum samples from toddlers and their mothers and Mother's milk and umbilical cord blood EWG has also partnered with Heather Stapleton's lab to measure metabolites of chlorinated tris and pyromaster 550 and preschool-age children and their mothers These studies suggest widespread exposure to toxic flame retardants particularly doing pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood Children's exposures are commonly three to five times greater than their mothers in its briefing package The CPSC staff raised concerns about the petition's goal of banning all additive organo-halogen chemicals Yet dozens of studies have documented the way these chemicals contaminate the food chain Persistent in the environment and threaten human health. The testimony today documents a clear pattern of regrettable substitution Or as we learned today to call it regrettable denial where restrictions on a specific OFRs results in the use of new poorly studied halogenated alternatives Most recently toxicity concerns have prompted four states, Maryland, New York, Vermont, and Washington to ban two forms of nitrous in-foam products. We see that without clear federal action to restrict OFRs as a group, a portion of the market will shift to new poorly studied halogenated chemicals perpetuating the cycle Most recent sorry, organo-halogen flame retardants share physical and chemical qualities that warrant their consideration as a group under the federal Act. The halogen-carbon bond imparts thermal stability But also results in persistence and longevity of these chemicals in the environment and contributes to their toxicity to human health When incinerated, they form highly toxic and persistent compounds like dioxins and furans In response to this petition, the ACC cited an EPA press release claiming that the agency has identified 50 flame retardants that are unlikely to pose the risk to human health But neither the ACC nor the EPA have stated whether any of these alternatives are halogenated The statement is likely based on the analysis of the EPA's design for the environment program That was also mentioned earlier by Rick Gross in his testimony in 2015 in a report all of the 10 halogenated flame retardants that EPA examined were rated as high hazard in at least one category Either for their hazard to human health or environmental persistence and bioaccumulation EPA did name two chemicals as a lower level of concern for polyurethane foam, but both were not halogenated a Study by Miriam Diamond who will testify later today reviewed 94 Fire retardants that could be substitutes for those currently used in consumer products She found that 40% had medium or high concern for environmental persistence And the rest posed a low concern and concluded the replacement fire retardants have to be evaluated as a class Because the one-by-one regulatory approach is problematic for ensuring that alternative flame retardants will be less hazardous than the predecessors Despite an encouraging market shift away from additive flame retardants and household products OFRs continue to be used in some new products as noted in testimony today We conclude that voluntary actions by manufacturers and state-by-state restrictions on individual chemicals are not Sufficient to keep these chemicals out of new products and we note that handheld XRF devices Allow for rapid and affordable and non-invasive compliance monitoring In fact meaning that a category wide ban on halogens could be simpler to enforce than a ban on specific of ours The CPSC staff alleged that there was insufficient data to prove that these product categories in the petition are the source of OFRs measured in people and they bring up the point that The chemicals are using vehicles and also one minute remaining Thank you But research has shown the consumer products are the primary source of human exposure to flame retardants in our testimony written to Testimony we attached this by defining that twice as many pounds of PDD ease were added to polyurethane foam in household products Then vehicles so in closing we would urge the Commission to grant the Petition as of written and ban organ halogens flame retardants in these four product categories. Thank you Thank you very much. Next is dr. Heather Stapleton dr. Stapleton. Are you on the phone? I am. Yes. Thank you. Yes, we can thank you very much Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. Yes. I'm Heather Stapleton I'm an associate professor of environmental chemistry and exposure science at Duke University My research has focused on identifying additive chemicals and consumer products evaluating human exposure pathways and investigating potential effects from exposure to flame retardants for the past 17 years I've been conducting research specifically on flame retardant chemicals and I have more than 70 peer-reviewed publications focusing on this topic In addition, I testified in front of the US Senate subcommittee in May of 2012 on a hearing that focused on flame retardants Today, I'd like to take a few minutes to summarize some important research findings that have been generated from my group particularly over the last year Which directly relate to several issues raised today Specifically relating to our understanding of human exposure related to use of flame retardants and furnitures and mattresses Since 2008 my research group has been testing furniture products, particularly sofas chairs mattresses and a number of baby items for flame retardant chemicals As of today, we have tested more than 2000 of these products And we have a very good knowledge base regarding where flame retardants are used and how their use has changed over time Contrary to what you have been told our research has shown that flame retardants are actually used in adult mattresses sold on the market today Particularly mattresses made of memory foam And our data suggests this is not decreasing We also know that companies are still applying flame retardants to furniture despite the change in the flammability standards from California This was documented in our publication in 2016 Due to these this research my laboratory has been conducting its extensive Biomantering studies to evaluate exposure among the general public and just to understand how exposure relates to product use In a recent publication by Hoffman et al. We demonstrated that exposure to the halogenated organophosphate flame retardant TDCPP also known as chlorinated tris has increased significantly among the US population over the past decade We also demonstrated that exposure to this chemical which is considered a personagen is significantly greater and young children relative to adults In fact, our research found that infants have the highest exposure to TDCPP among any age class and furthermore this exposure was Significantly associated with the number of baby furniture items the parents owned in the home This association is further supported by our testing program Which found that TDCPP is the most common flame retardant applied to baby furniture items that contain polyurethane foam These studies provide a link connecting application of TDCPP and baby furniture items with exposure and infants As a follow-up to this study, we recently estimated the average daily intake of TDCPP for an infant using our measurements of the urinary metabolite We found that exposure range from 0.01 to 15 micrograms of TDCPP per kilogram body weight per day When you compare that exposure to the acceptable daily intake for non-cancer health risk reported in a CPSC document in 2006 our Results find that two to nine percent of infants are currently receiving exposure that is higher than that threshold Suggesting some infants are receiving receiving exposure that could result in health risk. This is also published earlier this year To further understand relationships between flame retardant use and furniture and exposure among the general public We recently conducted a separate study in which we actually sampled the cushions from sofas in 140 homes and Collected paired samples of house dust and blood from participants residing in those homes We found strong and statistically significant associations between the brominated flame retardants in the sofas and Concentrations in the house dust and in the participants blood So for example if a BFR a brominated flame retardant was present in the sofa There are significantly higher levels of that flame retardant in the house dust and in the participants blood Compared to someone living in a home in which that brominated flame retardant was not in their furniture This at the very least provides evidence that the use in sofas is linked with personal exposures in the home These exposures are a concern given that new research demonstrates exposure to flame retardants is associated with reduced fertility and pregnancy and women and Thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer is considered the fastest growing cancer based on incident one minute remaining And we have recently published a paper which found statistically significant associations between the concentrations of three different flame retardants in house dust with thyroid cancer and this Association was particularly strong for decabromo diphenyl ether a brominated flame retardant Enclosing I believe this research these research studies demonstrate unequivocally unequivocally that use of flame retardants in these products is clearly tied with exposure among the general public While I understand the fire risk is a very well-founded concern We should think critically about technologies and approaches used to meet flammability standards In my opinion we should be of absolutely avoiding the use of small molecule additives Which will always migrate out of products and result in some sort of exposure Just thermodynamics given the inherent challenges in evaluating hazard profiles for chemicals It would behoove us to try and eliminate exposure rather than spending considerable time and effort trying to determine which chemical has a better toxicity profile Thank you for your attention Thank