Fighting the Good Fight

An Interview with Pat Martin of the Sleep Products Safety Council

Pat Martin is the Director of the Sleep Products Safety Council. We spoke during the week of September 5, 2001.

TJ -- The Sleep Products Safety Council (SPSC) was formed "…to provide consumer safety information, support research and promote activities aimed at reducing hazards associated with sleep products." Have you seen any changes in emphasis on any of the aspects of this mission statement?

PM -- No, we are still very committed to public education, but our open-flame mattress fire research project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) predominates right now.

The SPSC launched a website last year: www.SafeSleep.org. With the media attention that Whitney Davis (head of the Children’s Coalition for Fire-Safe Mattresses) attracted, we wanted to be sure that the media, as well as consumers and retailers, would have factual information about mattress safety issues.

Plus we are discussing expansion of the consumer side of the website for the future and will continue with our public education initiatives using more conventional vehicles such as matte news articles, public service announcements, media kits, etc.

TJ -- As we move toward a new national standard in the U.S., do you feel that a change in leadership at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will have a big effect on the process, or is it simply too early to tell? Then again, is the process such that it will continue essentially the same, no matter what?

PM -- The CPSC’s focus on the agenda moving forward as usual is probably not at the same level of intensity as it is when there is not this disruption, but there is no indication that our issue has been dismissed. Quite the contrary. A briefing on the open-flame mattress combustibility issue is scheduled for September 21st and [we hope the commission will vote to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)].

Additionally, the CPSC is contributing to the study through sponsorship of a screening test that will allow them to test small mattress samples for the enforcement process. This will also be of value to mattress producers, who will be able to use the screening test to change mattress components (fabric, fill, etc.) and determine if they pass or fail without the expense of conducting a full burn test. We view this as a positive sign since the CPSC is contributing important resources (financial and personnel) to this work.

TJ -- In your experience, what is the process of standard setting at the CPSC? At what point does your research stream merge with that of the CPSC, how do you get there, and where does the process go from there?

PM -- The CPSC has set procedures to follow. The first step is the ANPR, which lets everyone know there is merit in pursuing a solution. Step two is development of a proposed standard, and step three is promulgation of a final standard. There are other things that occur within those various stages to get from one to the other.

As I understand the process, there is a period of time after issuing an ANPR in which comments are received and work begins on a proposed standard. It is during that period that results from our research will become available and guide us in attacking this problem. I’m fairly sure we will have quite a lot of input in the development of the proposed standard, after which an inter-laboratory (round-robin) test series will be conducted. This will ensure that the test method developed produces reliable, reproducible and consistent results so that a final standard can be promulgated. This multi-stage process will probably take a couple of years.

TJ -- The Sleep Products Safety Council has invested a lot of time and expertise in the NIST research. What is the nature of the testing, and what are the most critical aspects of this research – what are you hoping to learn, and why does that matter?

PM -- Our open-flame mattress combustibility research project was divided into two phases. Phase I was completed last June and results submitted to the CPSC. It began by testing 12 different bedclothes combinations and eventually reduced those down to the most severe combination in terms of fire…[because] if you are looking to protect against a certain assault, you want to pick the worst case and be sure you can impact that.

This approach was chosen because bedclothes are typically the first item ignited, so we endeavored to design a burner that replicates this "real world" scenario assault on the mattress. Understanding the dynamics of this particular issue is a critical element of the Phase II study. There are four elements in this current phase, which should be completed by mid-2002.

First, we conducted a mini-mattress correlation study using 18" x 22" bench-scale mattresses made of the same materials as the twin-size mattresses tested in Phase I. We hope to find that the results correlate between the twin and mini units. Those tests have been completed, but the data has not yet been analyzed.

The second element of Phase II is underway. It involves more twin-and some king-size mattresses, again of the same construction, so we can measure correlation in terms of predicting fire spread and heat release rates from small to large constructions. We will also measure how the fire radiates to other items in the bedroom. The data shows that two-thirds of the deaths and injuries caused by bedroom fires are to people in the home beyond the room of origin as a result of flashover (i.e., spontaneous combustion of room contents), so it’s important to study this aspect of the fire dynamics.

