ARCHIVE         Search        Caucus Members> Sample letter requesting your representative to join the Caucus> Government Home> CONGRESSIONAL FURNISHINGS CAUCUS A bipartisan group of House lawmakers established the Congressional Furnishings Caucus in 2004 to develop policies aimed at promoting the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers. Caucus members primarily represent furniture­producing regions of the country. AHFA supports the Caucus as a forum for pursuing commonsense regulation, pro­growth tax policies, and smaller, less intrusive government. Through the Caucus, AHFA continues to educate lawmakers and their staffs about the high structural costs associated with domestic production, as well as other challenges facing U.S. manufacturers. The 35­member Caucus has supported several AHFA­ backed proposals to boost competitiveness, including legislation to lower corporate tax rates and to increase government procurement opportunities for furniture manufacturers. AHFA is working to recruit additional members from both political parties. Caucus Members Republicans Howard Coble (NC) co­founder Virgil Goode (VA) Mark Souder (IN) Sue Myrick (NC) Roger Wicker (MS) Gresham Barrett (SC) Charles Taylor (NC) Fred Upton (MI) Phil English (PA) Marsha Blackburn (TN) Paul Gillmor (OH) Don Sherwood (PA) Richard Burr (NC) Robin Hayes (NC) Pete Hoekstra (MI) Tom Petri (WI) John Boozman (AR) Walter Jones (NC) Vern Ehlers (MI) Clay Shaw (FL) John Peterson (PA) Mike Pence (IN) Robert Aderholt (AL) Patrick McHenry (NC)   > Click above for AHFA membership, or below for login information. Login Info?  Need or send an e­mail Suppliers Division > International Casual Furnishings Association > AHFA University > Home Furnishings Data Source > Specialized Furniture Carriers > Sustainable by Design > Sage Award > Young Home Furnishings Professionals > Democrats Mel Watt (NC), co­founder Rick Boucher (VA) Julia Carson (IN) Mike McIntyre (NC) Ron Kind (WI) Lincoln Davis (TN) Brad Miller (NC) Jim Marshall (GA) Sam Farr (CA) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH) Tim Ryan (OH) Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (MD) Home   Contact Us   Links   FAQs   Site Map   Privacy Policy  American Home Furnishings Alliance   317 W. High Avenue 10th Floor   High Point, N.C. 27260   Phone: 336/884­5000    Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General FEMA Response to Formaldehyde in Trailers (Redacted) Notice: The Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, has redacted this report for public release. OIG-09-83 June 2009 Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 25028 June 26, 2009 Preface The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s decision making, policy, and procedures related to the issue of formaldehyde in trailers purchased by the agency to house victims of the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents. The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We trust that this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. Richard L. Skinner Inspector General Table of Contents/Abbreviations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................... 4 FEMA Trailers ................................................................................................................ 5 Formaldehyde ................................................................................................................. 7 Effects of Formaldehyde................................................................................................. 9 Formaldehyde Standards............................................................................................... 10 CAUSES OF FORMALDEHYDE PROBLEMS IN FEMA TRAILERS .................. 12 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 14 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 14 FEMA RESPONSES TO THE DEVELOPING FORMALDEHYDE PROBLEM ..... 15 Early Indications of Formaldehyde Problems............................................................... 15 FEMA Officials’ Reactions to the Formaldehyde Issue ............................................... 16 FEMA Policies on Addressing Formaldehyde Problem Cases..................................... 20 FEMA Efforts to Assist Trailer Residents With Formaldehyde Complaints ............... 23 Effects of FEMA’s Initial Responses to Formaldehyde ............................................... 25 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 26 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 26 FORMALDEHYDE TESTING EFFORT FOR UNOCCUPIED TRAILERS ............. 27 Initiation of a FEMA Formaldehyde Testing Program................................................. 27 Conduct of Testing of Unoccupied Units ..................................................................... 29 Analysis of Formaldehyde Tests of Unoccupied Units ................................................ 30 Problems With the Initial Analysis Report ................................................................... 31 Role of the FEMA Attorney in the Formaldehyde Testing Program............................ 33 Effects of the FEMA Attorney’s Role in the Program ................................................. 35 Effects of Testing Unoccupied Units Rather Than Occupied Units ............................. 36 Causes of the Manner in Which the Testing Program Was Managed .......................... 36 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 39 Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 40 FORMALDEHYDE TESTING EFFORT FOR OCCUPIED TRAILERS .................. 41 Initiation of the Testing Program for Occupied Trailers .............................................. 41 FEMA Delays in Obtaining Testing Assistance From CDC ........................................ 44 Testing Program for Occupied Trailers Commences.................................................... 46 FEMA Officials Stop the Testing Program for Occupied Trailers ............................... 46 Testing Effort for Occupied Trailers Gets Completed.................................................. 50 Causes of Delay in the Testing Effort for Occupied Units ........................................... 54 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 57 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 58 Table of Contents/Abbreviations EPILOGUE – ACTIONS AND EFFORTS RELATED TO FORMALDEHYDE IN TRAILERS AFTER THE FEBRUARY 14, 2008, NEWS CONFERENCE.............. 59 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 62 MANAGEMENT COMMENTS AND OIG ANALYSIS ........................................ 63 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY…………………….64 TIMELINE OF KEY EVENTS……………………………………..66 CONSOLIDATED LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS …………..71 MANAGEMENT COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT REPORT……73 REPORT DISTRIBUTION……………………………………….....78 OIG CONTRIBUTORS…………………………………………..….79 Abbreviations ASHRAE ATSDR CDC CFO CMO COTR DHS DOJ EA EPA FCO FEMA FOIA HHS HUD IAA IARC JFO KO MH MHOPS NASA NIOSH OCC OGCR OHA OSHA American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chief Financial Officer Chief Medical Officer Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative Department of Homeland Security Department of Justice External Affairs Environmental Protection Agency Federal Coordinating Officer Federal Emergency Management Agency Freedom of Information Act Department of Health and Human Services Department of Housing and Urban Development interagency agreement International Agency for Research on Cancer Joint Field Office Contracting Officer (more commonly abbreviated as CO) mobile home (or manufactured housing) Mobile Homes Operations National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Office of Chief Counsel (FEMA) Office of Gulf Coast Recovery Office of Health Affairs (DHS) Occupational Safety and Health Administration Table of Contents/Abbreviations ppb ppm QA QC RVIA SOW STEL THU TRO TT TWA USPHS VOC parts per billion parts per million quality assurance quality control Recreation Vehicle Industry Association Statement of Work Short-Term Exposure Limit temporary housing unit Transitional Recovery Office travel trailer Time-Weighted Average United States Public Health Service volatile organic compound OIG Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General Executive Summary Nearly one-third of the trailers provided to victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita were eventually projected to have significant potential formaldehyde problems. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials, in our opinion, did not take sufficiently prompt and effective action to determine the extent of the formaldehyde problem in the emergency housing units once they were aware that such a problem might exist. FEMA officials let nearly a year pass while working with other agencies to analyze which of two methods for reducing formaldehyde levels in never-occupied units was most effective. At the end of that year, they had learned that ventilation was more effective than temperature control at reducing formaldehyde levels, but that both were effective – information that was already widely known, including by FEMA officials, before the study began. The FEMA study of unoccupied units not only failed to address the occupied units that were of most concern, but its results were not fully disclosed. Although FEMA subsequently arranged for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to perform a study of formaldehyde levels in occupied trailers, FEMA caused delays that blocked the study’s progress on two occasions. In general, in our opinion, FEMA did not display a degree of urgency in reacting to the reported formaldehyde problem, a problem that could pose a significant health risk to people who were relying on FEMA’s programs. Furthermore, FEMA did not have a formal policy or procedure to deal with resident complaints about health problems caused by formaldehyde in trailers. This caused confusion and inconsistencies in the manner in which complaints were treated. In the absence of a formal policy, an informal policy of providing used trailers to those who complained evolved. However, without an effective testing program, the needs of occupants who were FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 1 reluctant to complain would not surface. Also, without test results indicating which type of trailer was lowest in formaldehyde, FEMA could inadvertently replace one problematic trailer with another problematic unit. Had FEMA known the details that a study of formaldehyde in occupied units would have produced, they could have opted to replace all high-formaldehyde-emitting units with better types of units (park models, mobile homes, or travel trailers from better-performing manufacturers). As shown in the following timeline, information concerning the extent of formaldehyde in occupied FEMA units was not available until February 2008, more than 2 years after many of the affected residents moved into FEMA housing units. Effective action to obtain such information commenced only after the media reaction to formaldehyde in FEMA trailers grew to disturbing levels, causing senior DHS management to involve the medical professionals of DHS’ Office of Health Affairs (OHA) and the CDC. Unfortunately, delays in producing a necessary authorizing letter and the lack of existing agreements between FEMA and the CDC resulted in more than 6 months of negotiations and preparations before a study could be undertaken. Moreover, just as the CDC contractor was about to start testing the trailers, FEMA became concerned that it did not have a public communications strategy for the Congress, media, and trailer occupants once the study results were announced. Instead of addressing this issue while the study was being conducted, FEMA officials had CDC stop the contract before testing began. This caused another 2­ month delay. The formaldehyde testing was finally conducted in late December 2007 and early January 2008. Because of the delays, the test results may have underestimated the extent of formaldehyde exposure that residents had experienced in the trailers. Most of the units were 2 years old by the time of the testing, and the testing was conducted during the winter months when formaldehyde levels are lowest. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 2 Since the results of the formaldehyde testing were announced, FEMA officials have continued their efforts to develop safer emergency housing. Also, FEMA and CDC have promoted ongoing efforts to address the causes and effects of excessive formaldehyde in trailers. For the future, FEMA needs to: (1) design and implement better policies and procedures for identifying and correcting health and safety issues as they develop; (2) ensure management officials properly coordinate with professional staff and have access to relevant information; (3) establish agreements to obtain needed medical advice and testing and analysis assistance for health and safety problems; and, (4) establish policies that require and enable responsible FEMA officials to address health and safety issues in a timely manner. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 3 Introduction and Background On February 14, 2008, approximately 29 months after Hurricane Katrina victims were first placed in FEMA trailers, the FEMA Administrator and the CDC Director held a joint press conference to announce the preliminary results of FEMA-sponsored CDC testing of FEMA travel trailers and mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi. At that conference, the CDC Director stated they had found approximately one-third of the housing units had formaldehyde levels that could cause irritation and symptoms such as runny nose, cough, or even breathing problems for those residents who were vulnerable to formaldehyde, such as very young children, older people, or individuals who already had airway diseases. Furthermore, formaldehyde levels in around 5% of the FEMA units were so high that even residents without such vulnerabilities could experience formaldehyderelated respiratory symptoms. The FEMA Administrator then announced: “As a result of these preliminary findings, FEMA is going to continue our aggressive action to provide for the safety and well-being of the residents of these travel trailers by finding alternative housing.” In addition, in response to a question about future emergency housing plans, he stated: “We will not ever use trailers again. We may use mobile homes…But we will not use trailers again.” The CDC study, which was released in its final version on July 2, 2008, found that while travel trailers generally had significantly higher average formaldehyde levels than park models and mobile homes, some units of all three types of emergency housing tested at more than 100 parts per billion (ppb) of formaldehyde, and the overall mean for the units tested was 77 ppb. The study noted that formaldehyde readings tend to decrease as a trailer ages and be higher during warmer weather. As a result, the CDC study’s results–which were measured during the winter and after the trailers had been lived in for about 2 years–may under-represent the long-term exposure levels of FEMA trailer residents. The report concluded: “On the basis of the data reported here and in previous scientific reports and publications about adverse health effects associated with exposure to elevated formaldehyde levels, CDC recommended that FEMA relocate Gulf Coast residents displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita and still living in trailers.” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 4 FEMA Trailers As a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which struck the Gulf Coast in late August and September 2005, more than 300,000 homes were destroyed and approximately 700,000 people were displaced. Some of the displaced were able to move back into residences after minor repairs. Many others returned to find homes and apartments that had been obliterated or severely damaged by wind and water, which would require months to repair. FEMA immediately began moving emergency housing units into the Gulf Coast states to allow individuals and families to move out of shelters and into trailers that were located either on homeowners’ lots or in FEMA group sites or commercial “trailer parks” for many former renters. Some homeowners relocated to the group sites and commercial trailer parks, just as some A FEMA Trailer Group Site former renters relocated in FEMA trailers placed on private land that they or others owned. Meeting the needs of the displaced Gulf Coast residents was a massive task. FEMA used most of its existing usable inventory of housing, purchased existing unused trailers from dealers throughout a large part of the country, and contracted for the construction of new units to be built to FEMA specifications. The first FEMA trailers were moved into the Gulf Coast region on September 3, 2005, and the first unit was occupied on September 10, 2005. By August 2006, FEMA had procured approximately 144,000 travel trailers, park models, and mobile homes. Combining these with prior purchases, FEMA had about 203,000 units in its inventory, most of which were used in the Gulf Coast states. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 5 FEMA had three basic emergency housing unit types (referred to, in the aggregate, as “trailers” for the purposes of this report) for the victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Mobile Homes (MH) These are more formally called “manufactured housing,” but will be referred to as mobile homes throughout this report to avoid confusion with other types of housing that are manufactured in factories. The mobile homes are wider than 8 feet or longer than 40 feet for a total area of more than 320 square feet. FEMA mobile homes are typically 14 x 60 feet, a total of 840 square feet, and have three bedrooms. Mobile homes are designed as permanent housing and are regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Travel Trailers (TT) FEMA-spec (government contract) travel trailer These are trailers designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational purposes. They have size limits, such as 8 feet wide and up to 35 feet long, or 280 square feet, and are designed to be towed by a private vehicle. Travel trailers are considered vehicles rather than residences, are usually regulated by state transportation authorities, and therefore do not fall under HUD regulations. FEMA travel trailers typically have one bedroom and a small sleeping alcove. Off the Lot (commercial) travel trailer Park Models These are in-between travel trailers and mobile homes in character. They are generally more than 320 square feet. They may be regulated by state transportation authorities, but are not governed by HUD standards. FEMA Park Models are typically 12 x 36 feet, a total of 432 square feet, and have two bedrooms. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 6 Formaldehyde Formaldehyde (H2CO) can be a health problem in some trailers and also has been found to be a problem in other types of residences. Formaldehyde is a colorless strong-smelling gas that is found in nature and is even produced in small amounts by the human body as a normal part of metabolism. It is also an important and widely used industrial chemical in the production of fertilizer, some paper products, plywood, and a variety of household items including permanent press fabrics, some household cleaners, and cosmetics. Gas cookers and open fireplaces produce formaldehyde, as does cooking fish and, especially, smoking. Most people are exposed to a major source of formaldehyde in the air pollutants we breathe, with automobile exhaust being a primary source. Many building products that contain formaldehyde resins can “off-gas” (emit) formaldehyde gas for years, although the off-gassing decreases over time. Building materials that can produce formaldehyde include particleboard used as subflooring or shelving, fiberboard used in cabinets and furniture, and plywood wall panels. Some types of urea formaldehyde foam insulation, which are now seldom used, are heavy emitters of formaldehyde. Trailers, especially new units, can expose people to higher levels of formaldehyde, because formaldehyde gas is emitted by some of the materials used in these units and some trailers have less effective ventilation and air-exchange systems than conventional homes. In 1984, HUD instituted limits on the formaldehyde off-gassing that is permitted in materials used in mobile homes. The goal at the time was to have mobile homes with formaldehyde levels that were less than 400 ppb resulting from these restrictions. HUD restrictions on mobile homes do not apply to the manufacture of travel trailers and park models, but some manufacturers of such units have said that they follow the HUD standard for materials in constructing their units. It has long been recognized that higher concentrations of formaldehyde emissions occur in residences that have relatively stagnant air, high temperatures, or high humidity. Past studies by the CDC and others have shown that people encounter a wide range of formaldehyde levels and exposure. In an outdoor rural setting, an individual might be exposed to no more than .2 ppb of formaldehyde. This rises to 2–6 ppb in suburban outside air, and an individual who lives in a heavily populated area or near industries can be faced with outside air having 10–20 ppb formaldehyde. Outside air in the FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 7 vicinity of a traffic jam can have levels of formaldehyde exceeding 50 ppb. Because formaldehyde is released from many home components and home products, there is usually more formaldehyde present indoors than outdoors. However as the following table shows, concentrations of formaldehyde also vary widely in indoor air. Past Formaldehyde Findings in Housing Studies Year Housing Studied Average (ppb) 40 High (ppb) 140 1985 Conventional homes 1985 Apartments and condos 84 290 1999 Arizona homes 17 332 2000 Manufactured homes 34 unknown 2000 Site-built homes 36 unknown 2005 Conventional homes 17 unknown 2005 Mobile homes 16-25 unknown Formaldehyde levels in typical residences likely have declined since the 1980s, when the first two studies were performed and when HUD standards for mobile homes were set. The factors that would contribute to such a reduction include the reduced presence of urea formaldehyde foam insulation and reduced emissions levels from the types of composite wood products now being used. The 1999 study of 189 homes in Arizona found a much lower formaldehyde level of 17 ppb with a high of 332 ppb. The 2000 study found mean formaldehyde levels of 34 ppb in new “manufactured homes” and 36 ppb in new “site-built homes.” The 2005 study of 184 single-family homes in three cities found mean formaldehyde levels of 3 ppb in ambient air, 17 ppb in conventional homes, and 16-25 ppb in mobile homes. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 8 Effects of Formaldehyde Regardless of the level of exposure, formaldehyde exposure can be a health threat. One of the possibilities is the risk of cancer. As the CDC reported in the July 2, 2008, study of FEMA trailers: “The carcinogenicity of formaldehyde has been extensively studied during the last 30 years. In June 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified formaldehyde from ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ to ‘carcinogenic to humans.’ IARC has concluded that formaldehyde exposure causes nasopharyngeal cancer. However, the National Institutes of Health Toxicology Program has not adopted IARC’s classification change and continues to classify formaldehyde as ‘reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen in humans’ and states that ‘How to quantitatively relate measured air levels of formaldehyde to cancer risk is uncertain. Because many other factors play a role in the development of cancer and because formaldehyde is ubiquitous in the environment, no definitive level can be established that places humans in a “high­ risk” category. The safest way to reduce risk for cancer is to limit exposure.’” CDC officials told us that the risk of cancer from formaldehyde is not a threat that has a plateau below which one is safe and above which one is vulnerable; rather, it is a threat that just steadily increases with exposure. One CDC official has been quoted as saying that there is no safe level of exposure to formaldehyde in trailers: “Any level of exposure to formaldehyde may pose a cancer risk, regardless of duration.” However, given the ubiquitous nature of formaldehyde in an industrialized nation, such a warning statement only lets people know that there is no residence, and in fact no place, where they can be guaranteed safe from formaldehyde’s potential long-term effects. While accepting the above warnings, we have had to focus this review on the more quantifiable acute health effects of formaldehyde. The shorter-term acute health effects of formaldehyde exposure vary by individual, but overall are more definable than the chronic risk of cancer. CDC described these risks in its July 2, 2008, report of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers: FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 9 “Symptoms from acute exposure to formaldehyde commonly manifest as irritation of the throat, nose, eyes, skin, and upper respiratory tract. This upper respiratory tract irritation can exacerbate symptoms of asthma and other respiratory illnesses…. Acute and chronic health effects of exposure to formaldehyde vary by individual. At 800 ppb, nearly everyone develops some acute irritative symptoms; however, formaldehyde-sensitive persons have reported symptoms at levels around 100 ppb. Additional studies have found health effects at 100 ppb in sensitive persons chronically exposed to formaldehyde.” The CDC report also said that most individuals detect the odor of formaldehyde only when concentrations reach 500 ppb; therefore, some individuals can experience symptoms without being able to detect the odor of formaldehyde. Some experts believe that 300 ppb is another possible decision point in the evaluation of formaldehyde in residences. In trailers that are above that level, the CDC director stated “even people without vulnerability might experience some respiratory symptoms if they spent time in those homes.” Formaldehyde Standards Although workplace standards and recommendations for allowable exposures to formaldehyde have been implemented to protect workers who are exposed to formaldehyde, there is far less guidance as to what levels should be avoided in residences. The only federal standard for formaldehyde is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) “allowable time-weighted average” for allowable exposure to formaldehyde in workplaces, which is 750 ppb for 8 hours. There are no standards for formaldehyde exposure in residences. A standard that is acceptable in the workplace could be inappropriate for a residential setting, where there are more likely to be children, the elderly, and persons who are not healthy, and where most individuals spend more hours each day than in their workplace. HUD standards governing the materials that are acceptable in mobile homes had a 1984 target of keeping formaldehyde exposures in mobile homes below 400 ppb. However, HUD standards do not apply to travel trailers or park models, and a 400 ppb level is far higher than many experts currently recommend. Apart from these limited standards, there are some recommendations and guidance from federal agencies but they tend to vary widely. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 10 The following table sums up some of the opinions and recommendations concerning formaldehyde published by federal agencies: Federal Government Formaldehyde Goals, Standards and Targets Occupational Regulatory Agencies Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (standards) � 0.75 parts per million (ppm) (750 ppb)–Time Weighted Average (TWA) for 8 hours exposure to formaldehyde. � 2.0 ppm (2000 ppb) – Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL) for 15 minutes without suffering health effects. Environmental Regulatory Agencies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (recommendations) � 0.1 ppm (100 ppb) and above of formaldehyde exposure will cause watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and allergic reactions. � 0.9 ppm (900 ppb) or above formaldehyde exposure for more than 8 hours in a lifetime is dangerous. Consumer Regulatory Agencies U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (recommendation) � Formaldehyde exposures above 0.1 ppm (100 ppb) will cause watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and allergic reactions. Housing Regulatory Agencies Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Manufactured Housing (targeted goal and standards for components) � 0.4 ppm (400 ppb) – Targeted maximum for ambient levels of formaldehyde in manufactured housing.. Scientific/Public Health Agencies Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (recommendations) � .016 ppm (16 ppb) TWA for 8 hours exposure to formaldehyde. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 11 Causes of Formaldehyde Problems in FEMA Trailers Prior to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, complaints about formaldehyde levels in FEMA trailers had not surfaced and, therefore, FEMA officials were unaware that this should have been an issue of concern. Furthermore, because this was never an issue of concern in past disasters, the contracts under which FEMA obtained the trailers did not contain protections against excessive formaldehyde concentrations. Nor were the FEMA production oversight and product acceptance procedures sufficient to ensure that trailers did not contain unacceptable levels of formaldehyde. The FEMA trailers provided to the Gulf Coast states following hurricanes Katrina and Rita encountered a “perfect storm” for the development of formaldehyde problems: � � � � � � � � � All of the units were some form of manufactured housing and therefore tended to have more of the manufactured wood products that can emit formaldehyde gas. Most of the units were travel trailers, which are not designed to be permanent residences, tend to have a higher proportion of formaldehyde-emitting products per volume of internal air space and also usually have less capable ventilation systems. Most of the trailers were new and a great percentage were brand new, having been hurried from the factory to the then-homeless residents rather than sitting in a dealer’s lot for a period of time as trailers usually do. The manufacturers had been under pressure to speed the delivery of quickly completed units to the Gulf Coast; such quick assembly can lead to problems such as wider gaps in seams of covering materials, allowing increased formaldehyde emissions. Almost all the trailers were going to locations that were unusually hot and humid during much of the year, creating two of the prime factors in increasing formaldehyde levels. Ideally, units should be ventilated and air-conditioned to reduce formaldehyde levels, but it is difficult and expensive to do both at once during the summer in the Gulf Coast. Residents are also advised to spend more time outside to limit their exposure to formaldehyde; but in the crowded, often barren, multiple-trailer group sites where many families were placed, it was probably more pleasant to remain inside, especially for people with mobility problems. Smoking and cooking can contribute markedly to indoor formaldehyde levels in any residence, but the effect would be compounded in residences having as small a volume of air as the FEMA trailers. The susceptibility of individuals to formaldehyde varies, with children, the elderly, and persons with prior health problems being most vulnerable. High numbers of each of these vulnerable population groups were living in FEMA trailers. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 12 In retrospect, it is not surprising that formaldehyde problems would develop in FEMA trailers. Many of the FEMA trailers, whether purchased from dealers or manufactured, were vulnerable to high formaldehyde levels. Most of the “off the lot” models that were purchased from dealer inventory right after the hurricanes were built and sold under regulations that placed no limits on formaldehyde levels. Only the mobile homes had regulations governing formaldehyde; travel trailers and park models that were commercially available had not been required to meet any maximum formaldehyde level standards. When FEMA contracted for the production of “FEMA-spec” mobile homes the contract specifications required that: “These units must meet and comply with all appropriate HUD requirements, regulations, standards, and guidance.” Among the applicable HUD standards was the requirement that materials used in mobile home construction must meet HUD restrictions on formaldehyde off-gassing. But the HUD restrictions, as drafted in 1984, were only intended to keep formaldehyde concentrations in mobile homes below 400 ppb; current mobile homes would generally test well below that level. When the FEMA-spec mobile homes were finally tested in January 2008, none of the units tested at more than 400 ppb of formaldehyde. The FEMA contracts for the production of travel trailers required that “units” shall meet industry standards. The contracts did not cite the HUD standards concerning formaldehyde in materials, which apply only to mobile homes. Nor had such mobile home standards been required of FEMA travel trailers in the past. Some CDC officials told us that even if the travel trailer materials had been required to meet HUD standards, the smaller interior airspace relative to formaldehyde-emitting materials and the weaker ventilation systems of some of these units could still have resulted in higher formaldehyde concentrations than in mobile homes. When FEMA did test the travel trailers in January 2008, six units from four different manufacturers were found to have formaldehyde concentrations greater than 400 ppb. It is unclear whether occupants’ habits such as smoking, may have affected Interior of a typical FEMA-spec travel these results. The quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) processes that FEMA put in place for the trailer procurement contracts were not designed to prevent excessive formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. FEMA had four inspectors, but they were at the plant of only one of the manufacturers. In any case, excessive formaldehyde levels were not among the items that the FEMA inspectors were looking for. Although pre-acceptance inspections were conducted at FEMA’s receiving points, FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 13 such as the Hope, AR, storage and staging facility, formaldehyde levels were not among the conditions that were examined. Conclusions The FEMA mobile homes were produced under contracts that would limit the amount of formaldehyde that was off-gassed by their materials, but might not result in units that had currently acceptable levels of formaldehyde. Travel trailers produced under FEMA contracts were not restricted at all in the levels of formaldehyde they might have. The QA/QC procedures in place during the manufacture of the units would not have prevented excessive formaldehyde levels, and the FEMA inspection and acceptance procedures would not have detected excessive formaldehyde levels. The travel trailers obtained on the commercial market did not offer any better protection against excessive formaldehyde levels. FEMA has taken steps to address some of these problems, but we recommend institutionalizing improvements for all emergency housing units. Recommendations We recommend that FEMA: Recommendation #1: Include specifications in contracts for future purchases of mobile homes, travel trailers, and park models that provide for acceptable maximum formaldehyde levels in units that are delivered. Recommendation #2: Establish quality assurance/quality control requirements to ensure that excessive formaldehyde levels will be prevented, and institute inspection procedures to detect and reject units with unacceptable formaldehyde levels. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 14 FEMA Responses to the Developing Formaldehyde Problem As formaldehyde problems started to surface, information concerning the nature and extent of the formaldehyde problem was not promptly relayed to appropriate FEMA officials. FEMA officials were not initially aware of the seriousness of the problems that some residents of FEMA trailers were encountering. Based on the information available, FEMA officials may have believed that they acted appropriately to respond to the formaldehyde issue. In hindsight, however, it is now clear that they should have reacted in a more timely manner to determine the extent and cause of the formaldehyde problem and taken a more aggressive approach to correcting the problem. In the future, FEMA needs to have protocols in place to ensure that indications of potential health or safety problems for FEMA clients are promptly addressed, i.e., determine the nature and extent of the problem, prescribe effective remedial actions to address the problem, and notify all affected clients. FEMA also needs to institute training on how to handle health and safety issues as part of the training provided to FEMA employees who have direct contact with FEMA clients. Early Indications of Formaldehyde Problems The first indications of possible formaldehyde problems in FEMA trailers came in October 2005, just 1 month after trailers were first shipped to the Gulf Coast region. Between October 2005 and January 2006, OSHA officials conducted more than 100 formaldehyde tests in the Gulf Coast region, many of which were conducted in FEMA trailers. OSHA’s apparent focus of the tests was to determine whether there were any problems with workplace safety. Some of the trailers tested had high formaldehyde readings. For example, three FEMA trailers that were tested by OSHA officials in Purvis, MS, on November 11, 2005, had formaldehyde level readings of 280, 520, and 590 ppb. OSHA gave these results to officials of the contractor managing the site where the trailers were located. However, the results were not forwarded by the contractor to FEMA officials. Finally, on March 21, 2006, OSHA officials faxed FEMA the results of the more than 100 formaldehyde tests that had been conducted at various sites. Many of those tests had results that indicated formaldehyde problems, but FEMA safety officers and other FEMA officials said that they had not been previously aware of the tests, let alone the problematical results. On March 16, 2006, a Biloxi, MS, television station reported on a local couple who were having formaldehyde problems with the FEMA trailer they had received in December. The couple said that after living in the trailer, they had developed burning eyes, scratchy throats, and sinus FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 15 headaches. They had bought an air purifier and had tried ventilating the trailer, but nothing brought them relief from these symptoms. On April 6, 2006, one of the FEMA contractors hired a testing company to analyze the formaldehyde levels in a Baxterville, MS, FEMA trailer in which occupants had experienced formaldehyde symptoms, such as burning eyes, since first occupying the trailer in February. After testing the trailer for 8 hours with the air-conditioning off, the testing company reported that formaldehyde readings exceeded 1,000 ppb. The company reported: “These data show that both the OSHA and NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health] limits for formaldehyde were exceeded in this FEMA trailer.” On April 11, 2006, the Mississippi FEMA staff reported the case of a locally purchased FEMA trailer that was tested for formaldehyde at the request of the occupant. They reported that when the testing was performed with the windows closed and the air-conditioning off, the end result was above OSHA workplace standards, and that “the tester himself developed eye-watering symptoms of exposure.” On May 17, 2006, allegations that the problem with formaldehyde in FEMA trailers might be widespread were nationally publicized when the Sierra Club announced: “A new study conducted by the Sierra Club shows that the indoor air quality of FEMA trailers contains excessive levels of formaldehyde, a carcinogen that can cause various forms of cancer with repeated exposure. The Sierra Club has tested the indoor air of 31 FEMA trailers in Mississippi and Louisiana to determine formaldehyde levels. Only two tests were at or below the 0.1 parts per million [100 ppb] maximum safety limit recommended by the EPA and the American Lung Association. Several trailers were more than three times over the limit.” FEMA Officials’ Reactions to the Formaldehyde Issue Some FEMA officials tended to discount the Sierra Club findings. They noted that the announcement had not provided details concerning the testing procedures and wondered whether the procedures followed in the Sierra Club tests might have led to higher readings than would have been the case with other procedures. One FEMA official commented on May 18, 2006: FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 16 “I just can’t understand why out of 15,000 trailers we had in Florida during the 04/05 response/recovery that we didn’t have one complaint about formaldehyde. It’s really strange that in Louisiana they don’t have a single one either, and that no one complained until the press got this one guy in Mississippi, and now we have a number of complaints in MS. Really strange!” Other FEMA officials, however, had already recognized that the best way to answer any questions related to the Sierra Club report and determine the extent and nature of the problem facing FEMA and its clients was for FEMA to have the appropriate formaldehyde testing conducted as soon as possible. And media inquiries soon were received asking: “Will FEMA start doing their own testing of Formaldehyde in TT’s [travel trailers]?” This was not the first time the concept of testing to determine the nature, extent, and causes of any formaldehyde problem in FEMA trailers had been raised. Following the March 16, 2006, television report about the couple who were experiencing formaldehyde problems with their FEMA trailer, FEMA officials in the Gulf Coast region exchanged emails concerning what actions were called for. One asked if random testing of trailers could be required of manufacturers. Another recommended: “…either MHOPS [Mobile Home Operations] or Logistics needs to test units from various manufacturers to see if there are any patterns or only an isolated incident.” One of the FEMA field attorneys noted the issues that Gulf Coast officials faced: He added that: FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 17 In another email, 7 days later, the same official noted: By May 16, 2006, some FEMA officials were notified of the dangers and potential consequences of excessive formaldehyde exposure. On that day, a FEMA safety officer sent out an email to regional officials in Alabama with a 1½-page information sheet titled “Formaldehyde” from the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council. The information sheet noted that formaldehyde in excess of 100 ppb can cause “watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness, wheezing; skin rashes; and other irritating effects.” It further noted that sensitive people can experience effects below 100 ppb and that the World Health Organization recommends that exposure should not exceed 50 ppb. The information also included a warning that: “Formaldehyde has caused cancer in laboratory animals and may cause cancer in humans; there is no known threshold level below which there is no threat of cancer. The risk depends upon amount and the duration of exposure.” On June 13, 2006, a Mississippi Sierra Club official wrote the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, to warn him: “…94 percent of FEMA trailers tested by Sierra Club recently in Mississippi had formaldehyde levels over the safety limits set by EPA.” She recommended that: “…since FEMA consistently denies there is a problem, FEMA should undertake testing to prove that formaldehyde levels are not a concern.” Before the Sierra Club results were announced, some Mississippi FEMA officials had already attempted to establish a formaldehyde-testing program. By May 4, 2006, Mississippi FEMA officials had announced that: “The JFO [Joint Field Office] here in Mississippi is instituting a formaldehyde testing program and we will be testing for formaldehyde fumes in our trailers.” The Mississippi FEMA officials had submitted a contract request to institute such a program but it was going slowly because the contracting FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 18 office had a very limited staff. On May 23, 2006, the contracting contact person had announced that he still did not have a contract for formaldehyde testing because his office had kept putting the request “on the back burner.” They could get a contract at any time, but he wrote: “Safety has given the contractor personnel responsible for taking the phone calls, instructions on how to respond to requests for testing. The instructions are basically, ventilate the trailer. Safety does not recommend testing. We can do a contract, but the general consensus is we are opening a can of worms.” The official requesting the formaldehyde testing was apparently not convinced and the next day emailed: “OK, let’s get it started today. Please get with Contracting, Safety, OGC [now OCC] and [management official] and let’s get a SOW [Statement of Work] written, accomplish a 60-1 and get it to contracting. This is a hot issue, getting hotter each day.” The immediate response from the contracting officer was: “I’m getting conflicting messages here; the safety officer is still recommending not to do testing and has not been given any guidance from the FCO [Federal Coordinating Officer] or Chief of Staff to do so. He makes a good case for not testing and I believe if someone is pushing this, that person needs to hear what the safety officer has to say. The bottom line here is that if someone has a trailer that they can’t live in because of odors, then MHOPS needs to give them a new trailer. Testing is not going to make the odor go away.” This appears to have convinced the requesting official, who responded: “This does make some sense here. If they have a trailer that is causing discomfort then we may need to send them one that has been around for a while. Testing will only confirm that there is a problem. We need to fix the problem rather than apply a bandaid.” With the collapse of that testing effort, there would not be any significant or widespread FEMA testing of formaldehyde in occupied units for more than 18 months. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 19 Even though some safety officers had recommended against testing occupied units, FEMA Occupational Safety and Health officers did continue to test unoccupied units in FEMA staging areas to ensure that employee formaldehyde exposure levels were below the OSHA permissible exposure limit. However, we were told even that effort ended after FEMA officials told Occupational Safety and Health Office headquarters officials to have all such testing stopped. More than a year later, the Occupational Safety and Health Office was finally allowed by senior FEMA officials to resume testing to protect FEMA employees. FEMA officials did make some attempts to identify the extent of the formaldehyde problem, but they did so by trying to get an accurate tally of complaints from occupants rather than testing occupied units. However, such information was not formally tracked, and on July 21, 2006, FEMA local officials had been directed to not put the growing number of formaldehyde complaints in to the National Emergency Management Information System “because it may not be true.” By early October 2006, the total number of formaldehyde complaints to date was estimated to have been 50 in Mississippi and 20 in Louisiana. These figures were later used as an ongoing tally, but FEMA’s informal system could not determine an accurate estimate of the number of occupants having problems from formaldehyde in their trailers. A more accurate estimate of the number of occupants reporting problems from formaldehyde can be found in the August 10, 2007, formaldehyde factsheet put out by the FEMA Disaster Assistance Directorate. According to the factsheet, as of August 9, the FEMA hotline for emergency housing occupants had answered 8,238 calls concerning formaldehyde. Of those callers, 913 requested to move out of their trailer and receive rental assistance, 1,554 applicants requested to have their trailer tested for formaldehyde, 2,247 had called just to report specific health concerns such as burning eyes and respiratory problems, and 362 applicants requested to exchange their trailer for another FEMA trailer. These totals may reflect multiple calls from one occupant. FEMA Policies on Addressing Formaldehyde Problem Cases FEMA policies regarding what was to be done for individuals who complained of adverse effects from formaldehyde in their trailers were unclear and FEMA clients were not treated consistently. In June 2006, the stated policy was that individuals who complained about formaldehyde should be directed to air out their units and run their air-conditioners, and: “As a final recommendation, we would swap out the unit for a used, renovated unit which would not present the off-gassing FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 20 problems experienced in the new units.… Further, OGC [now OCC] has advised that we do not do testing, which would imply FEMA’s ownership of this issue.” In mid July 2006, however, a FEMA official who was trying to get a swap of a used unit for residents who were having health problems from formaldehyde fumes was told by a senior FEMA official that such swap requests could not be approved unless there was medical documentation in the applicant’s files. On July 19, 2006, FEMA OCC officials advised: These policies were apparently not clearly and extensively communicated. In August 2006, local FEMA officials who had been told to “make sure they do all the recommended actions” before a swap complained: “We have had little direction in dealing with formaldehyde issues. What are the recommended actions and policies for dealing with these issues?” Eight months later, there was apparently still some confusion in the field as to what the policy was and one FEMA official described telling a resident in April 2007 that: “…no way were we going to swap a TT [travel trailer] just because it smelled like formaldehyde.” Some FEMA officials took the above “hard line” position even though FEMA staff had reported on how bad the effects of the formaldehyde fumes could be. For example, on October 13, 2006, a FEMA employee reported on a visit to a travel trailer whose occupant had complained of formaldehyde fumes: “Contacted her by phone and obtained permission to enter the TT. It is a nice cool day outside and was nice and cool in the TT, but after about 5 minutes in the unit my nose/sinus began to burn. Have been out of the unit for approx. 15 minutes and still have burning sensation in my nostrils. Don’t believe this unit would be a healthy environment for young children.” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 21 On March 22, 2007, the FEMA Mobile Home Operations Maintenance Coordinator issued “guidelines to handle applicant request for ‘Formaldehyde Issue’.” “First visit the applicant at the unit. Document your findings. Explain the procedure to ventilate the unit by opening the windows and letting the air flow. This appears to have the most positive effect. …Have the applicant ventilate for 48 hours. …If the applicant is still experiencing formaldehyde-related problems inform the applicant we will swap the unit for a previously occupied unit that did not have any formaldehyde problems.” By June 12, 2007, the issue was settled because FEMA policy had been changed to: “Where a complaint involving formaldehyde comes through, the unit involved is to be deactivated. Rather than offering a replacement TT, a rental unit is to be offered instead.” This policy was formalized on July 31, 2007, in the “FEMA Interim Direction on use of Temporary Housing Units,” which mandated that when the current eligible occupant of any FEMA-owned travel trailer or park model requested a replacement, he or she would be offered rental assistance or, if available, a mobile home - but not a replacement trailer. It is clear that the lack of a definitive, consistent, and well-promulgated FEMA policy resulted in some cases of problem trailers not being handled consistently. In May 2006, a Louisiana resident and his family became ill, reportedly from the formaldehyde in their trailer. They were told to ventilate but that did not cure the problem. The occupant moved his family into a hotel at his own expense and requested a swap of trailers. However, he had a difficult time swapping trailers because FEMA officials wanted a doctor’s “excuse” and worried about setting a precedent. In another case, a Long Beach, MS, trailer occupant who had lung disease had to sleep in her car after her physician told her to stay out of her trailer. She had called maintenance more than once about the problem, but had not received an effective response. Long Beach FEMA officials also reported the case of another woman who was told that a maintenance and deactivation contractor would only tell her to open the windows and air the place out. Another resident called about formaldehyde problems in October 2006 and February 2007, but maintenance did not follow-up on either complaint. Finally, the resident was in contact with a television news organization, and they widely publicized his case. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 22 FEMA Efforts to Assist Trailer Residents With Formaldehyde Complaints In general, despite the lack of a clear policy to address formaldehyde problems, most local FEMA officials appeared to respond well to complaints from residents. Gulf Coast FEMA officials told us that, while they were not specifically trained in addressing health issues, they listened and were as responsive as possible, to residents’ complaints of problems with FEMA trailers. Many FEMA employees who assisted the trailer occupants were themselves local residents who had been displaced into trailers and understood very well the problems of living in a trailer. According to the available emails concerning formaldehyde problems, most FEMA employees did what they could to assist those with problems in a setting where the lack of available housing severely limited the options they had available. FEMA officials did move those who complained of formaldehyde problems into replacement units when it became clear that ventilating the unit would not correct the problem. Because of the lack of testing, however, FEMA staff could not predict which units would have problems, so residents were moved into used units that staging-area staff tried to clean thoroughly before releasing. There were many instances where officials worked to get priority treatment for replacement of units that had been observed to be particularly bad. FEMA local officials also worked to inform trailer occupants concerning how to minimize the formaldehyde problem most effectively in their trailers. In July and August 2006, more than 268,000 brochures were distributed to FEMA trailer occupants in all of the affected states. The brochures emphasized that the first thing that residents could do was to ventilate the unit by opening doors and windows. The other effective action was to keep temperatures moderate and lower the humidity. These steps would, of course, require running the units’ air conditioners, which use a lot of electricity, especially when doors and windows are open. However, some residents could not afford the expense of using a lot of electricity. FEMA local employees pointed out this problem, and some tried to find a way for FEMA to pay for electricity in the units to enable or encourage residents to keep the formaldehyde levels down. But they were notified that the regulations do not allow for this, and that: “The only way we pay utilities is if the TT is part of the pad lease agreement that utilities are included.” Some local employees even got themselves in “hot water” for attempting to deal with the formaldehyde problems. One employee wrote on August 30, 2006, concerning a unit that appeared to have a particularly high level FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 23 of formaldehyde. He thought the unit might make a good “case study” for examining the formaldehyde problem, and was apparently concerned that such a unit not be placed back in service where it might be issued to another family. He wrote that: “Once deactivated we will mark the unit as ‘non-habitable’ and ship to BR staging area. If you would like to have the unit tested, we can track and provide information, etc. Otherwise we will designate it for the ‘boneyard’.” A FEMA official responded: “I am very concerned that you are recommending a level of habitability for the units when no other federal agency has set a threshold for residential formaldehyde levels. …While we would like for you to identify units that were swapped for formaldehyde complaints, I would like to ask that you do not make suggestions of ‘non-habitable’ and recommendations for putting units in ‘boneyards’ in the future without engaging [appropriate FEMA officials].” The employee who had written the original email replied that he was: “Sorry if I got things stirred up - just trying to take care of business.” Nearly 1 year later, on July 20, 2007, the FEMA Administrator wrote a memorandum to all FEMA employees announcing: “Over the last two months, FEMA has significantly increased its focus on formaldehyde-related health concerns raised by Gulf Coast disaster victims. …Earlier this week, I was troubled to learn that some FEMA employees may have not acted with the speed and sensitivity I expect in addressing the concerns raised by some victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I will deal with these issues swiftly. FEMA’s first priority is the health and welfare of disaster victims we serve. Anything less is totally unacceptable. I know that the FEMA team I am privileged to lead does hold sacred this same commitment.” This message should have provided some satisfaction to the many FEMA employees who had been doing their best to identify the cause and extent of the formaldehyde problem and to assist those who were affected by it in their residences. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 24 Effects of FEMA’s Initial Responses to Formaldehyde The consequences of FEMA’s initial decision not to undertake testing to determine the cause and extent of formaldehyde problems in occupied units are difficult to assess. There were not many alternatives to the FEMA trailers for those who wanted to remain in the Gulf Coast area. Perhaps, had the extent and seriousness of the formaldehyde problem been made known through prompt and timely testing, more residents would have vacated the trailers. Most, however, would probably have remained. Some residents might have then been more likely to follow the advice to ventilate and air-condition, but many probably could not afford to do so. At the least, more residents would have been aware of the seriousness of the formaldehyde problem and might have sought assistance. The FEMA relief system in place depended on the occupants to complain about problems with their units in order to get assistance. However, some people are not prone to complaining and may have just quietly endured adverse health conditions. For example, in May 2006 a Mississippi FEMA official reported that: “…I happened to go over to see a Sergeant in the Army National Guard the other day on other FEMA business and he happened to mention that he has had a FEMA trailer for 5 or 6 months now and he has had problems with smell, sore throat, burning eyes; he says he airs out the trailer every day but it only helps for a little while and then it is worse than ever. Seems like after a few weeks of airing the problem should be gone. I am not an expert but it doesn’t sound right. He knows it’s formaldehyde. This guy served in Iraq and says he’s lived in worse and doesn’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth. But it seems a shame he has to live under those conditions.” Such individuals who are not prone to complaining might have come in for assistance had FEMA tested the types of trailers they occupied and informed all residents of the seriousness of the formaldehyde problems. Other individuals who might have been more likely to come forward for help are those persons who are sensitive to formaldehyde, including persons with preexisting conditions such as asthma. Many “sensitive” individuals have conditions that are aggravated by levels of formaldehyde that are below the level at which formaldehyde can be smelled. Therefore, without any testing, they might not have been aware that the formaldehyde in their trailers was a reason their health conditions were deteriorating. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 25 Conclusions FEMA has an obligation to its clients to inform them whenever there is the possibility of health or safety problems inherent in their use of FEMA products or programs. In addition, FEMA should provide residences that are reasonably safe for the occupants. Appropriate FEMA officials did not immediately learn of the formaldehyde problems that were first identified in FEMA trailers. When they did learn of the formaldehyde problems, nearly a year passed before any testing program was started and nearly 2 years passed before occupied trailers were tested and the occupants were informed of the extent of formaldehyde problems and potential health threats in their trailers. FEMA field staff did what they could to help those residents who complained of problems, but they were hindered by the paucity of available options and by the lack of a consistent and wellpromulgated policy on what corrective actions should be taken. Recommendations We recommend that FEMA: Recommendation #3: Promulgate a policy that any issue or problem that might affect the health and safety of occupants of emergency housing must be quickly forwarded to the responsible headquarters offices as defined in this new policy. Recommendation #4: Train FEMA and contractor “front-line” employees who have contact with disaster victims on how to respond to health and safety issues. Recommendation #5: Establish a policy that whenever a health or safety issue arises concerning its clients, all reasonable actions will be taken to determine the nature, cause, extent, and consequences of the problem. Recommendation #6: Whenever a problem might affect the health and safety of FEMA clients, such as occupants of emergency housing, promulgate consistent and effective guidance to the field concerning how to address such problems. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 26 Formaldehyde Testing Effort for Unoccupied Trailers Once FEMA officials instituted a formaldehyde testing effort, it focused on determining the extent of formaldehyde in new, unoccupied trailers and on methods to reduce those levels rather than focusing on, or giving equal focus to, identifying the extent of the formaldehyde problem in occupied units and the causes of those problems. Several management issues slowed the progress of this unoccupied-units testing program. When the initial results of the tests of unoccupied units were superseded by a cautionary letter from the testing authority, this was not conveyed to the appropriate FEMA officials. This may have resulted in pronouncements to Congress and the public that were more optimistic concerning the nature of the formaldehyde problem than was warranted, and possibly delayed the development of a testing program for occupied trailers. Initiation of a FEMA Formaldehyde Testing Program On June 27, 2006, an extensive exchange of emails took place among senior FEMA staff in the Gulf Coast area and headquarters concerning a FEMA trailer resident who had died in his trailer at a site in St. Tammany Parish, LA. The resident was reported to be an older man who had heart problems, and there was no reason to conclude that his death was due to the formaldehyde level in his trailer. However, his neighbors had said that he told them he was reluctant to use his air-conditioner because he was afraid it would make the formaldehyde worse. This tragic event, and the concerns it raised, caused those FEMA officials who had advocated testing for formaldehyde in order to determine the full nature of the problem to once again raise this issue. One FEMA official noted: “In addition, we need to move past OGC [now OCC] objections to possible testing and move forward with our safety notice (similar to the one HUD uses for Mobile Homes). I believe this issue is well past the point of ‘wait and see.’” The Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, responded that he had discussed the situation and supported the concept of tasking EPA to perform a full assessment of the formaldehyde problem and make recommendations. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 27 On June 28, 2006, officials from FEMA, EPA, the United States Public Health Service (PHS), and CDC/ATSDR held a conference call.1 One of the goals of the conference call was to identify an organization to test the air quality of the deceased’s unit and determine whether random sampling of all FEMA trailers was necessary. Among the resolutions agreed upon in the conference call were: “FEMA Safety is to investigate and sample [the deceased’s trailer], Request that the Consumer Product Safety Commission vet FEMA trailers against the industry standard” [and] “Identify an independent, non-governmental agency to conduct tests of indoor air quality and evaluate policies.” On July 7, 2006, another conference call concerning a formaldehydetesting program was scheduled. In a briefing document to prepare for that call, the authors wrote that, because of health concerns and press articles concerning FEMA housing units, FEMA staff had entered into discussions with CDC/ATSDR and EPA regarding the advisability of, and recommended procedures for, random formaldehyde testing. But there were concerns expressed that air quality testing might not be an effective strategy because: “There is a lack of consensus among various agencies regarding acceptable levels of formaldehyde.…The results can be influenced by many outside factors, such as new furniture or draperies, smoking in the unit with no ventilation…New units less than two months old will frequently show higher levels of formaldehyde….” During a July 11, 2006, conference call, some experts warned that preliminary research indicated that a health baseline for formaldehyde would probably be much lower than expected and the formaldehyde levels that would be found in testing could be much higher than the health baseline level. During the call, it was agreed to run tests that could “establish the difference between ventilated and unventilated units.” This would be done by pulling together a valid sample of unused units from each manufacturer, leaving half the units closed up for 2 weeks, running the air-conditioners in the other units for 2 weeks, and then testing all the units. This plan would evolve and become more detailed over the next 2 months, but it remained the basic concept for testing these never-occupied trailers. 1 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) are separate agencies, but both are divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and have the same senior leadership. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 28 Conduct of Testing of Unoccupied Units By July 18, 2006, EPA officials had developed and submitted to FEMA a proposed “Quality Assurance Sampling Plan for Formaldehyde Sampling at FEMA Temporary Housing Units.” FEMA officials reviewed the plan and raised some concerns, including who would perform the “data management-result interpretation and recommendations,” and whether there would be enough unused units available to produce a valid sample of each manufacturer’s units. By a July 20, 2006, FEMA, EPA and CDC/ATSDR conference call, the details of the testing plan were starting to be worked out, including how many units to test and from what sources. The notes for the conference call state that there was: “Discussion about whether the testing will be done with the units open or with just the air conditioner. Initial proposal was just for the air conditioner. Point was made that the formaldehyde will not dissipate without the windows being open.” The conference call notes also state that there was: “No resolution as to how testing will be accomplished and what we are trying to achieve. Discussion will continue regarding the variables and when and how long each variable will be tried during the testing process.” Through successive conference calls, the testing plan was worked out in more detail by late July. The basic plan was to define the formaldehyde levels on various models in a controlled test and then: “…perform several actions (open windows for a specific time, run fans, control humidity) and measure the effect on the formaldehyde level.” There were some problems in finding enough unused trailers from each manufacturer for each test, but by September 8, 2006, the main remaining problem was the provision of electrical power to each of the units that was to be tested. The power company wanted the payment account in place before the meters were installed and powered up. Also, the contractor selected to wire the trailers had not completed the work and had to have the completion date for the contract extended. However, these problems were addressed, and by September 19, 2006, EPA’s contractor had started testing the 96 selected trailers. Each trailer would be initially tested to FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 29 establish a baseline formaldehyde level and then be retested after ventilation or air-conditioning steps were completed. By October 19, 2006, EPA Region 6 reported that the EPA contractor had all of the agreed-upon data, but that problems in the analysis would delay delivery of the data from the contractor to EPA for approximately 1 week. EPA expected to deliver the database to FEMA around November 13, 2006. Analysis of Formaldehyde Tests of Unoccupied Units CDC/ATSDR agreed to analyze the data package provided by EPA and its contractor and offer recommendations based on the data set. Since there was no existing interagency agreement between FEMA and the CDC under which this analysis could be performed, the responsible program office started working on all of the necessary documents, including a possible acquisition plan, on October 26, 2006. However, by November 4, 2006, CDC/ATSDR officials concluded that they could “complete the task before an IAA [interagency agreement] could go through the approval process,” and agreed to interpret the test results without an established IAA. FEMA had designated an attorney to be responsible for the class action litigation alleging personal injuries related to formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. In that capacity he received the raw data during Thanksgiving week from EPA. Thereafter, the data was forwarded by FEMA officials to CDC/ATSDR and arrived December 1, 2006. FEMA officials initially stated that they expected a final analysis from CDC/ATSDR around December 11, 2006, but once CDC/ATSDR officials received the EPA packet they told FEMA that it would take longer than anticipated to complete the analysis. On February 1, 2007, the CDC/ATSDR Health Consultation “Formaldehyde Sampling at FEMA Temporary Housing Units” was sent to FEMA from the Acting Associate Director; Office of Terrorism, Preparedness and Emergency Response; National Center for Environmental Health/ATSDR. The analysis was 14 pages long, and as the cover letter noted: “In summary, the opening of windows and vents was effective in reducing formaldehyde concentrations below levels of health concern. Running the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems did not provide adequate air exchanges to adequately reduce the formaldehyde concentrations. A combination of ventilation methods may be necessary to reduce formaldehyde concentrations below levels of health concern for sensitive individuals. FEMA has not requested ATSDR to evaluate longer term formaldehyde concentrations in trailers or health concerns related to potential exposures.” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 30 The FEMA attorney who had received the CDC/ATSDR report sent it to a limited number of FEMA officials. In general FEMA officials interpreted the report to say, as one FEMA official concluded: “…the tests confirmed that we do not have a major issue with the formaldehyde but we are probably too casual in our communications with our applicants [residents] regarding proper ventilation.” Problems With the Initial Analysis Report However, 6 weeks later, on March 17, 2007, the Associate Director; Office of Terrorism, Preparedness and Emergency Response; National Center for Environmental Health/ATSDR sent the FEMA attorney who had received the “Formaldehyde Sampling at FEMA Temporary Housing Units Health Consultation” a letter that expressed concerns with that report as issued. This letter, which was actually signed by the Associate Director, as opposed to the previous letter, which had been signed by an acting official, stated: “I am writing in follow-up to my previous correspondence last month on behalf of the CDC National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. It has just come to my attention that the Health Consultation ‘Formaldehyde Sampling at FEMA Temporary Housing Units’ has been completed without a policy review by our senior technical staff. I am concerned that this health consultation is incomplete and perhaps misleading. Formaldehyde is classified as ‘reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.’ As such, there is no recognized ‘safe level’ of exposure. Thus, any level of exposure to formaldehyde may pose a cancer risk, regardless of duration. Failure to communicate this issue is possibly misleading, and a threat to public health. I had discussed this issue several months ago in a review of the public statement derived from the Toxicological Profile that FEMA proposed. I specified at that time that this statement contained no mention of the cancer risk and that should be a public health concern. Thank you for your consideration of this issue and please feel free to contact me. Failure to speak to the long-term cancer risk regarding formaldehyde exposure irrespective of duration is of particular concern.” In October 2007, ATSDR would issue “An Update and Revision of ATSDR’s February 2007 Health Consultation: Formaldehyde Sampling of FEMA Temporary-Housing Trailers, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, SeptemberOctober 2006.” This update was approximately three times the length of FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 31 the original report and, in addition to reporting the data of the first consultation; it contained a great amount of additional information, including that which was referred to in the second letter. The CDC/ATSDR letters had both been sent to one FEMA attorney because the CDC/ATSDR officials still understood him to be their contact point at FEMA as he had been for the test results. While the FEMA attorney who received these letters shared the first letter with appropriate FEMA officials, he did not share the second, or revised, letter. According to the FEMA attorney, the cautionary second letter was consistent with previous communications that results from CDC should not be “over read.” Not being aware of the second letter, FEMA officials reassured Congress and the public of the safety of FEMA trailers in statements that do not reflect the content of the second letter and that might not have been made if they had been aware of the content of the second letter. For example, on March 23, 2007, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, sent a letter to a congressional committee responding to the committee’s questions. In that letter he stated: “At this point, FEMA is not aware of any significant health risks to the residents of these trailers.” On May 10, 2007, the Associated Press quoted a FEMA spokesperson as saying: “We have no need, and we see no need, to question the reliability and safety of the trailers.…As long as residents can properly ventilate their units, there is no significant health hazard, little if any.” On July 3, 2007, the “FEMA Forward” newsletter was quoted as stating that it is a myth that FEMA must remove formaldehyde from travel trailers because: “The agency’s study of air samples collected from travel trailers in the Gulf area shows that formaldehyde emission levels in the units can be significantly reduced through adequate ventilation.” The FEMA attorney, however, said he was not aware that FEMA officials had made such public statements. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 32 Role of the FEMA Attorney in the Formaldehyde Testing Program The FEMA attorney involved in the formaldehyde issue since early on in its development became a point person for the issue. On June 14, 2006, the FEMA Associate General Counsel for Litigation sent an email to FEMA officials that read, in part: “A class action suit seeking injunctive and monetary relief from FEMA and trailer manufacturers was filed last week. Administrative tort claims also were filed.” He then named the attorney, referred to in this report as the “FEMA attorney”, who: “…is handling the matter for OGC [now OCC]. The program should not be dealing with applicants on the formaldehyde issue without first coordinating with [the FEMA attorney] and DOJ [Department of Justice].” Later that day, a FEMA official wrote an email related to formaldehyde in trailers that included: “This came up at the Senate. Has the agency conducted our own testing of the units? If not, we need to do so ASAP and put this issue to rest or remove people from harm. I don’t want to rely on non-fed testing. We also need an information campaign on what we are doing about the potential issue and our eventual findings to include temporary and permanent remedies.” One of the recipients of his email, a FEMA attorney in the Gulf Coast area, forwarded the message to the FEMA attorney with the message: “Please see the email from [the FEMA official] below – you weren’t copied so I didn’t know if you had seen it.” On June 15, 2006, the FEMA attorney sent an email to the drafter of the email concerning testing, the Gulf Coast FEMA attorney who had forwarded him the testing email, and the Associate General Counsel for Litigation, which read: “Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK. While I agree that we should conduct testing, we should not do so until we are fully prepared to respond to the results. Once you get results and FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 33 should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them.” On June 16, 2006, FEMA OCC recommended that: On June 27, 2006, as part of the discussions addressing how to perform testing that was to be conducted by the EPA, a FEMA official asked the FEMA Gulf Coast Recovery Office whether they were taking the lead in resolving the formaldehyde issue. A Gulf Coast recovery official responded: “Yes, Gulf Coast Recovery will take the lead, in coordination with the TROs [Transitional Recovery Office] and HQ Recovery.” Within 15 minutes, the Associate General Counsel for Litigation sent an email to the two officials who had exchanged the emails and to more than 30 other FEMA officials stating that: “Please be aware that there is active pending litigation on the formaldehyde issue. FEMA activities related to testing, etc., must be coordinated with OGC [now OCC] and DOJ. [The FEMA attorney] is the OGC [now OCC] attorney assigned to the case.” The FEMA attorney was closely involved in the testing program once OCC put out the informal order that he was to be part of all communications. For example, the FEMA attorney was involved in discussions regarding how often the EPA contractor was to test each of the unoccupied units and how the units were to be coded so the testers would not know the manufacturer of each. But the FEMA attorney told us that he had no authority to direct how the EPA conducted its tests or decide which trailers to test, and did not direct EPA’s testing. Once the tests were completed, EPA was to give all of the raw data to the FEMA attorney. He would be the FEMA official holding the data and would be the individual responsible for sending the data to CDC/ATSDR for analysis. The FEMA attorney received the results from EPA officials by November 21, 2006, and CDC/ATSDR received the results from him by December 1, 2006. There was a 1-week delay in the forwarding of the data because the FEMA attorney did not know to whom in CDC/ATSDR to send the results for analysis. When CDC/ATSDR completed the analysis, their product FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 34 was to be sent to the FEMA attorney, who was to serve as their contact at FEMA. The CDC/ATSDR letter that would accompany that product to the FEMA attorney would eventually note: “Per your request, the data and the subsequent analysis of the data has not been shared with anyone other than [two CDC/ATSDR staff].” The control held by the FEMA attorney over the testing data information is shown in a December 1, 2006, report by a FEMA official of her conference call with the attorney. She reported that he had said that he: “Reviewed the raw data ‘in a very non-scientific manner.’ It appeared overall, there were low levels of airborne contaminants of formaldehyde found in the samples collected and analyzed by the EPA. Ventilation is the primary method in which to reduce formaldehyde in the trailers.”… “The data was duplicated and forwarded to [the contact person] of the CDC.” He had then reiterated that “if the media or another government agency ask questions pertaining to formaldehyde” they were to be referred to FEMA OCC. The FEMA attorney may not have been in charge of the testing program, but he served as point of contact for study information, and that may have affected FEMA in its public announcements. Effects of the FEMA Attorney’s Role in the Program The extent of the effects of having the FEMA attorney in a position of control in the formaldehyde testing of unoccupied residences is not very clear. There was a 1-week delay in getting the test data to CDC. However, CDC/ATSDR officials told us that their subsequent data analysis was not interfered with. The fact that the attorney controlled the receipt of data and analysis from CDC had an adverse effect because the second letter which should have cautioned FEMA officials about the reliance that could be put on the first letter and report, was not distributed or discussed by the attorney. This may have caused or allowed FEMA officials to make assurances about the safety of the FEMA trailers that were later shown to be incorrect. FEMA’s appearance and reputation were also damaged with the public disclosure in the national press of the FEMA attorney’s directive: FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 35 “Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK.2…Once you get results and should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them.” These comments were eventually released to Congress in response to a congressional request and were carried in newspapers, with the result that FEMA was portrayed as more concerned with legal liabilities than the health of its clients. Effects of Testing Unoccupied Units Rather Than Occupied Units The decision by FEMA officials to test unoccupied trailers in order to analyze two mitigation strategies rather than testing occupied trailers to determine the cause, nature, and extent of the formaldehyde health threat had significant negative repercussions. Tests on unoccupied units concluded that maximum ventilation of trailers was effective and was more effective than merely cooling units with air-conditioning and limited ventilation—in effect, the study proved in the tested trailers what was already generally known. The Consumer Product Safety Commission had been advising trailer occupants since at least 1997 that the first way to reduce formaldehyde was to, “Bring large amounts of fresh air into the home. Increase ventilation by opening doors and windows and installing an exhaust fan(s).” Other health and safety organizations, including CDC offices, had provided similar advice. Even FEMA, in brochures that were distributed in July and August 2006, well before the testing was conducted, had advised residents under the heading “What can I do to reduce my exposure to formaldehyde in my travel trailer?” to “Increase ventilation. You can reduce your exposure to formaldehyde by bringing more outdoor air into your home. Open windows and doors whenever possible.” Although the benefits of the testing of unoccupied units were therefore limited, the real cost, apart from the funds that were spent, was that occupied units were not tested to determine the potential formaldehyde threat and would not be tested for more than a year after the testing of unoccupied units. Causes of the Manner in Which the Testing Program Was Managed Some FEMA officials told us that the program offices were really in control of the program, but the FEMA attorney played a key role. From the beginning of the testing effort, the program office and OCC both 2 The major press article left out the intervening text of “While I agree that we should conduct testing, we should not do so until we are fully prepared to respond to the results.” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 36 supported testing, but for different reasons. In late August 2006, a news network submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the formaldehyde testing results. FEMA attorneys took the position that: “The testing was undertaken because FEMA was sued.... The testing is covered under the following exception to FOIA #5 and has been prepared in anticipation of litigation and is covered under deliberative process privilege, the attorney work product privilege and the attorney client privilege.” In other words, the testing responded to a legal issue and the results were not publicly releasable. The Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, responded: “For the record, we initiated this testing before we were sued.” [And wrote to his staff] “Is that right? I was not aware of any litigation when you first proposed engaging the EPA to test.” The Recovery staff responded: “I don’t know if we were aware of the litigation when we began working with EPA (it certainly wasn’t the driving factor). I will need to review my email archives for actual dates.” Since the FEMA attorney received the formaldehyde analysis from CDC/ATSDR, he was also the only person who received the second CDC letter that called into question the reliance that should be placed on the first letter and report. When he did not release the second letter to other FEMA officials, they proceeded to make optimistic statements about the safety of the FEMA trailers that they might not have made if they had all the relevant information. We have been given several reasons for the decision to test unoccupied trailers rather than occupied trailers including that other agencies were resistant to conduct testing, especially of occupied units. FEMA officials told us that unoccupied units were tested first because that was necessary to establish a protocol for testing occupied units. However, the standard protocol for testing for formaldehyde is an established NIOSH protocol that existed long before the testing of the FEMA trailers. CDC officials told us that this NIOSH protocol was used in the tests of occupied units that were to be conducted in December 2007, and that no additions to that protocol from the FEMA/EPA testing of unoccupied units were needed or FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 37 used in that testing. Some officials who were engaged in the test planning for unoccupied units and in the analysis of those results told us that they believed that the testing of unoccupied units was needed to establish a baseline for the subsequent testing of occupied units. However, such a baseline is not referred to in the test results of occupied units and, in any case, this would not have prevented testing of occupied units from being conducted simultaneously with the testing of unoccupied units rather than more than a year later. At the time the testing was announced to the public, the FEMA News Desk stated that: “The agency has specifically asked for and received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an air monitoring and sampling plan that is intended to validate scientifically, methods that can be used to reduce the presence of formaldehyde in travel trailers.” The FEMA Public Affairs Office sent out talking points stating: “The purpose of the study is to provide scientific support for methods that can be used to reduce the presence of formaldehyde in trailers. Specifically, the results will be used to identify activities we can take and that we can instruct the occupants to take to lower the levels of formaldehyde.” FEMA officials used the following similar language to describe the program to the DHS Secretary and to a congressional committee chairman: “The test plan will identify a variety of activities to reduce levels, such as opening the windows for 15 minutes every morning, with testing to take place after each of the different activities.” These announcements all leave the impression that some groundbreaking research will test a variety of different activities and options for effectively reducing formaldehyde in trailers – research that might conceivably be worth postponing the analysis of formaldehyde problems in occupied units. However, after discussions between FEMA and EPA officials, the actual EPA test plan for unoccupied trailers accepted by August 22, 2006, called for only testing two variables: the airborne formaldehyde concentration when ventilation is provided by open windows, static vents and exhaust fans; and the airborne formaldehyde concentrations when ventilation is provided by open static vents and the air temperature and FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 38 humidity are controlled through the use of the home’s air-conditioning system. While these were certainly valid options to test, they were already recognized as being among the priority steps to take to reduce formaldehyde levels in trailers and were hardly the groundbreaking research on a variety of options that were described by FEMA officials. Our review of most of the FEMA emails concerning formaldehyde that were exchanged between late 2005 and early 2008 leads to another possible reason for testing unoccupied units rather than testing the trailers that were actually occupied and whose residents’ health might be threatened. Once testing for formaldehyde levels in occupied units was completed, FEMA would need to be able to tell the occupants what the test results actually meant and how much of a health risk the occupants were taking by remaining in the trailers. The key problem that FEMA officials faced was that there were no standards for residential formaldehyde safety levels against which to compare the results. After testing, FEMA would only be able to tell the occupants: “Here are the results and they might mean you are at risk.” When the results of testing occupied units were finally released in 2008, the conclusions were not too different from this statement. FEMA officials at various levels expressed, on different occasions, this fear of what to do with the information and what to tell the occupants. FEMA officials sought usable safety standards for trailer formaldehyde levels from several organizations on several occasions, including from a CDC-convened experts panel. However, FEMA officials did not succeed in getting any organization to view producing such guidance as its role or responsibility, or in getting the standards that it needed. These were needed not only to demonstrate the real meaning of any tests of occupied units that might be conducted, but also to design the standards for future FEMA housing units in order to provide safe residences for occupants. Conclusions The testing of unoccupied trailers was somewhat delayed by several factors. The role that the FEMA attorney played harmed the public’s perception of FEMA. The attorney’s position that: “Once you get results and should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them” may have created a negative public image of FEMA’s efforts to address the formaldehyde problem. Moreover, the attorney’s sole possession of information may have allowed FEMA officials to give incorrect assurances concerning formaldehyde safety in FEMA trailers. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 39 Whenever there are serious allegations of health and safety problems affecting FEMA clients, the initial steps should include determining whether the problem is real and the cause, extent, and nature of the threat. In this case, these steps would have required testing the formaldehyde levels in the occupied units before, or at least concurrent with, the testing of the unoccupied units. The reasons given for testing the unoccupied units first are not sufficiently convincing to overcome the general principle that determining the extent and nature of health and safety threats should always be a priority. However, the absence of any standards for what is a safe level of formaldehyde acceptable in a FEMA travel trailer, although not a sufficient reason for delaying the testing of occupied trailers, is a major health and safety problem and obstacle. HUD standards address what materials can be used in mobile homes but do not address what level of formaldehyde is acceptable in such a unit–and these standards do not work for travel trailers. In addition, the apparent 1984 HUD formaldehyde goal of 400 ppb does not appear to satisfy the safety demands that are being made of FEMA. There will always be some formaldehyde in trailers, but FEMA officials need to know what constitutes acceptable and safe levels for the trailers provided to occupants. FEMA is not the agency responsible for determining such residential formaldehyde standards and its staff does not have the capability to do so. Nor were FEMA officials able to determine just what organization can and will fulfill such a need. However, these formaldehyde standards are definitely needed to ensure the safety of future occupants of FEMA trailers. Such standards would also help to provide for the health and safety of occupants of non-FEMA travel trailers, park models, and mobile homes, and would be of great use to consumers when they are purchasing such units. Recommendation We recommend that FEMA: Recommendation #7: Establish clear policy over the decision making processes related to matters of health and safety. This policy should mandate that responsible program and management officials make decisions after obtaining and considering all appropriate professional advice, including opinions and input from medical, scientific, and legal experts. Moreover, FEMA should ensure that responsible program officials and managers have access to critical information and advice related to the health and safety effects of all FEMA programs. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 40 Formaldehyde Testing Effort for Occupied Trailers A testing program to examine the seriousness and extent of the health threat of the formaldehyde problem in occupied FEMA trailers in the Gulf Coast region was initiated in May 2007, partly due to heightened congressional interest in these matters and after a senior DHS official directed health specialists from DHS’ Office of Health Affairs (OHA) to become involved in the problem. OHA quickly started to work with CDC officials to develop the plans for an appropriate comprehensive testing program. However, there were lengthy FEMA delays in producing the documents necessary to conduct the testing. The testing program was initially delayed until October 2007. The testing effort was further delayed by 2 months when a senior FEMA official decided that FEMA was not prepared for the possible results and stopped the contract. By the time testing was conducted, it was early winter, when formaldehyde levels and, therefore, test results were likely to be lower because of the weather. Nevertheless, the test results were serious enough to cause the FEMA Administrator and the CDC Director to hold a press conference to announce the results and efforts to move the remaining occupants out of FEMA trailers. Initiation of the Testing Program for Occupied Trailers The process of testing occupied trailers did not start until outside events and outside officials put pressure on FEMA officials. On May 1, 2007, a major national news program featured an episode titled “Toxic Trailers.” The feature addressed formaldehyde problems in FEMA trailers, and stated “epidemiologic studies have established quite clearly that there’s an increased risk of cancer, especially cancer of the nasal sinuses.” The news feature also discussed a Mississippi pediatrician’s conclusion that the persistent colds, pneumonias, and sinus and ear infections being suffered by some of his young patients might be related to the fact that every one of them was living in a FEMA trailer. On May 17, 2007, a senior DHS official emailed the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), the Administrator, and the Deputy Administrator of FEMA: “Can you work with FEMA to do a quick assessment of the facts associated with this story and let me know what you think? Is this a real medical concern? If so, how serious? Remedy?” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 41 Eight minutes later, the Acting Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate also emailed the CMO: “Reference yesterday’s CBS report that a Bayou Le Batre physician has identified what he believes is an ailment trend among travel trailer residents, which he attributes to formaldehyde. While the study we commissioned on the formaldehyde problem by CDC and EPA would seem to dispute that, I am nevertheless interested in arranging to have a formal federal medical assessment of this individual’s evidence and claims, to determine their validity and if further health and safety actions on the part of FEMA may be warranted. Before reaching out to the obvious candidate agency, HHS, request your recommendation on an approach.” Later that day, the FEMA Deputy Administrator emailed the head of OHA: “We’ve previously had CDC conduct a study. Welcome fresh look from [the head of OHA] and his team.” That same day, the CMO emailed a CDC official: “ATSDR did a nice environmental exposure study in response to a FEMA request…which showed conclusively that ventilating a new trailer could obviate the problems with new, manufacturingrelated formaldehyde concentrations. We may need some further suggestions from a clinical tox perspective, and wonder how we might go about enlisting the help of you and your associates with expertise in the matter, hopefully to put it to rest, but more importantly to make sure we are not missing anything.” FEMA officials were apparently still unaware of the second CDC letter, which limited the reliance that should be placed on the first ATSDR study. By May 18, 2007, the CMO was able to email FEMA officials that he had been in contact with CDC and had appointed an OHA team to work with CDC and others “to get to the ground truth on this.” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 42 Meanwhile, FEMA officials in the Gulf Coast were reporting that, after being down during the winter, complaints about formaldehyde were picking up, with 28 complaints in the past couple of days: “Further, occupants are now starting to request that we test their unit for formaldehyde levels.” FEMA Gulf Coast officials reported their plan was to explain to occupants that their workforce was not qualified to do formaldehyde testing and instead continue to recommend ventilation and swapping units when that did not work and added: “But, we need this position to be confirmed with HQ and the Chief Medical Office.” The Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, replied: “Don’t have a strong opinion on this. Will support whatever response/interdiction strategy OGCR [Office of Gulf Coast Recovery] and OHA jointly determine.” By May 25, 2007, the OHA team and CDC had already reached initial agreement on a series of actions that were needed to address the formaldehyde problem. These consisted of a statistically valid sampling of occupied trailers looking at formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a medical evaluation through interviews with trailer occupants, a toxicological review recommending target levels based on past and ongoing research, and an engineering review looking for long term engineering solutions for formaldehyde in trailers. Thus, the critical questions concerning the health threat in occupied trailers were now being asked after more than a year. By May 30, 2007, after discussions with CDC and FEMA officials, the OHA team had further defined the areas of inquiry that CDC would be requested to perform. These areas included how the government should determine whether excessive levels of formaldehyde or other substances were contributing to noted adverse health effects on residents of FEMAprovided travel trailers; the reasonable target levels for mitigating both long-term and short-term health effects; whether the CDC recommended that occupants be relocated from trailers that cannot be mitigated to the above recommended level; the practical trailer engineering mechanisms to reach the target levels; and the continuing mitigation requirements recommended by the CDC, such as testing and monitoring formaldehyde FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 43 levels in occupied trailers. The following day the OHA team and FEMA officials discussed the plan in detail with CDC officials. By June 6, 2007, a FEMA executive summary of the four tasks to be requested of CDC was complete. These were: 1. 2. 3. 4. “Determine the levels of certain air quality measures (including formaldehyde, molds and airborne bacteria) for a representative sample of these trailers, under actual use conditions, in order to assist FEMA in making short-term risk management decisions concerning continued habitation of these trailers. The goal of this requirement is to determine actual conditions in the field.” “Develop a protective indoor air level for formaldehyde for various time­ of-residence periods, to help inform FEMA in risk management decisions concerning immediate and future habitation of travel trailers.” “Identify any practical mechanisms or engineering solutions for these trailers to reach target levels that would ensure safety/health of residents.” “Determine whether there is an association between poor indoor air quality in FEMA trailers and adverse health effects in children who live in these trailers.” FEMA Delays in Obtaining Testing Assistance From CDC Problems with FEMA administrative procedures significantly delayed the agreements needed for CDC to proceed with the project, which, in turn, delayed the start of testing by about 6 weeks. As early as June 7, 2007, one of the FEMA officials involved in the testing program had emailed the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, asking whether, now that the definition of the tasks to be performed by CDC was complete, someone could start drafting the “appropriate FEMA task document for CDC.” CDC officials told us that they had notified FEMA early on that CDC would not be able to start any substantive work without the proper authorizations from FEMA, especially a letter of request to the CDC Director from the FEMA Administrator, and funding documents. The Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, immediately emailed the appropriate persons, including a note that: “We need to quickly formalize a funding mechanism with CDC, to support their engagement in the formaldehyde issue.” By June 15, 2007, a proposed letter from the FEMA Administrator to the CDC Director requesting engagement of CDC in addressing the four formaldehyde issues had been drafted, and the Administrator and his deputy had been briefed on the formaldehyde issues and the proposal for FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 44 CDC involvement. By June 19th, a few changes had been made to the draft request letter for CDC and by June 25th, FEMA staff reported that they hoped the letter would go out the next week. Meanwhile funding documents for the requested CDC effort were also being completed, since “the real task will not begin until the IAA [interagency agreement] is in place.” On July 2, 2007, a copy of the draft letter was sent to CDC with the note that there might still be changes in the letter, but probably not in scope. CDC, of course, needed more than just a “likely-to-get-out” draft request before they could proceed. By July 3rd, the FEMA staff who were in contact with CDC were asking to know when the letter might be signed since the CDC staff who were writing their own Director’s response letter “want to be ready to respond quickly.” By July 10, 2007, the head of the OHA team was emailing the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, warning that since a congressional committee was scheduling a formaldehyde hearing for the next week: “I think this is all the more reason that we need to do whatever can be done to get CDC their official start letter from FEMA.” One of the FEMA contacts for the letter then wrote: “Letter is in final concurrence. Pushing to have final signed ASAP.” But that same day other FEMA staff reported: “The letter to CDC is mired in bureaucracy.” On July 11, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, DHS OHA, emailed the FEMA Deputy Administrator to mention that he had been talking to the head of the OHA formaldehyde team: “…after we heard about the invitation to testimony that you have for next week. [The head of the team] mentioned that the letter from FEMA going to the CDC requesting CDC’s help with the environmental study, etc., has not been sent yet as the cost analysis and clearance process had not been completed. …Evidently the CDC has also been asked by the committee what it is doing to work with FEMA on the issue…” The FEMA Deputy Administrator then emailed the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate: “What’s the story on this letter to CDC? Have we not sent it? Is there an issue?” