Perspectives on Flame retardants

1. Perspectives on Flame retardants • Petra Andersson SP Fire Technology • www.sp.se

2. SP Fire Technology Situated in Borås Sweden SP Staff: approx. 900 Fire Tech Staff: approx. 55 www.sp.se

4. Advantages Prevent Fires, thereby: Save lives Minimise environmental impact of fires Disadvantages Environmental and toxicological impact during production, use and waste Emissions during fires Perspectives on Flame Retardants …necessary to weigh the costs of FRs against the benefits of their use.

5. Flame Retardants: Types • Organic compounds containing • halogens, predominantly bromine and chlorine, + synergists (antimony, tin) • Phosphorous • Nitrogen (often as a synergist with Phosphorous) • Inorganic compounds • aluminium-, magnesium hydroxides • ammonium polyphosphate • Reactive or Additive

6. Perspective on Flame retardants – Toxicity • Exposure from • - production – risks mitigated through emission control • - use – risk evaluated in e.g. EU risk assessments • - waste handling – risk evaluated in e.g. EU risk assessments • - fire • Exposure through • - inhalation • - dermal • - oral • Toxicity different for each FR

7. Perspective on Flame retardants – ecotoxicity - LCA

8. Perspective of Flame retardants – Fire-LCA Weighs function of FRs against environmentalcost…

9. Fire - LCA – Input needed • Normal LCA input data needed, e.g.: • energy consumption during production, use etc • raw materials needed • emissions during production and use, • etc. • Fire statistics, e.g.: • How many fires start in the product per year with and without flame retardants? • How many products burn per year? • Fire Emission data: • CO, PAH, CO2, Dioxins, Furans, etc.

10. Fire Emission data

11. Fire-LCA example of results TV Case Study Furniture Case Study

12. Fire-LCA example of results

13. Fire-LCA example of results Furniture-case study Comparing cancer risk results in a higher risk for the non-FR case in this study

14. Fire-LCA - Limitations • Focuses on environmental impact • Difficult to evaluate different emissions against each other • Does not include number of lives saved or injuries • Does not include costs for fire damage or cost for FR production • Does not include societal impact

15. Fire-CBA • Input parameters: • Production costs • End of Life, disposal costs • Fires: value of a statistical life, cost of burn treatment, cost of property (fire statistics) • Chemical exposure costs

16. Fire-CBA applied to TV with DecaBDE • Costs: incremental increases in cost to flame retard a product; additional costs for disposal • Benefits: lives saved; injuries avoided; capital costs avoided • Application to DecaBDE use in TV-sets • No cost assigned to the injuries due to exposure to DecaBDE • Incremental cost of manufacture of the FR and disposal of FR material included • Cost of lives lost, injuries treated and capital costs associated with fires included • …Between US$657 – 1 380 million can be saved each year by use of high level of fire performance in TV-sets.

17. Limitations with Fire-CBA • Difficult to estimate costs in some cases, i.e. • risk of thinner shells on Falcon eggs • anxiety • debate • risk for unknown impact

18. Conclusions • Not possible to make general conclusions about all Flame Retardants • The advantages and disadvantages with Flame Retardants must be evaluated case by case. • The application and the specific FR must be evaluated • Imperative to team up fire expertise and toxicologists/ecotoxicologists for a true evaluation of FRs • More research is needed into the toxicity/ecotoxicity of FRs in different applications and methods to evaluate FRs.