you very much. Dr. Stapleton miss Miller Yes, good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you just fine. Thank you. Thank you Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today My name is Pamela Miller, and I am the executive director of Alaska community action on toxics a non-profit environmental health and justice research and advocacy organization, and we're based in Anchorage, Alaska We strongly support the petition and rulemaking to ban the class of organo halogen flame retardants from the four categories of consumer products given the evidence of toxicity and hazards to human health The commission has an historic opportunity to make policy that will protect the health of millions of people across the u.s Who are routinely exposed to these harmful chemicals and especially the health of vulnerable populations who are Disproportionately exposed in their homes and workplaces I am here to speak to the need of protecting vulnerable populations that might not be immediately obvious because they are distant from Manufacturing centers, but are nevertheless highly and disproportionately exposed people of the north and arctic particularly indigenous peoples We urge the commission to consider the special vulnerability of northern and arctic indigenous peoples and their future generations when considering this petition Far from pristine the arctic contains some of the most highly contaminated animals and people in the world It is an important indicator region for assessing properties and effects of chemicals Once chemicals enter the arctic their deterioration is slowed due to low temperatures and low intensity sunlight Which makes them available for long-term incorporation into biological systems Northern and arctic peoples bear a burden of health disparities including cancers reproductive disorders birth defects Learning and developmental disabilities the fence line of chemical manufacturing Distribution use and disposal Extends to the arctic because chemicals can travel hundreds and thousands of miles on Atmospheric and oceanic currents where they accumulate in the bodies of fish wildlife and people of the north in a process known as global distillation People of the north especially children are likely to be more highly exposed to flame retardant chemicals in indoor environments Because of the longer winters the need to insulate against the cold and less ventilation in their homes People experience high exposures through traditional foods as well as in their home environments So this is really a consideration of multiple exposure roots and high exposures They also have limited choices in purchasing from retail stores in rural Alaska that sell inferior products Chemicals are passed through successive generations from mother to child and harm the ability of children to learn their languages traditional life ways Songs stories and knowledge these neurotoxic chemicals are harming the brains and health of our future generations Because these chemicals escape the products in which they are used through evaporation or weathering Many of these organo halogen compounds are now pervasive in the global environment People are primarily exposed through inhalation ingestion and thermal absorption rominated flame retardants including PBD ease and HBCD are now ubiquitous in Arctic ecosystems with increasing levels in some areas Providing cause for concern For example concentrations of PBD ease found in the blood of Yupik people of Yukon, Cusco and Delta region of Alaska are the highest known Human PBD E concentrations in the circumpolar Arctic Concern is growing about new largely unmonitored persistent chemicals that pose additional environmental threats in the Arctic include including the newer Flame retardants that are unregulated at the national and global level Several of these have been detected in Arctic marine mammals one minute remaining Are arriving through long-range transport Recent studies demonstrate atmospheric persistent and long-range transport of a variety of these replacement flame retardants into the Arctic Salamova measured concentrations of 45 chlorinated and brominated flame retardants in arctic air samples and molar in 2012 found to chlorinated Chemicals TCEP and TCPP that predominate in the North Pacific and Arctic air samples These are highly persistent in the Arctic due to low temperatures and darkness our own community-based research has demonstrated the presence of PBD ease and household dust sentinel fish traditional food samples of marine mammals and in the blood serum of the Yupik people of St. Lawrence Island a Remote island in the northern Bering Sea Despite this remote location PBD ease are ubiquitous in dust Collected from St. Lawrence Island households and human serum concentrations are similar to those found in elevated levels of the US general population Concentration of several of these PBD ease and dust are associated with serum concentrations Suggesting household dust is the source of these compounds even in remote populations Finally as co-chair of the international pops elimination network I'm very concerned that the lack of controls in the US allows the dumping of Products with unsafe levels of flame retardants into US markets Including products that contain so-called recycled plastics contaminated by flame retardants from electronic waste We urge the Consumer Product Safety Commission to use their authority to protect public health particularly that of vulnerable population populations and ban flame retardants and children's products furniture mattresses and household electronics and I'd be happy to provide copies of some studies that IPen has done showing high levels of flame retardant chemicals including the brominated flame retardants and short chain chlorinated paraffins in Children's toys and other children's products. Thank you. Thank you very much miss Miller We will now begin our round of question from the Commission from the dais and I will begin that line of questioning Ms. Huffling in your testimony you talk about one in six kids in the US now face the lifelong challenge of developmental disabilities Can you cite the source of that debt of that information? Sure, I can send that to you. Okay. Good. I would appreciate it. Thank you Ms. Lunder in your testimony you talked about XRF technology that could detect Flame retardants, I'm unaware of that. Can you speak to that? Yes, I am not an expert but XRF is a technology that can measure the bromine and chlorine elements in Compound it's not invasive It's non-destructive and those tools have been widely used to screen for the presence of chlorine and bromine in products And the detection of a high concentration of bromine and chlorine in any component of a furniture product would allow Investigators or companies themselves to hone in on exactly what chemicals might be in there and the finding of very low content of bromine or chlorine And a product would indicate that the compliance with a ban on classes of organic Chlorine or organobromine fire retardants in those four categories of products pointing out that you know with non-invasive non-destructive Measures and a restriction across the category XRF would be a great keep Rapid screening technology to enforce any restrictions on those compounds. Thank you very much, mr Simon in your testimony you mentioned that if we take this broad approach and grant this petition and ban classes of chemicals I should say ban this class of chemicals that we will be banning chemicals that have already been approved and Determined to be safe. Could you just expand on that a little bit? Thank you chair Yes, just as some examples But we know and there have been regulatory reviews of some of the chemicals that would be included in this petition That have gone through reviews not only in the US But Canada European Union and have had those determinations that they do not present a risk to human health of the environment So good example of that would be TBB PA was one chemical that I think came up earlier today That has had regulatory determinations by both Canada and the EU And That would be just one example there that would have a direct impact You could provide additional if you have other examples of that. I would really appreciate that. Thank you. Commissioner Edler Thanks very much, madam chairman Mr. Simon, is it fair to say based on your testimony in the testimony of your industry? Colleagues that we're not likely to see a phase out of OFRs in consumer products unless the Commission takes regulatory action I think the what I would say to the commissioners would be is I think you will continue to see the use of flame retardants in Applications that need to meet certain fire character fire safety parameters and characteristics and that would include OFR That would that would include of ours. Okay, and a picking up on the chairman's point You did cite the studies with by other agencies and I assume you're referring to EPA and I note in your Testimony your written testimony on page 2 you say EPA is identified over 50 flame retardants that it says are unlikely to pose a risk to human health Have you actually or to your knowledge any of your colleagues actually seen that list? I Think that's an excellent question. I think this came up at our last hearing as well Which I'm wondering what the answer is we had we have not seen that list And we I think we even encourage the CPSC to work with EPA to look at that list I think the challenge we all have is some of those are proprietary products And so they are not commonly available to Particularly to a trade association that might represent different different company interests And I just asked your question earlier Mr. Commissioner Adler. I just want to emphasize I think I would clarify my comment about the use of OFRs if there are OFRs that present a risk And there's clearly some that have been regulated those will be regulated So I just didn't want to leave that that open. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification By the way with respect to that list of 50 I think the reason that it's not accessible has less to do with the fact that it's proprietary And the fact that my understanding is EPA has withdrawn it and no longer stands behind that list of 50 I'm wondering the last time you checked and what the answer was given when you contacted them. I Don't have that information I know we've asked EPA to make that publicly available to the extent that they can even if it's not disclosing names I think the Commission would probably have better access to that. I would also just say though It's not just limited to that review that was done under the Obama administration I know there was recently just a new PMN Underneath the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act that does require an affirmative safety Determination that is an organo OFR and it's been approved for certain uses And so that's one other more maybe more current example and I think that is publicly available Yeah, and just picking up on the chairman's request I would really appreciate it. I think we all would if you would submit whatever list you have that Consists of OFRs in particular in consumer products that you believe have been demonstrated present no reasonable risk of safety Miss Huffling at one point in your testimony you said OFRs are not providing added flame protection I was wondering if you could elaborate on that point Sure. Well, I think a lot of the products that they're in You know, we don't have babies that are smoking cigarettes laying on their mats or on Nursing pillows that really not Needed in these types of products and it's just causing More exposure to these potentially toxic chemicals where they're really not needed Yeah, and and dr. Birnbaum this morning was saying in effect that the OFRs in the concentrations that they're showing up in consumer products are really not providing significant Fire protection. Do you have any thoughts or comments about that as well? Yes, I would agree with dr. Birnbaum That they're not providing extra fire protection and instead are just exposing all of us to toxic chemicals Ms. Reed In your research, have you discovered any studies of OFRs? You've just heard the reference by mr. Simon that would lead you to conclude that there are any safe OFRs or That there are OFRs yet to be discovered that share these same physical chemical biological characteristics as existing OFRs such that we should not take a class approach to regulating them I Have not and I believe many of the people who have testified today including dr. Birnbaum Pretty much have the same, you know belief in that Their hat there has not yet been one Organo halogen flame That could be that wasn't linked to you know no harm and dr. Stapleton may I direct that same question to you? Especially with respect to your recent research has any of your recent research led you to conclude that any known OFR presents little to no risk to humans especially to children So I am not evaluating the toxicity of these independent chemicals I'm evaluating their presence in products and how it relates to exposure And whether that's maybe associated with health risk and so we focused on a 68 chemicals and not an expansive list that covers all halogenated flame retardants So your issue is exposure as well as toxicity. Thank you very much Commissioner Robinson Dr. Stapleton don't go away. I'm following up on this We but I you know in your testimony you're that was submitted in writing you listed a bunch of Studies that you were involved in several studies that you were involved in and then in your testimony You were testifying really quickly and I was writing as fast as I could but I want to make sure that my understanding is that you've done biometric studies that show that increased OFRs in kids blood is associated with baby furniture with increased OFRs did I get that right? Yes, we've shown that Infants have much higher exposure to the TD CPP to chlorinated tris considered a carcinogen Which is associated with the number of baby products owned in the home Okay, and can you tell me which one of the publications listed? Is Yeah, that's in the Hoffman L 2015 publication site it perfect Okay, and then the next thing that you said that I wrote down was that there was a strong association and this Was seemed to be with people not just kids with Furniture with higher OFRs finding more in the dust and in the blood of people I'm and which which study supports that that is the Hamel L 2017 publication cited in my written testimony great thank you so much and Dr. Lundar you said in your you have foot notes 16 17 18 19 20 that's included in your Attached and in your written testimony and the point seems to be that most of the OFRs in the dust in the home Are the result of OFRs in household products? Did I understand that correctly? Yes, that is our the the references we pulled to show the link between the household products and Exposure of household residents although reference 16 is to make reference to the fact that more Twice as many pf PPD ease were added to household furniture than two vehicles great and mr. Simon I know generally you said that you support the package and that You think that this ban would be overly broad, but I want to see if I can Zoom in on that a little bit because the package as I understand it certainly found that OFRs are toxic that they migrate from products and Products with a higher OFRs are associated with rooms with hot with more dust and that OFRs in blood If they're higher OFRs in blood that it's associated with adverse health impact. Do you agree with all of that? Don't worry. I'll get to your objection, but do you agree with that so far? No, and I think I just wanted to clarify I think it's very clear in the staff report that there is a recognition that all of those substances are toxic And there's even a chart that sort of indicates I and I apologize because I phrased that poorly all of the OFRs about which we have data Show that they are our toxic correct No, I don't agree with that. Okay, which one you're which ones are not toxic that have been studied Yes, I think there's a number that and that's one of our concerns about the broad approach is that you're regulating literally, you know depending on 25 to 85 different chemicals, so so you're and you you're saying that there are studies of non Non-polymeric additive organo halogens that show that some of them are safe and not toxic. Is that what you're telling us? Yes, okay, so you're the only witness who said that today, so if you can give those dots that would be great And but you agree that if there's elevated OFRs in furniture It's associated with higher OFRs in dust in the room, but would you disagree with that as well? I'm sorry commissioner. Could you clarify that question if it's higher if they're higher if furniture in the room has higher OFRs, it's associated with higher OFRs in the dust in the room. Do you agree with that? I would say it depends on the OFR And that's one of our concerns is that you're lumping everything together and just because the ones that we've done studies of You you disagree with that as well. I would say you'd have to clarify what the source of the OFRs were it should It might not just be furniture It could be other sources and that's an important determination And that was the basis of my my question is that if you have furniture with high OFRs Do you agree or disagree that it's associated with higher OFRs in the dust in the room? Again, I would say it depends on the OFRs and also the application that it's used in and if there are higher OFRs in the room in a room and people live in that room Would you agree that with kids it's associated with higher OFRs in the blood in the urine? I just want to be clear. I'm not trying to avoid your question I'm trying to actually clarify different OFRs are used in different matrices. They may migrate or Be emitted at different levels or maybe not at all And that's why I'm just reluctant to say so broadly that yes And I tried to make it clear at the beginning of the day that when I say OFRs I'm referring to exactly what we're dealing with in this petition non-polymeric additive Organo halogens and of those you disagree. It's a risk you disagree It's it if it's in furniture at elevated rates that it's associated with the dust being elevated in the room And you disagree that it's associated with elevated blood and urine is that fair to say just to clarify Disagree that all OFRs present a risk and that all OFRs are associated with higher So of any of those that that we have are dealing with if you could tell us what studies would support what your view is Since it's so different than any person who's testified today. Thank you. Thank you commissioner K Thank You madam chair. I'm mr. Simon I think you did mention at least one of them though and correct me please if I'm wrong TBB PA Did you mention that as one that have been exonerated? And what's your understanding of the so of the studies associated with that particular chemical That you know overall when you look at the total exposure for that chemical does not present a risk to Human health of the environment and we've done some supporting science that looks at meta analysis of the data That's out there just to use that as an example Levels of TBB PA that are out there are seven million times below those that would likely cause health effects So they think that's just a very concrete example, and that's what led Governments like Canada and you to make that determination I think it's important to note though that ongoing study is always appropriate and you always want to make sure that I know there is ongoing research associated with TBB PA Sponsored by the industry and also by governments and so it is something that we should look at but there's clearly been a regulatory determination there and You referred earlier to the staff chart. I believe and I'm looking at page 99 of the staff briefing and under the on the chart where it says TBB PA it checks off Toxicity associated with acute toxicity chronic toxicity reproductive development toxicity neuro toxicity genetic