A bedclothes study comes third in the series and will take place late this year. “Filled products” such as pillows, comforters and mattress pads exhibited the worst fire performance in our Phase I work, so we will focus on them. By testing modified products we expect to see improved fire performance, but must test that out.

The last element of Phase II is factoring all of the information from burn tests into a software program that will allow us to model a fire: if certain circumstances exist in a certain-size room, then how would the fire grow and spread. That would help us determine what heat release rate can be tolerated and within what duration to prevent flashover.

By understanding these complex dynamics, we hope to minimize the impact of an eventual standard on product design changes, so that mattresses continue to be attractive, supportive and comfortable as well as safe. We’re looking for every way we can to bring a reasonable standard to the industry.

TJ -- California has passed legislation for a new, highly rigorous, consumer mattress standard that will be implemented in 2004. The new federal standard, when implemented, would supersede this California standard if it meets or exceeds it in requirements.

Since California is the largest single consumer state in the U.S., does this add any urgency to the development of the new federal standard? Are some of the same political pressures that resulted in the swift passage of the California bill being brought to bear at the federal level as well?

PM -- In our industry, certainly, there is a sense of urgency about having a national standard as opposed to a single-state standard. Making product changes to meet an open-flame standard will not be inconsequential, so producers selling into California would be at a competitive disadvantage as opposed to those who do not have to meet that standard in other states. Having a "level playing field" for all producers is critical. Otherwise the environment is not healthy for a number of reasons, not the least of which are product liability concerns and public safety overall.

Therefore we have agreed to work in parallel – the final California standard will utilize data from our NIST research, as will the CPSC standard.

Regarding political pressures, it’s hard to predict what might occur. We believe that Whitney Davis, who played a key role in the passage of the California bill, has come to understand that the industry is doing what we can to find a viable, long-term solution to the bedroom fire problem using good science. In fact when he came on the scene, we were already into our Phase I research at NIST.

TJ -- The International Sleep Products Association, which formed the SPSC, was previously called that National Association of Bedding Manufacturers. The name was changed to reflect a growing international scope of activities. Has the SPSC seen a similar global expansion of activities? Also, would you say that international standards have an impact on the development of U.S. standards – and in what ways – especially in light of the increasing globalization of trade?

PM -- The U.S. is a little bit unique because we already have a federal cigarette-ignition standard and are working toward a new open-flame standard. That’s not typical of most countries, where fire data collection is non-existent but a necessary part of identifying the need for a standard. The United Kingdom is the closest to us in terms of having any kind of forward-thinking requirement.

Yet, there are many conferences where safety standards are discussed and we do hear about cross-referencing of information between countries, so what we eventually adopt as a new national standard will be looked at by others. I wouldn’t be surprised if within seven to ten years, there is a greater level of uniformity throughout the world, but there is nothing on the immediate horizon in that regard.

TJ -- Given that the SPSC has worked effectively and tirelessly on behalf of the industry since its inception, what are the SPSC projects so far that you are most proud of?

PM -- Clearly the research study we are currently pursuing is the most important in the SPSC’s history. It is so crucial that most other projects seem pale by comparison, so I’m most proud of how we’ve approached this issue. The industry’s proactive stance and commitment to see this through is very encouraging, especially at a time when the economy is weak.

Over the years, I have become acquainted with organizations that reacted differently when confronted with these types of challenges. While that formula worked for them previously, it’s becoming less and less effective and the industries’ image suffers as a result.

The relationships we have formed with regulators and other partners, such as the National Association of State Fire Marshals, have been of tremendous benefit and this has been made possible because of our attitude toward public safety. The industry is in an incredibly good position, given the complexity of this issue. Although we don’t control the end result, the fact that we are a major contributor to shaping the outcome is terribly important. We have accepted that something needs to be done and are working to make that solution a reality. It’s great to be part of that!

TJ -- Well, it certainly seems that the SPSC is doing an admirable job of representing the industry and working toward the best solutions for all concerned.

PM --Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to bring everyone current on our projects. Stay tuned…

Tim Jacobs is the former Administrative Director of the Futon Association, and has been covering industry regulatory issues for the past ten years.

FL