problems because of our inability to bring them under the control at a local level through various means of criminal and civil action resulted in our petitioning the Consumer Product Safety Commission in October of 1976 alleging a variety of health and safety problems related to all categories of home insulation-the fibrous glass, the cellulose material and the plastic foams. The comments I make today are confirmed strictly to those concerning cellulose which is the nature of the bill.

You are aware, I believe, of what has transpired in the interim with the Consumer Product Safety Commission-very little until recently. This bill, which our office totally supports, is what we consider the first attempt by any agency to begin the process of providing some rules and regulations for an industry that has been typically unregulated.

Approximately 2 years ago fires of the nature of 1 to 12-to this day I am not sure of the exact numbers that occurred-were in Denver by a particular company that was operating out of Broomfield, Colo., a suburb of the Denver metropolitan area. The company was a cellulosic manufacturer, it was manufacturing materials to no particular specifications, had basically no idea that standards existed at the time that would have been the HH-I-515B version, and this material was used in a Government sponsored low income winterization program and this is where these fires did occur.

In attempting to deal with the manufacturer we found ourselves in the sort of Catch 22 situation. We felt quite certain that there were some unsavory dealings that had gone on but found no way that we could really define what flammability meant or what a good quality of standard in the cellulosic industry really was.

Well, I would like to deal specifically with the bill and then leave time for questions.

Specifically I am concerned about flame resistance, flammability classification by type or class, and enforcement provisions.

The bill speaks directly to implementing those "requirements for flame resistance and corrosiveness set forth in the General Services Administration's specification for cellulose insulation . . ." as have been indicated here today which already include testing for low level burning or glowing or smoldering. We want to make certain that no confusion exists in the terminology in terms of flame resistance to not include smoldering. We want to make certain that in the future if this is the way the bill was going to be presented and future revisions were to be adopted that smoldering provisions in fact could be included.

Smoldering is something that we are seeing a major problem with cellulosic materials now. I know of at least two, perhaps three situations that have occurred where smoldering has been the cause of fires recently at least that is what the indication would be.

These materials are supposedly materials that meet all of the specifications that the city and county of Denver and that Public Service Co. of Colorado have adopted and which I referred to in my text as basically adherence to the Federal specification, adherence to the ASTM C-739, third party testing through a independent testing laboratory; in this particular case Underwriters Laboratory and a manufacturer of class 1 type of material.

A case in Denver resulted in a fire. Five rafters burned in a residence shortly after the insulation was done. Within 6 hours anyway the fire department was called although it was determined that the smoldering began instantaneously. It would seem that that fire was caused by a cigarette butt accidentally tossed in the attic. We would not know but that would certainly seem to be the indication.

An electrical check showed there was no substandard wiring. There was no circuit box in the area. There were no flues or other devices that could have served as a source of ignition. The only probability was a cigarette butt.

Another case that has occurred in Stockton, Calif., during the summer last year was where an installer's warehouse burned down. Consideration of a $100,000 lawsuit is pending right now. I don't know whether it has been filed at this point. A truckload of material had been received and had just been unloaded into the warehouse prior to the fire beginning.

The fire department in Stockton, Calif., reported after that investigation that the incident was caused by spontaneous combustion. From my knowledge of chemistry and physics and the knowledge of fire retardancy, I can find no mechanism that I would recognize anyway where spontaneous combustion could occur with the material such as this. Most probably, and it was admitted that probably smoking was going on in the area, a cigarette butt was tossed and the cigarette butt served as a source of combustion. So it becomes very important that flame resistance not only look at hot flame, one that is visible, but cool flame, one that smolders.

I have felt that it is important with the existing Federal standards that only a type 1 or class 1 material be manufactured. This is the practice that has been maintained in the city and county of Denver. The proposed modification of the Federal specification, however, eliminates such terminology. This is because of inadequacies in the test method, including its inability to duplicate the "real world" fire conditions of the attic. This is referring to the fact that the tunnel is basically upside down.

I recognize that deficiency and believe in the case of the proposed legislation that no such restriction should be placed on it. Manufacturers may still use the designation by complying with the ASTM specifications. As the legislation is for an interim standard, future specifications by CPSC and the General Services Administration will help to eliminate this problem.

Third, enforcement may be the most critical area of concern. Currently, it would be done totally by CPSC. However, I do not believe that they can adequately police this measure. The CPSC "Policy of Enforcement" states that it "will enforce vigorously all the safety rules, regulations and orders, . . . (and) will use every appropriate remedy ... as necessary to insure compliance . . ." However, this vigorous enforcement is unusual. Part of the problem may be in the laws they administer. No provision is made for civil penalties.

This is a correction to my text. In the case of the Consumer Product Safety Act I am told and I stand corrected that civil penalties do apply. However, the problems of proof in a criminal case are that it must show that the violator actually knew that he violated safety

requirements whereas in the civil case it should be shown that he should have known. We are not sure exactly how that would happen other than telling the Consumer Product Safety Commission that perhaps a violation has occurred. If the rule cannot be enforced, it will be counterproductive.