toxicity and chronic human toxicity and Labels it as a chronic toxic chemical. And so how does that square with your view that it has been found not to be toxic? You know as with any chemical it's a function of both hazard and exposure and so it's important to look at that exposure component I think that's what's been missing today I think for what it's worth what I was referring to was in the staff chart as related to is it toxic underneath the FHSA and Clearly when you look at the exposure levels that does not present a risk and that was that was what I was alluding to so apologize for any Confusion there so what's unique about TBB PA that even if it's toxic There's no exposure to it I think it's a combination of it. There's varying levels of toxicity and so that's one and I think even Dr. Stapleton referenced that So that's that's number one So just because something has the potential to be toxic it could vary at different ranges It could be more toxic less toxic and the second is the exposure piece And so I think it's clear that TBB PA is not at levels of exposure And that's why I was reluctant in response to Commissioner Robinson's question to Automatically say that all of our is generate large levels of exposure So the study that you're referring to or the metadata meta-analysis associated with the studies if I'm understanding you correctly Don't take issue as much with the toxicity but more with the lack of exposure. Is that what you're saying? Absolutely, and in your mind those studies exonerate this chemical and remove it from Consideration, I think classic toxicology would say that if if you're not exposed to something at a level That's likely to cause adverse effects that yes and Dr. Stapleton. Do you hear the characterization about the exposure associated with that chemical? I think there's a thank you for asking me because there's a key point that's missing here Is that TBB PA more than 90 percent of its use it is a high production volume chemical Is used in a reactive form Which means it's chemically bound to the products it's attached to unless likely to leach out leading to exposure Which is why that exposure risk is so little for TBB PA If that were to change and be used more in an additive form exposure would certainly go up It depends on how it's used in the product and that relates to the risk Got it. Is that consistent mr. Simon if you're understanding Absolutely, I think that's consistent. I think that quote was very important. It depends on the use of the product So it sounds like if it's in an additive it's not being used in an additive form So your company shouldn't have a problem with it being banned in products in that form It is used in an additive form and I think I just on principle We're reluctant to see here. You've made determinations by governments that this does not present a risk And yet you're still going to ban it and that's I think a fundamental policy decision from the commission But that's one of the issues we have with the petition overall and those determinations by governments You're going to provide to us And and we I think we provided those after the last january hearing because I think that those are critical And we'll definitely share those and make sure those are available to everyone And one of the comments that dr. Ossam it's made was that There's a sea change in the thinking of companies now and if they find a molecule that is harmful They won't they'll stop production. Is that something that you're familiar with? I think overall as a society we're much more aware of Chemical issues and chemical management issues. I alluded to our responsible care program that has a product safety code Imposes certain obligations and our members from developing a product to end the life So I think there's much more awareness. I would also say again, we have come a long way in some of our chemical regulation It's going to be very hard to introduce a new chemical That has some of the issues that we've all talked about here today I think that's a good thing and I know that's something that that you've in particular I've been an advocate for for a long time and that helps avoid this issue of Regrettable substitution and making sure we're thoughtful as we look at product design. I regret my time as expire. Thank you Thank you very much commission moharovic no questions Thank you at that's this time then we will End this fifth panel and again our sincere appreciation to all of you for being here for your willingness to testify And we will take a few minutes to switch into our sixth panel and again my sincere thanks. Thank you Welcome back to this public meeting. We're going to continue our final panel for today and the six People who are joining us this afternoon are on the phone.  If we could just i'll call your name If you could just confirm with me that you are on the line. That would be very helpful miss burrameyer Good afternoon. Hi. Thank you. Dr. Singla Yes, i'm here Thank you And can I confirm that you are going to have a power point to show us that we have it but That you're planning on showing it Yes, that's correct. Thank you very much Dr. Diamond Yes, i'm here. Thank you. Ms. Curtis I'm here Dr. Herbsman Yes, i'm here. Thank you and and uh, miss dr. Zeller Yes, i'm here very very good. Thank you all very much and at this point We will ask miss burr miss burrameyer to begin her testimony. Thank you Thank you very much. My name is Nancy Burrmeyer I'm the senior policy strategist for the breast cancer prevention partners formally known as the breast cancer fund I want to thank the commission for the opportunity to testify on the staff briefing package on the petition regarding products containing organo halogen flame retardants Breast cancer prevention partners is a national nonprofit organization committed to preventing breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals and radiation linked to the disease Halogenated flame retardants are chemicals of significant concern to our organization as we have probably previously Outlined in our testimony and submissions on this petition OFRs have been associated with serious health problems such as cancer neurological impacts reproductive impairments and decon disruption and more PBT PBD e's exposures have been found to affect the timing of puberty and adolescent girls And to promote proliferation of human breast cancer cells in vitro both areas of concern to breast cancer risk As you have heard previously studies show that these chemicals migrate out of products into our homes and ultimately into our bodies In reviewing the staff briefing package We have identified several shortcomings that have contributed to a poorly considered recommendation to deny the underlying petition In writing the briefing package the staff adopted many of the arguments The chemical industry has used for decades to stymie and frustrate any meaningful regulation of the hundreds of toxic chemicals The public is exposed to daily Here are our responses to just a few of those concerns Toxicity data is incomplete limited or lacking Arguing insufficient data is a staple of the industry playbook Either not enough evidence exists or the studies that do show harm are for some reason irrelevant or suspect Yet industry refuses to do the toxicity testing fights tooth and nail against a minimum data set in tasca reform And then claims the government can't act to regulate a chemical due to lack of data The petitioners have provided the commission more than sufficient toxicity data to act to protect the public health Which of course is your primary mission Use of these chemicals is declining Staff states that only 22 of tested products contain OFRs and that the market is moving away from their use If one fifth of any other product category were deemed adulterated The situation would correctly be declared a crisis In addition without federal regulation companies are free to return to the use of these toxic chemicals And most importantly consumers and particularly cancer survivors with deep concern about exposing themselves and their families Flame retardants have no way to know which products fall into that 22 percent The commission must act to ban these chemicals and 100 percent of the consumer products covered by the petition And not leave the public health up to the vagaries of the market Lack of documented incidents Staff concerns contends that there is insufficient data in the cpsc databases of consumer incidents to act on the petition This contention highlights the bias of the agency toward acute harm at the expense of their requirement to consider chronic or long-term harm By its very nature breast cancer has a long latency period Period usually measured in decades While it's not possible to link a specific case of breast cancer to a specific exposure Due both to this long latency period between exposure and onset of the disease and the sheer number of chemicals We are exposed to every day There is ample toxicological evidence of harm to allow and in fact to require the commission act The chemical industry has long argued that if you can't show direct causation you can't regulate the chemical We need only look at the example of tobacco use to see the results of that strategy Millions dead while the tobacco industry continues to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit The commission should not adopt the same unreasonably high and ultimately dangerous standard here Lack of data on societal costs of illness The staff briefing contends that they do not have sufficient data to do a cost benefit analysis for granting the petition One minute remaining It will always be easier to document the hard costs to industry abandon chemicals from certain products than it is to Establish the economic benefit of disease prevention Yet we can certainly track many of the medical and loss productivity costs for disease like breast cancer But how does one quantify the societal cost of the pain and suffering of the millions of women and men and their families facing a breast cancer diagnosis We submit that those