The UK’s flammability regulations are set for the largest shake-up in more than three decades.
The government is proposing to abolish the mandatory open-flame test and replace it with the smoulder test; give companies the choice of component or composite testing – which could allow for parts of products to be tested in the UK and then produced overseas without relying on local testing facilities; widen the scope of who can carry out testing and re-upholstery and second-hand products from the scope of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988.
It has launched the fourth – and what it says will be the final – consultation on the regulations since their introduction. The changes could offer the sector to opportunity to improve margins or lower pricing as well as acting on health and environmental concerns over the use of flame-retardant chemicals. The government says it is ‘determined to give the sector certainty.’
While fire deaths in the UK have decreased since the regulations’ introduction, this trend has also occurred in other European countries that did not adopt the same level of flammability testing. In those countries the smoulder test – simulating a lit cigarette – is used to test the flammability performance of the product or component. The increased awareness of fire risk, a significant reduction in smoking, less open-fire heat sources in the home, safer cooking practices and installation of smoke alarms since 1988 has also had a major effect, and it has been impossible to determine how much impact each factor has had.
The reliability of the open flame (or match) test has long been called into doubt, with a previous 2014 consultation setting out a number of flaws. Testing undertaken at the time called into question how representative the testing was of furniture being sold to consumers: while components were passing tests, a composite of those materials tested together may behave differently and not offer the same level of protection.
There is also evidence linking chemical flame-retardant use with an increase in smoke toxicity, if furniture does become ignited.
‘It is also certainly the case that the presence of chemical flame retardants significantly inhibits recycling and reuse and presents real challenges for the safe disposal of furniture at end of life,’ says the government.
It says it will not remove furniture fire safety regulations completely; implement a flame retardant technology hierarchy or remove outdoor furniture from scope the regulations.
The government will ‘allow manufacturers free choice over whether they use component testing or composite testing to evidence compliance with the essential safety requirements. This will allow businesses that would benefit from testing materials in combination to do so, without placing an undue burden on those whose business models and supply chains do not easily fit that approach,’ it says.
‘We will not require the separate testing of foam where manufacturers choose to follow the composite testing route to evidence compliance. We recognise the argument that unmodified foam used in furniture manufacture in the 1960s to the 1980s was one of the key drivers for the FFRs being introduced. However, we must also ensure testing requirements are proportionate and that costs incurred from testing by businesses are justified, and do not believe a separate smoulder test on foam would offer additional assurance.’
It says it will ‘consider practical solutions that represent more appropriate testing oversight’ for non-UKAS or equivalent accredited laboratories: this is likely to see manufacturer-run facilities a greater official role in testing.
The re-upholstery sector faces ‘inconsistency in interpretation and substantial challenges to complying’ with the regulations and ‘upholsterers and suppliers find the regulations difficult to understand in many cases and receive inconsistent regulatory advice from a range of sources.’
The government has proposed that re-upholstery will be regulated under the GPSR rather than the updated flammability regulations.
While the regulations cover second-hand furniture, this has long been an area of confusion – testing a sofa would destroy it – and potentially outlaws products made between 1950 and 1988 while curtailing circular economy efforts. These products will be removed from the reformed regulations.