This is then a beginning. It is not flawless, nor is it sufficient, but it will aid in eliminating some of the bad material. It will begin a rulemaking process that should have started over a year ago.

In final comment, I believe that there are legitimate manufacturers of cellulose insulation that pose no risk to the consumer. Such products, however, may not be available nationwide or easy to recognize by the consumer. As a result, the situation is critical. I urge you to get on with the task and adopt this first piece of legislation. [Mr. Stern's prepared statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF PHILIP S. STERN, CONSULTING ENGINEER, METROPOLITAN DENVER DISTRICT ATTONEY'S CONSUMER OFFICE

I am Philip S. Stern, Consulting Engineer with the Metropolitan Denver District Attorney's Consumer Office. The Metropolitan Consumer Office is a multicounty legal entity of government which receives consumer complaints from all over the Denver Metro Area. It mediates and investigates complaints, and if it believes that there is proof of violations of the state criminal code or Consumer Protection Act, it undertakes litigation. The office serves Denver, Boulder, Adams, Arapahoe and Jefferson counties with a population of one and a half million. The office works under the direction of a contract to the District Attorney's of the five counties. It handles over 1,000 consumer complaints per month. I am employed as Investigator for Environmental Affairs for the Boulder District Attorney's Office and a consultant-engineer with the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation and the Metropolitan Consumer Office. It is in that latter capacity that I speak to you today.

The Metropolitan Consumer Office petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission in October, 1976 regarding potential health and safety problems. The petition had its roots in a phone inquiry that came into the office during the first part of 1975. The energy crisis was underway and the conscientious consumer began shopping for insulation. She had heard numerous sales pitches, claims and bids from contractors. She was confused because of conflicting claims; she didn't understand terms being used, and she got a very wide range of cost estimates. She wanted advice from our office about what she should do.

Interested, I undertook an in-depth investigation, posing as a consumer shopping for insulation. Bids ranging from $300 to $2,000 for the same job were received, as well as confusing statements about one product being better than another, etc.

I found that many potentially misleading claims were used. Additionally, unproved and misleading claims about fire retardency, toxicity and miracle properties bothered me. A proliferation of new, small manufacturing companies with management which had little knowledge of proper fireproofing techniques and quality control were evident.

Several fires occurred and attempts to prosecute the particular manufacturer of cellulose insulation proved fruitless, mainly because no product specifications existed which they had to meet and no requirement for quality control was recognized. Definition of fire retardent was also very loose. Although the material was used in low income housing in a federally financed project, no specifications had been placed on the quality of the material.

During March of 1976, I consulted with a variety of agencies here in Washington, D.C. and determined that there was little that we could do as a local agency. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was chosen as the obvious agency to address. In October, 1976, the Metro Consumer Office submitted a petition to CPSC alleging a variety of health and safety problems with all types of insulation. That included fibrous glass, cellulose and the plastic foams. The petition, as you are aware, asked for immediate rulemaking.

You now recognize the urgency to proceed with rulemaking about one type of insulation: cellulose. We acknowledge our total support for this legislation. We

urge you to act quickly before a disaster is implemented in the name of energy conservation. We firmly believe that the consumer is being deceived with material that may be so hazardous as to endanger their wellbeing.

Nothing much has changed in the interim for the manufacturer since I first experienced the difficulties that lead to the petition. Many new companies are manufacturing cellulose in much the same way as before, with no quality control and no specifications.

I am able to conclude only one thing from my three years experience with cellulose insulation: Unsafe insulation should not be allowed on the market regardless of the difficulties that it may cause individual manufacturers.

Through my experiences, I have become knowledgeable about the intricacies of manufacturing cellulose insulation, including manufacturing techniques, chemical formulation, economics and quality control. I am convinced that safe cellulose insulation can be manufactured, today, now, at a profit, that would be safe for the consumer.

Currently, to maintain credibility, I would urge compliance with the most current version of the Federal Specification, HH-1-515, third party testing by a recognized laboratory to include labeling and follow-on service, compliance with American Society of Testing and Methods (ASTM) C-739 test requirements for cellulose insulation, agreement to manufacture only a Class 1 loose-fill cellulose product, and the maintenance of a full-time laboratory technician in a quality control lab to assure reproducible quality.

Some manufacturers do comply with the above recommendations. In the CityCounty of Denver, the building code requires such compliance. Additionally, the Public Service Company of Colorado's insulation program qualifies potential manufacturers in a similar way. One fairly new manufacturer's group, the Society of International Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers (SICIM) has adopted such standards. I like to encourage manufacturers to voluntary adopt such standards, but it has been insufficient to eliminate the problem.