combined costs far outweigh whatever economic impact there may be on manufacturers being asked to simply stop using these chemicals In summary denying the petition would be a failure by the commission to adequately protect public health We urge the commission to reject the staff briefing package and approve the petition as it was submitted Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. Thank you very much. Dr. Singler Thank you for the opportunity to testify today My name is vena singler and i am director of research translation at the program on reproductive health of the environment at university of california San Francisco My research focuses on chemicals in the indoor environment and impact on vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children next slide Slide two Pre's mission is to create a healthier environment for human reproduction and development through advancing scientific inquiry Clinical care and health policies that prevent exposures to harmful chemicals in our environment next slide the federal hazardous substances act to find the hazardous substance as you see here And today i'll be focusing on the second part the fact that exposure to hazardous substance Occurs as a result of customary use Next slide so Starting in the middle of the slide We know that flame retardants and indoor air and dust lead to human exposures as we've heard from many other Testifiers today and we want to understand kind of one step back from that how the products and question in this petition Electronics children's products furniture and mattresses Contribute to flame retardants and indoor air and dust and the subsequent human exposures next slide slide five The scientists use a framework known as the bradford hill factors to evaluate the evidence linking the potential cause and effect so i'll briefly review some of the Evidence relating to the key factors today and refer the commissioners to my full written testimony for a more detailed description So the factors are do we see a gradient of effect? And what's the strength of the effect? Is it statistically significant? Is there a logical timing of the event? Does the cause perceive the effect? Is there consistency between studies? And do we have experimental evidence that's in coherence with the real world observations? next slide In this graph, we're looking at the hbcd level and dust on the left-hand side and distance from television set on the bottom Hbcd levels are highest in dust directly by the tv and levels drop dramatically as you move away from the tv And other studies had similar findings with furniture and mattresses This gradient of effect strongly suggests that these products are the sources of the flame retardant emissions to dust next slide slide seven In this study researchers collected dust samples from mattresses and floors inside homes And they found a statistically significant strong correlation between levels of brominated flame retardants and mattress dust in florida The strength of this effect suggests that the mattress is a major contributor to the flame retardant loading in dust And other studies made similar findings for furniture electronics and children's products next slide In these graphs, we're looking at pbde levels and dust on the left-hand side in relation to whether or not products are present So in blue you can see that when you remove a product containing flame retardants the tv The pbde levels fell dramatically by almost 80 On the other hand you can see in orange that when you put a new product containing flame retardants into the room the mattress pbde levels increased dramatically by about 2000 So this very clear relationship between the timing of the presumed cause and effect strongly suggests that these products are Major contributors to flame retardant loading and dust and similar results have been found with other kinds of products and other studies next slide slide nine Studies on these products and flame retardant emissions were conducted in the u.s Canada the eu and new zealand in different kinds of indoor environments homes child care centers offices and with different kinds of products These studies all made similar findings about flame retardant one minute remaining Into indoor dust and air and the consistency of results across the different studies increases our our confidence in the findings Next slide And then finally we see this coherence between the results of the laboratory studies and real world observations In this study the scientists found that the stool and experimental chamber emitted flame retardants directly into the chamber And they found similar results with other kinds of products So this is consistent with the real world studies that find these products contribute to flame retardant emissions Next slide in conclusion Considering the factor scientists used to evaluate linkages linkages between cause and effect There is a strong body of evidence showing that these products contribute to flame retardant levels levels indoors and subsequent human exposures This evidence also speaks to the fact that removing these flame retardant products from indoor environments Has the potential to significantly lower human exposures to these chemicals Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. Thank you very much. Dr. Diamond Thank you chair burkle and commissioners for the opportunity to speak in support of the petition I'm a professor of environmental chemistry at the university of toronto in canada I've been studying and publishing on organohelage and flame retardants or ofr since the early 2000 Some of the testimony today has cited my lab's work. I will speak on three points. First of all Why should the commission act to control ofr's as a class? All ofr's are semi-volatile organic compounds or scocs scocs that are additive to a polymer Inevitably and predictably migrate from their origin of that polymer to the surrounding environment that includes people Migration of additive ofr's is an inherent property of the ofr's as a class They were speaking of migration from four product categories to the surrounding environment Indoors where these products are located additive ofr's migrate to preferentially accumulate in people And other fatty types of materials indoors Migration can be through air or by direct transfer from the product specifically Those fatty or organic rich constituents indoors are our skin our clothing and dust Once again migration of additive ofr's from products and accumulation on skin clothing and dust is inevitable and predictable Finally ofr's and other chemicals emitted indoors are persistent due to limited chemical degradation pathways This leads me to point number two the connection between levels of ofr's and products and dust When the petition was tabled in 2015 to our best knowledge It was dust. It was the primary source of human exposure to ofr's as a class But research including our own has advanced our understanding of exposure routes beyond that of dust Dust is likely a surrogate or proxy for indoor routes of ofr exposure Rather, we now understand that ofr's are transferred directly from products to hands Followed by hand-to-mouth contact also our hands pick up contaminated dust again transferred by hand-to-mouth contact We also understand that ofr's release from products into air inevitably and Predictably accumulate on all bare skin and on our clothes ofr's on skin and clothes contribute to exposure To summarize we now understand that ofr's follow multiple routes of exposure indoors and the dust is a reasonable surrogate for exposure And the four product classes I want to focus on ofr's in electronic casings All electronic products that we've sampled which is nearly 300 products contain additive ofr's in their casings We found a statistically significant relationship between levels of ofr's in products and ofr's in dust. That's a bossy et al 2016 our recent data by yang et al 2017 show a relationship between ofr's wiped from the surfaces of handheld Electronic devices and their owners hands These devices include cell phones tablets Homephones and laptops I've been watching the proceedings today on youtube I see many people are holding a cell phone I see that kids at every younger ages are handling electronic devices like cell phones that contain ofr's The transfer of ofr's from handheld electronic devices to young kids even toddlers and to all of us handling these devices Is inevitable? I appreciate the need to have fire safety Testimony today has included comment that ofr's increase the safety of electronic products I welcome peer reviewed scientific evidence to show this as I am not aware of such evidence I conclude by supporting the petition. We know that ofr's migrate from products There's strong evidence of widespread human exposure to ofr's as complicated One minute remaining individual chemicals and there is strong evidence of their ability to cause multiple adverse effects Thank you Thank you very much. Ms. Curtis I'm Kathy Curtis executive director of clean and healthy new york. We thank the commission for the opportunity to testify Though more than a year and a half has passed since we last testified before this body on this subject We remain convinced that it is important for the consumer product safety commission to approve the ban of organo halogen flame retardants and consumer products Clean and healthy new york has focused on flame retardant chemicals for over a decade and my work Significantly predates that I led work to pass the new york state law banning penta and octa And creating a task force on flame retardant safety to explore alternatives to deca Uh chny led the work to pass the first in nation ban on tcep and subsequent expansion of the law to include Tdc pp in new york state to carcinogens I coordinated the national alliance for toxic free fire safety from 2006 to 2014 and during that period I helped shepherd federal deca bd phase out Advanced significant market shifts and helped coordinate several state-level bans I served on the epa designed for the environment alternatives assessment