- Email: [email protected]
Washington State establishes flame retardant review process
NEWS
rubber powder and is in the final phase of its search for two new plant sites. Produced from recycled rubber [ADPO, August 2005], Lehigh’s fine rubber powders have a range of applications including as modifiers for rigid plastics.
The location of the new plants has been narrowed down to seven states: Alabama, California, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Each site will employ 75–100 skilled workers and the facilities that Lehigh will build/operate will be approximately 100 000 ft2 (c. 9300 m2). CEO Dennis Gormley says the company plans to break ground in 2007 for one plant and early 2008 for the other. Once completed, Lehigh will have the ability to deliver more than 300 million lbs (136 000 tonnes) of its engineered rubber powder to manufacturers across the automotive, rubber, plastics and other polymer product-based industries. Lehigh currently has one production facility in Tucker, GA. Contact: Lehigh Technologies Inc, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 708, Naples, FL 34108, USA. Tel: +1 239 593 9782, Fax: +1 239 591 3609, Web: www.lehightechnologies.com
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES Washington State establishes flame retardant review process
I
n April, the US state of Washington passed legislation establishing a formal, three-step process to identify and approve ‘alternative’ flame retardants that could come into use in the state.
Under the bill, three separate entities, the Departments of Ecology and Health, as well as a newly
August 2007
created fire safety committee, would have to determine that any alternative flame retardant proposed as a replacement for the well-known deca-BDE product is ‘safer and technically feasible’. Deca is used primarily to provide flame resistance in plastics and some commercial textiles. The use of deca in certain consumer products would not be prohibited in Washington unless and until such an alternative is approved. The bill does place a prohibition on the use of deca in mattresses beginning 1 January 2008, but this has no practical impact since deca is not used in residential mattresses. Although the bill is not a ban, Dr Michael Spiegelstein, chairman of industry trade association the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF), is concerned that ‘the review process is somewhat vague and ill-defined’. He points out that deca is highly effective and the most-studied flame retardant on the market, and believes it is ‘unfortunate’ that Washington’s Governor signed this legislation. BSEF will continue its efforts in Washington to ensure that deca is evaluated fairly and to make sure the state agencies follow the process faithfully, openly and objectively, Spiegelstein says. He notes that the European Union undertook a ten-year risk assessment of deca and then exempted it from further regulation [ADPO, July 2004 & December 2005]. Spiegelstein also warns that the substitution of one product for another is not as simple as some people think: ‘any substance used as an alternative to deca will carry its own risks, and we may not even be aware just what those risks are because no alternative has been studied as extensively as deca’. He points to the recent case in Washington State itself where melamine was endorsed as a ‘safer’ replacement for deca and shortly after found to be a deadly contaminant in pet food. Contact: Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, Square du Meeûs 37, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 733 9370, Fax: +32 2 735 6063, Web: www.bsef.com
Additives for Polymers
11
rubber powder and is in the final phase of its search for two new plant sites. Produced from recycled rubber [ADPO, August 2005], Lehigh’s fine rubber powders have a range of applications including as modifiers for rigid plastics.
The location of the new plants has been narrowed down to seven states: Alabama, California, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Each site will employ 75–100 skilled workers and the facilities that Lehigh will build/operate will be approximately 100 000 ft2 (c. 9300 m2). CEO Dennis Gormley says the company plans to break ground in 2007 for one plant and early 2008 for the other. Once completed, Lehigh will have the ability to deliver more than 300 million lbs (136 000 tonnes) of its engineered rubber powder to manufacturers across the automotive, rubber, plastics and other polymer product-based industries. Lehigh currently has one production facility in Tucker, GA. Contact: Lehigh Technologies Inc, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 708, Naples, FL 34108, USA. Tel: +1 239 593 9782, Fax: +1 239 591 3609, Web: www.lehightechnologies.com
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES Washington State establishes flame retardant review process
I
n April, the US state of Washington passed legislation establishing a formal, three-step process to identify and approve ‘alternative’ flame retardants that could come into use in the state.
Under the bill, three separate entities, the Departments of Ecology and Health, as well as a newly
August 2007
created fire safety committee, would have to determine that any alternative flame retardant proposed as a replacement for the well-known deca-BDE product is ‘safer and technically feasible’. Deca is used primarily to provide flame resistance in plastics and some commercial textiles. The use of deca in certain consumer products would not be prohibited in Washington unless and until such an alternative is approved. The bill does place a prohibition on the use of deca in mattresses beginning 1 January 2008, but this has no practical impact since deca is not used in residential mattresses. Although the bill is not a ban, Dr Michael Spiegelstein, chairman of industry trade association the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF), is concerned that ‘the review process is somewhat vague and ill-defined’. He points out that deca is highly effective and the most-studied flame retardant on the market, and believes it is ‘unfortunate’ that Washington’s Governor signed this legislation. BSEF will continue its efforts in Washington to ensure that deca is evaluated fairly and to make sure the state agencies follow the process faithfully, openly and objectively, Spiegelstein says. He notes that the European Union undertook a ten-year risk assessment of deca and then exempted it from further regulation [ADPO, July 2004 & December 2005]. Spiegelstein also warns that the substitution of one product for another is not as simple as some people think: ‘any substance used as an alternative to deca will carry its own risks, and we may not even be aware just what those risks are because no alternative has been studied as extensively as deca’. He points to the recent case in Washington State itself where melamine was endorsed as a ‘safer’ replacement for deca and shortly after found to be a deadly contaminant in pet food. Contact: Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, Square du Meeûs 37, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Tel: +32 2 733 9370, Fax: +32 2 735 6063, Web: www.bsef.com
Additives for Polymers
11