Questions are usually asked about fire retardant chemicals and the so-called shortage of boric acid, if these stricter regulations are to be adopted. Many substances are used to impart fire retardency and anti-corrosive properties to the insulation. Boric acid, in particular, seems to be the most comprehensive and forgiving of all the chemicals used. It also acts as a fungicide and an anti-corrosion compound when formulated in neutral state. The mere presence of boric acid does not, however, make the insulation safe. The quantity used, other chemicals used, the fineness of grind and the application technique all are involved. Boric acid, in my estimation, is not in short supply. It is in limited supply from domestic producers at prices which would allow manufacturers to reap major profits. However, it is available from importers in abundant quantities. Turnkey manu. facturers typically have come to expect that they can amortize their equipment in six months to a year. Using the more expensive imported chemicals reduces the profit margin and extends the amortization time.

Now, I will comment specifically on H.R. 10637. I am concerned about three major areas: flame resistance, flammibility classification by type or class, and enforcement provisions.

The bill speaks directly to implementing those "requirements for flame resistance and corrosiveness set forth in the General Service Administration's specification for cellulose insulation . . .” Additional provision is made for "amendment to such requirements promulgated by the General Services Administration . . .” Proposed Federal specifications may well include additional tests for low-level burning or glowing or smoldering. Should there be any confusion, such tests are a valuable addition of information and any interpretation of "flame resistance" should be broad enough to include all such testing methods.

I have felt that it is important with the existing Federal standards that only a Type 1 or Class 1 material be manufactured. (This refers to its flame spread in the ASTM E-84 tunnel test.) The proposed modification of the Federal specification, however, eliminates such terminology. This is because of inadequacies in the test method, including its inability to duplicate the "real-world" fire conditions of the attic. I recognize that deficiency and believe in the case of the proposed legislation that no such restriction should be placed on it. Manufacturers may still use that designation by complying with the ASTM specifications. As the legislation is for an interim standard future specifications by CPSC and the General Services Administration will help to eliminate this problem.

Enforcement may be the most critical area of concern. Currently, it would be done totally by CPSC. However, I do not believe that they can adequately police

this measure. The CPSC "Policy of Enforcement" states that it "will enforce vigorously all the safety rules, regulations and orders, . . . (and) will use every appropriate remedy . . . as necesary to ensure compliance . . ." However, this vigorous enforcement is unusual. Part of the problem may be in the laws they administer. No provision is made for civil penalties. In criminal cases, it must be shown that the violator actually knew that he had violated safety requirements, where as in civil cases it is necessary only to show that he should have known. We would wish that our agency, or any other, might enforce the ruling. If the rule cannot be enforced, it would be counter productive.

This is then a beginning. It is not flawless, nor is it sufficient. But it will aid in eliminating some of the bad material. It will begin a rulemaking process that should have started over one year ago.

In final comment, I believe that there are legitimate manufacturers of cellulose insulation that pose no risk to the consumer. Such products, however, may not be available nationwide or easy to recognize. As a result, the situation is critical. I urge you to get on with the task and adopt this first piece of legislation.

Mr. ECKHARDT. I could not help but feel, hearing your testimony, that there is something very, very wrong about our giving so much attention to other causes of fire without doing anything about the dangers of cigarettes. As you know, the Consumer Product Safety Act excludes tobacco products, I think wrongly.

Mr. STERN. Yes.

Mr. ECKHARDT. I just mention this aside, it has nothing to do with the need for providing safe insulation but your reference here to cigarettes as the cause of fires raises the question in my mind. I suppose you have had other experience as to causes of fires from cigarettes in your area other than with respect to insulation.

Mr. STERN. Yes; that is true.

Mr. ECKHARDT. You mentioned several fires occurring caused by insulation. You said somewhere between 1 and 12. Can't you get a little closer?

Mr. STERN. It depends on who you believe. Part of the difficulty is the reporting system as you are well aware.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Can't you be more specific on the number of fires where insulation played a part.

Mr. STERN. Insulation played a part in all the cases. However, as to whether the insulation was the material that first combusted, that is another question.

Mr. ECKHARDT. I see.

Mr. STERN. If one looks into the records, it becomes somewhere between one and three fires that actually the insulation material was the cause of the fire and in the other cases it is just not clear, and this relates to this one particular project.

Now there have been others. Denver seems to be running about 10 or 11 fires a year for the last 2 or 3 years that are insulation related. Mr. ECKHARDT. In your opinion does 515C provide any meaningful protection to consumers?

Mr. STERN. If I answer the question straight, I have to say no.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Well, that is the way we want it answered.

Mr. STERN. All right. Now I have to explain why I said let's adopt it anyway if I have that opportunity.

Mr. ECKHARDT. All right.

Mr. STERN. OK. Thank you.

It is something that under the current situation we have nothing, and quite truthfully our office is very anxious that we have something and we are willing to go with anything if you really want to know the