partnerships for both deca and hbc hbcd And was one of two advocates with the new york state professional firefighters association Appointed to new york's task force on flame retardant safety from 2005 to 2013 When I spoke in january 2016 I stated that 12 states took action on flame retardant chemicals as of today 14 states have adopted a total of 33 policies 15 states have 22 pending policies in 2017 with a total of 23 states either having enacted laws Or having pending legislation or both and yet despite state level ofr prohibitions and market shifts The use of toxic chemicals in home goods and children's products continues Which is why federal action on the part of cpsc is required in december 2015 the safe sofas and more campaign released the report flame retardants in furniture foam and floors Leaders laggards and the drive for change We found that of the top furniture mattress and carpet padding manufacturers There was a range of use of flame retardant chemicals Only five of the 14 mattress companies reported being free of flame retardant chemicals Here's what the executive summary said about mattresses Five of 14 mattress makers reported not using flame retardant chemicals Five reported not being actively flame retardant free Four did not source flame retardant free foam And one did not offer clarity that their barrier was flame retardant free One uses flame retardant in some products and not in others Three did not provide information Since the publication of that document none of the mattress manufacturers have disputed these findings Since january 1st companies reporting to washington state under their children's safe product fact have reported 110 instances of flame retardant use in infinite children's products This includes four reports of decadbide usage one of which was at levels above 10 000 parts per million Two instances of hexabromo cyclododecane Two instances of tetra bromo bisphenol a Two one instance of tdcpp and one instance of tcep Further unpublished third party laboratory testing by the getting ready for baby campaign which chny coordinates and the center for environmental health in 2016 and 2017 Have found halogenated flame retardants in polyurethane foam used in infant products The flame retardants include tris to Two butto oxyethyl phosphate and tris one chloro two propyl phosphate In conclusion state actions to ban certain flame retardants while important are not enough to avoid exposure and protect public health State task force reports clearly show there are alternatives to halogens that are affordable available and effective Additive flame retardants are still being one minute remaining Are thank you Additive flame retardants are still being reported in upholstered furniture mattresses infant and toddler products and electronics The four categories covered under the petition request Markets may be shifting but have not fully made the transition to safer methods of fire protection For these reasons and those stated by other supporters today Clean and healthy new york strongly supports a decision by the consumer product safety commission to protect the health of consumers By prohibiting the sale of products that contain organo halogen and retardant chemicals. Thank you Thank you very much. Mr. Curtis. Dr. Herbsman Good afternoon. Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify today I'm an epidemiologist An associate professor in the department of environmental health sciences at the columbia university mailman school of public health I'm affiliated with the columbia center for children's environmental health the columbia center for environmental health in northern Manhattan And the cancer epidemiology program at the herbert erving comprehensive cancer center at the columbia university medical center Since 2002. I've been studying the impact of prenatal exposure to polybrominated diphenyl ethers ppt Flame retardants and their effects on children's thyroid hormone levels and neuro development In my research we've selected umbilical cord blood and have worked with the centers for disease control and prevention to measure ppt components or congeners That are associated with the penta brominated diphenyl ether or penta bde mixture I have found that in all of the neonates in my research studies in both baltimore and in new york city The children had detectable levels of at least one of the penta bde congeners in their cord blood We found evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to penta bde congeners Impacts perinatal thyroid hormone levels. We also found that children who were exposed prenatally to higher concentrations of penta bde congeners Relative to children in the study with lower exposure scored significantly lower on cognitive tests including iq tests At ages four and seven and these children with higher exposures also reported having more attention problems Based on my research and the research of other investigators in the field There's ample evidence indicating that prenatal exposure to penta bde's is associated with lower scores on indicators of both cognition like iq And also increased number of behavior problems that are measured throughout childhood Since pptes have been phased out of use in new computer at new consumer products new compounds have been used instead Some of these compounds are also organo halogen flame retardants meaning that they are in the same chemical family as pptes And other flame retardants that have been phased out or banned Previously like brominated tris We've recently studied homes in new york city where women and their uh young children three to five years old live Among all the women and the children we study Everyone was exposed to detectable levels of pptes as well as brominated flame retardant chemicals that are used as ppte replacements abbreviated as tbb and tbph While tbb and tbph were detected on the hands of all the women and the children we studied Children had higher concentrations on their hands as compared to their mothers after accounting for differences in hand size We also found that the amount of tbb and tbph in house dust was associated with the amount of tbb tbb and tbph on the hands of the mothers and children living in these homes Toxicological data has demonstrated that these pbde replacements are biologically active Studies from other researchers in the field have shown that these compounds can interact With nuclear receptors known as p-par gamma which are involved in adipogenesis and relevant to obesity Other studies have demonstrated that exposure during pregnancy has altered maternal thyroid hormones and induced liver toxicity Based on my own research and the and research of others in the field I conclude that in households in the us where pregnant women and children live There are detectable levels of both pbde's and their halogenated replacements Children infants and fetuses are more vulnerable to the health effects resulting from exposure to a wide variety of Environmental chemicals including halogenated flame retardants Therefore is my professional opinion that there is reason to be concerned that the entire class of organo halogen flame retardants May cause injury or illness to humans particularly to fetuses and young children Therefore, I support regulations designed to prevent human exposure to these chemicals from consumer products Thanks very much for your attention and your time. Thank you very much. Dr. Zeller Yes, good afternoon, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today I'm a professor in the biology department at the university of massachusetts amorous My research over the past 25 years has been focused on understanding how thyroid hormone controls brain development And whether and how Environmental chemicals like halogenated flame retardants can interfere with this action It's first important to recognize that thyroid hormone is essential for brain development in the fetus in newborns and in children This fact is so well recognized that every baby born in this country is tested for normal functioning of the thyroid gland at birth In some regions of the country as many as 1 in 1200 newborns have low thyroid hormone And it's considered a medical emergency to ensure That they are identified and treated quickly to limit the cognitive deficits caused by low thyroid hormone during development It's also become clear that thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women are important for development of the fetus And this appears to be especially true in the first trimester When the fetal thyroid gland has not yet developed, but when thyroid hormone is still required for brain development My research on halogenated flame retardants such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers tetra bromo epiphenyl a and some perfluorinated chemicals Has demonstrated that these chemicals can interfere with thyroid hormone in the developing brain But in ways that we don't fully understand Currently the only tool we have to measure Whether these flame retardants affect the human thyroid system is to measure blood levels of thyroid hormone The work in my laboratory in the laboratory of others around the world has shown that some of these chemicals Can interfere with thyroid hormone in brain in a manner that's not consistent with changes in blood levels of thyroid hormone We've recently expanded this work to humans by testing whether halogenated chemicals can interfere with thyroid hormone actions in the placenta We've focused on the placenta for the obvious reason that it's a tissue that's available But it's also a known target of thyroid hormone action And it's likely that similar effects are occurring in the fetal brain In collaboration with our canadian colleague dr. Larissa taxer in kebek Our findings are fully consistent with the conclusion that environmental chemicals most likely halogenated flame retardants Can interfere with thyroid hormone action in humans without affecting hormone levels in the blood or in cord blood This observation should be deeply concerning to everybody listening to this testimony because it means that Common chemicals found in the home and workplace can affect the health of our children like a stealth bomber Flying below the radar of the ways we test for Test chemicals for safety or study the impacts of these chemicals on human health So in closing it's clear to me that these halogenated flame retardants can and do affect human development in part by interfering with thyroid hormone during development This conclusion is based on years of high resolution research that can't be duplicated for every single halogenated flame retardant These chemicals are robbing our children and grandchildren of critical intellectual Potential and while these effects may not be visible on the faces of our children They're no less important to them individually or to our society Thank you for your attention Thank you very much dr. Zeller and thank you to all of our panelists for participating by phone The commissioners will now ask their five minute round of questions and I will begin the questions And I will address this to anyone on the panel who would like to answer this I'm going back to the recommendation from staff and the issues that they raised Number one that we do not have the data that would allow us to ban a class of chemicals On specific chemicals and so we lack data. There is a data gap and We've heard this it's been kind of a recurring theme throughout the day And if anyone would like to comment on that, I would certainly appreciate hearing your thoughts So this is thoms heller if I could jump in very quickly with just a very brief response to that And that is I think that we should Make recommendations and regulations based on what we know not on what we don't know So the fact that there's a data gap and there will always be data gaps Should not restrict us from action. Thank you Thank you. I'm diamond. I'd like to add to that by saying that We understand the thermodynamics of how OFRs behave and we know it's inevitable that they will migrate From products and result in exposure Thank you, dr. Diamond I guess my follow-up question to be to that would be Whether we can show that that exposure would rise to a toxic level that would then cause the harm Um, and that seems to be part of the discussion today. Uh, dr. Zeller. I just wanted to go back to What you said and that is um I apologize, I just lost my train of thought on your comment If you could just refresh my memory about what you just said in response to my question Sure. My my main point was that we should Base our regulations and our kind of decisions on what we know and not on what we don't know because there will always be Things that we don't know One of the main points that I wanted to make in my testimony is that We are now finding that chemicals like these halogenated Blame retardants that have a chemical structure similar to that of thyroid hormone can actually affect The developing brain as well as other tissues without affecting blood levels So that means when the government does a study and they don't see an effect on blood levels of thyroid hormone They say that it's safe and I don't think that that's Um, a legitimate argument anymore. Thank you very much And I'll just follow that up with when you're a data-driven agency Understanding the import and the possible exposure and toxicity of each chemical Is important and I think that is that is our struggle here. We have to rely on data We can't assume because one chemical is part of a Class of chemicals that then they're all That they're all dangerous or create a hazard to the consumer Dr. Oh, excuse me. Commissioner Adler Thanks very much madam chairman and following up on that. Dr. Singla You've just heard the chairman expressing this concern about the need for data gap fillers In your written testimony, you mentioned scientific guidelines that have been used to fill in gaps in data such as Structure activity relationships and quantitative structure activity relationships Could you expand on that and to your knowledge of other health and safety agencies use techniques like this to fill in data gaps? Yes, um, thank you for for the question The kind of methods um, you just mentioned read across and Tools for assessing structure activity relationships are well established in the regulatory sphere So these are used by epa's new chemicals program for example To make decisions on the hazards of chemicals based on a on a on their Class or category they belong to even without data on the specific chemical and for Organo halogen flame retardants and in particular The california office of environmental health hazard assessment did look at them as a class And had concerns about the the toxicity of the class and named the class As a as a concern for the biomonitoring program so These methods are well established in regulatory science and have been used to look at chemicals as a class Yeah, and following up on that You said that the molecular characteristics of this class of flame retardants result in toxicity due to humans with pregnant women and children being especially vulnerable And so I guess the basic question is Whether the is it your belief that the molecular characteristics are sufficiently common to all ofrs that they can be dealt with as a class Yes, I would say that's um, that's that is correct and in the fact that the Uh Carbon halogen bond so the bond between carbon and abroaming or aquarium is what is the consistent feature of this class that imparts the Exposure properties so as we've heard that they will inevitably migrate Out of products that at that semi volatile organic chemical behavior So it gives them those exposure properties as well as the toxicity properties that propensity to enter cells and accumulate in fatty tissue And cause toxicity Dr. Diamond you cite a number of studies that demonstrate that exposure to HFRs can occur From ingestion of dust hand to mouth transfer Dermal intake directly from air clothing and in inhalation Some of these exposure routes seem more likely than others due to differential volatility of these chemicals Does this suggest that some of these chemicals are likely to present minimal or no health risk? Um, well, let's just tease apart the the components there of your question So one is the migration and the exposure route and the other is toxicity My comments were uh, we're focused on exposure And yes, depending on the exact this chem properties The chemicals will differ in the tendency to Partition onto skin versus say stay in air and um, and um, to which we would be exposed more through inhalation Um, the uh, because of the persistence of the and the um, sort of the um, internal Um, biological persistence of these compounds the root of exposure does not Um, appear to or at least I am not aware that the root of exposure influences toxicity No, not toxicity. I guess what I'm saying is taking the combination of toxicity in the root of exposure Does that lead you to conclude that any of the OFRs that we're concerned with Are not going to present a problem in other words, uh, can we still treat them as a class? Yes, my conclusion was that we should and can treat them as a class because of these are basic thermodynamic properties Um, thank you very much, uh Ms. Curtis you cite the statutes of a number of states regarding OFRs You seem pessimistic that state action will adequately address the problem of hazardous OFRs Is it your concern that not enough states will pass laws outlawing OFRs? Or that the states that ban certain OFRs will leave Uh, so many others on the market that consumers will not be adequately protected That question I very uh concerned is that children in mississippi and indiana and Wyoming are not necessarily benefiting from these laws and that They're not well enforced either. They're not really being adequately enforced Uh, but in a way that they could be by the federal government So I think it would be best for manufacturers as well if there were a uniform approach That covered the entire nation. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. Robinson. Thank you. Um, dr. Singler I'm gonna Direct these questions at you, but then dr. Herbstman. I'd like your comments as well if you'd like to add anything um The commissioner adler was just asking about the the first concern that that staff seemed to have About data because there were two very distinct areas and one was that the information that we have about the LFRs that are within This class uh variant toxicity and exposure That is those that we know something about and a lot of them We don't know anything about and dr. Singler you've told um in response to commissioner adler's Questions you've talked about well established and well accepted Ways in which other agencies and scientists get Get past data gaps where it's appropriate and you told us about the the different Ways in which they do that with sars and q sars and read across But let me ask you first of all a very basic question. Why is it important to have those methods to get past data gaps? I think it's important because you know as as dr. Zoller mentioned Um, there's there will always be some data gap or or a level of uncertainty We never have Perfect data or all the data that we need to make the decision and it's important to be able to move forward Um in the face of uncertainty to to make decisions and put protections in place that that are needed So I think those those tools are Important and Have been validated for that purpose By scientists and other agencies So I think it's it's also important to consider The Standard we're thinking about in the decision to be made So in in this case we're thinking about the potential to cause harm or You know if if these chemicals may cause the Substantial injury or illness and I think In thinking about the level of evidence needed to meet that standard that These tools do provide That level of evidence that this class of chemicals May cause harm Okay, and and if you use these well established scientifically accepted methods of getting Around data gaps that so many others have used Why do you think if we applied those here it would be appropriate to put these ofrs into a class? I think the And when you think about Creating a chemical class or category you look at common structural structural or molecular features As well as common exposure pathways and the ofrs do you have those in common as a class? Thank you, and dr. Herbson. Do you have anything to add to that? I first I agree with everything that dr. Singler said and and what others have said earlier today It's just it's it's really unrealistic to expect that we are going to be able we as a scientific community are going to be able to Evaluate every single chemical that's put into commerce It's just not it's just not possible and the case in point I can speak to my own research started looking at PBD ease and then have moved into PBD E replacements But we're just we're behind where What's already in circulation and so this way of being so reactionary is not serving us It's not serving us well. And so using the methods that dr. Singler described dr. Birnbaum described earlier, you know, we can understand how similar different compounds are to one another And draw across the entire class and use weight of evidence, which is what we use in epidemiology toxicology to sort of make a Determination about the toxicity of any particular compound because it's truly is not Not realistic to expect that we're going to be able to test every single compound. It's an unrealistic expectation Thank you And that's second area of concern that staff had was that the presence of OFR chemicals in household dust Does not establish a link to the four product categories that petitioners have identified Dr. Singler, do you have anything that you could add that would address that concern? Yes, the Some of the the data that I presented in my slide speaks to that very issue that We have studies linking those particular products furniture mattresses children's products electronics To the levels of flame retardants in the indoor environment in duster air So those studies do show a very specific connection To example at a television or a mattress or a laptop computer Being in a room and the levels of flame retardants in air or dust Thank you so much and thank you to all of you Thank you commissioner cake Thank you, madam chair Does anybody on the panel have any data whatsoever or can cite any study or any government finding that would exonerate any of any organo halogen Nothing. We're hearing just silence and how about dr. Diamond in canada dr. Diamond one of the prior Panelists mentioned that canada may have exonerated an organo halogen. Are you aware of that? Yes, I am so it's tbbpa and under the canadian chemical management plan under the canadian environmental protection act the conclusion was That it that tbbpa could not be classified as toxic But I want to add that and i'll quote from the report although there is currently limited exposure in canada to tbbpa And its concentrations currently in the environment are not indicative of harm to organisms in canada There may be concerns if new activities were to occur So I Returned to what heather stableton said earlier tbbpa is Used 90 percent as a reactive flame retardant rather than an additive The fact that the the adjudication was based on exposure not on hazard is likely Due to the fact that it's used as a reactive and not additive flame retardant There is some use of tbbpa as an additive flame retardant and should that increase then Under the canadian chemical management plan The adjudicators would return to that decision and reevaluate If I see and this is for you or anybody else on the panel Is there anything about the chemical structure of tbbpa that would Lead you to believe that if it were used in additive form that it would not present a hazard Nobody wants to opine on that Well, let me ask it in a different way does anyone believe that it would not present a hazard based on its chemical formulation if used in an additive manner This is uh, fena singla. I I just I want to comment on The the opposite of that actually the chemical structure would lead me to have a lot of concerns about its toxicity because it's um It's the chemical structure is bisphenol a or bpa with four bromines on it I would like to echo this marium diamond. I would like to echo that comment and there's ample evidence now of the um exposure certainly and adverse effects caused by the phenol a Got it. So as a lay person if i'm understanding you correctly dr Time and you're saying that it's purely because of the way that it's been used in a reactive manner That has probably led to the conclusion by canada at this juncture That's correct based on exposure not on hazard Got it. Thank you and dr. Zola. I really very much appreciate the way you defined what our charge should be That we should act based on what we know not based on what we don't know And I don't think that there's any inconsistency between that and the idea that we are a data-driven agency because I think as you look at the data that has been presented From the petition through the first public hearing the first public comment all the way through till now I think the data is actually overwhelming and I think the data is overwhelming on every single point and so One can always say there's not enough information, but in any Trier of fact, I don't think that I'm not aware of any time where there's a 100 proof standard is always going to be doubt whether it's criminal cases or civil cases or regulatory Decision and I think in this case As I mentioned there's an overwhelming amount of evidence on every single point And I don't agree with the characterization that the federal hazard of substances act does not give us the ability To move forward as a class. I think that it clearly does give us the ability That's up for us to decide how we want to do it and it also gives us the flexibility if we wanted to create an exemption process at some point if it turned out that we ended up In snaring one chemical one organo halogen that down the line could be proven to be safe There's no reason why we couldn't build in some process to allow that Upon the right proof to be exempted. Certainly we have done that in the past. We did not require proof of every single Plastic to have phthalates in it before we banned phthalates or the congress banned phthalates It was done across the board and exemptions were created And so I am hopeful that my colleagues have heard Similar to what I've heard today have felt the same level of concern And that after this we'll move forward in a way that's protective of children in particular And if one's going to make a mistake if one I'll close on this if at the end of the day We look back on this decision and say we made a mistake I'd far rather us make the mistake That ends up being too protective of children than one that pulls short of that So thank you very much. Ms. Gardner. Thank you very much. Ms. Weintraub and the rest of your coalition For bringing this petition to our attention and I hope you do it justice Commission roger obek no questions. Thank you very much Let me begin by saying thank you to this last number six panel today Thank you for sharing and lending your expertise to this agency We greatly appreciate your time and your effort in preparing not only for your written testimony But for being here via phone for this afternoon's hearing. Thank you all very much For the record, I also want to note that in addition to today's presentations We have received written comments from the international sleep products association American home furnishings alliance and kids in danger In addition to their oral testimony today's we also received additional written testimony from the national resources Defense council the green science policy institute and the american chemistry council I also want to acknowledge once again our staff who has been here with us all day and who help facilitate this meeting The office of the secretary including acting secretary alberta mills Ms. Rocky Hammond our general council mary boyle And the office's executive director Shelly covel and Sitting in for our executive director to mr. Dwayne ray John mcgoogan once again. Thank you very much for managing all of these audio visual Efforts today. We do appreciate that Um, I want to just make one last comment about today's hearing I want to take the a few minutes to thank the staff for the briefing package Although Our staff's work was complimented throughout the day. I think a lot of it You know was called into question and the reasoning behind it And what I want to say that may not be aware of some folks who don't follow cpsc very closely Is that the commission directive is actually limit? What staff can do when we receive a petition? And it limits the amount of time staff can spend on a petition before it is granted or acted upon by the commission and so To think that the staff's briefing package was their work in totality is not an accurate depiction of the staff's work They are limited into what they can do when they bring that briefing package up in response to a petition And I also just want to emphasize that the staff makes an independent judgment and a recommendation And I congratulate them for providing a very useful package for which the commissioners will base their decision upon And in addition to the limited time factor for responding to a petition and making a recommendation to the commission staff also has to take into account other issues some of those being resources And other priorities that the commission has established so they Balance all of those factors into their briefing package to the commission and I just want to say thank you to All the staff who prepared that briefing package and made it a very useful document for us And I guess one last thing I'm guessing that if our toxicologists could and time and money was unlimited They'd love to take a whack at these but it's just the reality of the situation we find ourselves in Once again, thank you to all of you and to thank you for my colleagues for what I think is a very beneficial and good hearing today. Thank you