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 45 To which the Acting Assistant Administrator responded: “Our staff continue to work with the CFO [Chief Financial Officer] to establish a funding vehicle for this effort. Will have a more detailed update later.” On July 20, 2007, the CDC received the hard-copy letter from the FEMA Administrator to the CDC Director. It had taken approximately 45 days from the time that FEMA finalized the tasks to be requested of CDC until the CDC received the letter requesting that the tasks be performed. Testing Program for Occupied Trailers Commences Once the necessary FEMA documentation was completed, the formaldehyde-testing program moved forward. By the end of July, CDC officials had completed a site visit to the Gulf Coast area to “gather information in order to draft a protocol and sampling plan.” However, by early August 2007, it became clear that CDC would need to use contractors for the testing that was planned, since the CDC NIOSH element would not be able to perform the required testing activity. This may have led to additional delays. FEMA reported that CDC would have a challenge getting these tests contracted because of the “timing in relationship to end of fiscal year.” On August 16, 2007, the FEMA interagency agreement with CDC was completed. By September 10, 2007, some FEMA officials were already requesting that the contracting officer issue a delinquency notice to CDC because testing had not started as scheduled. As other FEMA officials had noted: “we are losing some of the best time of the year to test as the heat and humidity are high.” By October 12, 2007, CDC had announced the contract for testing of FEMA trailers and had selected a contractor to perform the tests. Testing was scheduled to begin in the Gulf Coast region in late October, and the testing contractor proceeded to get staff and equipment on site to commence the testing. And then the testing program came to a complete stop. FEMA Officials Stop the Testing Program for Occupied Trailers Even after the CDC contractor was in place, FEMA officials’ concerns about what their strategy should be once the testing results became public caused FEMA to halt the testing effort before it could get underway. This resulted in yet another delay, nearly 2 months in this case, in the testing of occupied units. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 46 For many months, FEMA officials had discussed what test results would mean and what could and should be said about the results of testing in occupied units. As far back as August 2006, a FEMA official had written Texas FEMA staff, who had wanted to test their occupied trailers for formaldehyde, that: “…my concern [is] that even with the test, what are you going to use to determine if it is OK or not? There are no standards for residential safety and FEMA is not an agency to set one.” On September 24, 2007, the FEMA Deputy Administrator emailed the OHA and FEMA officials involved in the testing effort: “…are the NIOSH and CDC efforts different or the same? Are they going to work just with unoccupied trailers or with occupied? Travel trailers only or also with mobile homes? Is the RVIA [Recreation Vehicle Industry Association] resolution applicable to TTs? Is that the point? On the CDC assessment, is its primary objective how to help us with inventory or to gain information that will help us ensure the safety of disaster victims? I would like a timeline of what to expect from who and when. We meet with the Secretary tomorrow. Would be worthwhile to provide an update. Will need this info to ensure that I understand where we are.” The next day the Deputy Administrator, having received a response including a timeline that predicted the testing would be conducted from October 7 to 20, 2007, emailed the same officials: “Looks like sampling completed on Oct 20th, but analysis will not be provided to FEMA until mid-December. Is that correct? What is the communications plan? It would seem that our largest communications challenge will come once we have the sampling analysis. Yet, presuming that we want to communicate the results of the sampling, how can we have the comms plan two weeks ahead of the sampling assessment? You are working in MS with CDC. Presume that sampling will take place in LA as well. I am still looking for something that will define level of ‘safe’ so that results of sampling have useful value. [OHA team] indicates the expert panel will not provide that clarity, but may provide ‘relative risk’ information, for whatever that means. I am concerned that we have not given enough discussion of where we will be at the end of sampling. I am concerned that we will have sampling data, but won’t know how to apply it. We likely will not have ‘safe’ but will have ‘relative risk’. What is that? How do we think, FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 47 communicate and develop policy? I would like to have this discussion now as opposed to end of October. I would like to meet with you and [OHA] on this issue when able. Once again, I appreciate the issue of deploy-dispose, but am more focused on safety aspects and ability to communicate those issues to current and previous occupants of these housing units.” On October 21, 2007, having viewed the October 19th Weekly Update on formaldehyde testing, the Deputy Administrator wrote: “Thanks for the update. Have some concern for proper launch of test of occupied TTs. Will want assurance that we are ready, and opportunity to advise on Hill and at DHS. Still concerned we will have validated testing results and no standard to which apply. Presume 1.0 ppm will become de facto standard. Want to discuss before green light is given to proceed.” The Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate responded: “1.0 ppm too high, at least as a standard for future purchases. We are using .015 as our current de facto standard for new purchases. This is .001 ppm below the NIOSH cellular-effect level. If we select a current habitation safety standard above .015, we will need to defensibly reconcile the two.” The next day, a FEMA official coordinating formaldehyde efforts wrote: “The numbers that are ‘out there’ are 0.1ppm, which is the NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] standard and is further supported by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The California Air Resources Board and Dept. of Health have set 0.1ppm as their ‘action guideline,’ meaning above that requires active mitigation. In the absence of a medical/scientific agency coming forward with a contrary number, as you suggest 0.1 ppm will likely become the de facto standard. I’ve asked DHS [the OHA team] to come over this week for a discussion on risk, the standard and what we might expect from the Expert Panel. I propose we have this discussion before considering approval of the CDC Sampling Plan. And we have not yet seen a draft of that sampling plan.” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 48 The Deputy Administrator responded: “All good info. I do want a discussion here before a sampling plan is approved. Want to ensure that we have our media and Hill message ready, are engaged with our State partners, and have DHS up to speed. We need to look forward to anticipate the readings we are going to get, compared to the 0.1 ppm standard, and how we are going to respond when and if that level is exceeded. This is a big deal that merits a brief to the Chief [FEMA Administrator] to gain his approval. I’ve included [a public affairs officer] on this email to ensure that this ratchets up on the agenda in External Affairs.” One week later, on October 29, 2007, the CDC liaison with FEMA emailed several of his FEMA official contacts: “I received a telephone call on Friday from [the OHA team leaders] in which they told me that in briefing the [FEMA Deputy Administrator] that a decision had been made that FEMA wanted to put our sampling on hold until they could determine a ‘level of exposure number for formaldehyde that all or most reasonable people would consider safe.’ This being necessary in case we found numbers in our sampling that it was determined would preclude further occupancy of the unit. I need something official from you as project officer that relays this request to me so that I can contact our contractor and put them on hold again. You know that we made an accommodation last week and delayed the project for a week at your request so that FEMA could do messaging around the sampling issue; this delay will no doubt cause our contractor some hardship and I would expect that they will charge the contract due to expenses that they have and will incur as a result of this delay. Please let me know ASAP what your wishes are.” Later that day, the FEMA formaldehyde project coordinator emailed the Deputy Administrator: “This is a courtesy notification that we have initiated the action to stop CDC work on the assessment of occupied trailers until we have an approved FEMA engagement plan. We are aware that action may result in additional costs beyond the planned contract and we accept that. Tuesday we will back up the initial verbal notification with written notification via the KO/COTR [Contracting Officer/Contracting Officer’s Technical FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 49 Representative] mechanisms. In the meantime we have worked with our EA [External Affairs] staff and the CDC EA staff to draft a ‘Response to Query Only’ statement on the reason for the delay.” The Deputy Administrator replied: “I am fine with the stop-work notification. As we discussed last week, this is a big step in our process that I do not think we are ready in all respects to take.” The FEMA Public Affairs Office would later issue the following statement: “Testing was to have begun the first week of November, but previously scheduled appointments have been postponed until health and environmental experts finalize the testing process and action levels for responding to the results of the testing are determined.” CDC officials told us that the contract they had with the contractor on site in the Gulf Coast to conduct testing did not allow for the type of stop-work order that FEMA officials wanted. The contract had to be canceled using the standard clause that allows contracts to be canceled “at the convenience of the Government.” In such cases, the government has to compensate the contractor for the expenses it has incurred to date in the contract. In this case, once the contractor had pulled back its equipment and staff from the testing area, the total cost to the government for canceling the contract came to approximately $150,000. Testing Effort for Occupied Trailers Gets Completed When FEMA officials were ready for the testing process to continue, CDC re-advertised for contractors to conduct the testing in the Gulf Coast area. On November 16, 2007, the CDC contact emailed FEMA officials: “Please be assured that we are proceeding with all haste to put in place a new contract for the formaldehyde sampling of the 500 units in MS and LA, and at the present time we have adequate funds to proceed to contract.” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 50 On December 11, 2007, he notified FEMA that: “The contracting officer has just notified me that an award of the contract for the testing in occupied FEMA temporary housing units has just been made to…a large environmental testing firm.” CDC officials told us that, because they were fortunate in getting more competition when they competed this second effort at a testing contract, the second bid award was significantly lower than the first award had been; the savings more than covered the approximately $150,000 in close­ out charges that had to be paid for canceling the first contract. Formaldehyde testing of 519 randomly selected occupied trailers in Mississippi and Louisiana started on December 21, 2007, and was completed on January 23, 2008. From that date, the contractor had 10 days to wrap up its work and get the database to CDC. CDC officials had planned to complete their analysis in 10 to 14 days. On February 14, 2008, 22 months after early reports of formaldehyde problems from occupants of FEMA trailers, the FEMA Administrator and the CDC Director held the press conference to announce preliminary results of FEMA-sponsored CDC testing of FEMA trailers and mobile homes in Louisiana and Mississippi. At that conference, the CDC Director stated that CDC had found approximately one-third of the housing units had formaldehyde levels that could cause irritation and symptoms such as runny nose, cough, or even breathing problems for residents who were vulnerable to formaldehyde such as young children, older people, or individuals who already have airway diseases. Furthermore, around 5% of the FEMA units had formaldehyde levels that were so high that even residents without vulnerabilities could experience such formaldehyde-caused symptoms. The FEMA Administrator then announced that: “As a result of these preliminary findings FEMA is going to continue our aggressive action to provide for the safety and well­ being of the residents of these travel trailers by finding alternative housing.” In addition, he stated in response to a question about future emergency housing plans: “We will not ever use trailers again. We may use mobile homes…But we will not use trailers again.” FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 51 The CDC study was released as interim findings on February 29, 2008, and in its final version on July 2, 2008. The following table, which is slightly abridged from page 24 of the CDC final report, presents an overview of the results of the formaldehyde tests. CDC Formaldehyde Test of Occupied Trailers Number in Stratum Number in Sample Formal­ dehyde GM1 (ppb)2 Range (ppb) Gulf Stream 14,624 123 104 Forest River 3,220 36 Fleetwood Fleetwood CA 2,371 Brand Travel Trailers Park Models Mobile Homes 1,699 Weighted Percentage >= 100 ppb >= 300 ppb 3-590 56% 9% 82 17-510 42% 6% 47 39 3-140 6% 0% 39 43 7-300 13% 3% Pilgrim 1,584 39 108 25-520 51% 3% Keystone 1,395 38 102 23-480 53% 11% Other Type Total3 15,637 38 360 74 11-330 37% 3% 53 33 3-170 6% 0% 37 90 48 11-160 16% 0% 42 78 14-320 36% 2% 27 69 53 11-120 4% 0% 519 Notes 77 3-590 38% 5% Silver Creek Other Type Total Cavalier Other Type Total Grand Totals 40,530 224 809 1,033 921 4,486 5,407 46,970 1. GM-geometric mean 2. ppb-parts per billion (Divided by 1000 to get parts per million) 3. Type totals include summations. Source: DHS-OIG abridgement of a table in the Final Report on Formaldehyde Levels in FEMA Supplied Travel Trailers, Park Models, and Mobile Homes issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on July 2, 2008. Of the 519 mobile homes, park models, and travel trailers tested, more than 170 units (approximately one-third) showed formaldehyde concentrations at or in excess of 100 ppb, “the level at which health effects have been described in sensitive persons.” Twenty-one of the units tested, more than 4%, had readings of more than three times that level, or greater than 300 ppb. Six of the trailers tested had formaldehyde readings in FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 52 excess of 400 ppb. The overall mean formaldehyde reading for the units tested was 77 ppb, with a range of 3 ppb to 590 ppb of formaldehyde. Number of Units Tested by Formaldehyde Concentration at Each Level 60 50 Number of Units 40 30 20 10 85 10 5 12 5 14 5 16 5 18 5 20 5 22 5 24 5 26 5 28 5 30 5 32 5 34 5 36 5 38 5 40 5 42 5 44 5 46 5 48 5 50 5 52 5 54 5 56 5 58 5 45 65 5 25 0 ppb (Parts Per Billion) The tested levels varied greatly by type of unit and by manufacturer. In general, travel trailers had significantly higher average formaldehyde levels than park models and mobile homes, but all types of units tested had some units that tested at greater than 100 ppb. Also, different travel trailer manufacturers’ units had very different levels of formaldehyde. The lowest mean reading for a manufacturer of travel trailers was 39 ppb, with a range of 3 to 140 ppb, while the highest mean for a manufacturer of travel trailers was 108 ppb, with a range of 25 to 520 ppb. Of the six travel trailer manufacturers that supplied the most units to FEMA, only 6% of the best-performing manufacturer’s units exceeded 100 ppb and none exceeded 300 ppb, and of the second-best manufacturer’s units, 13% exceeded 100 ppb and 3% exceeded 300 ppb. More than half of the tested units from the three poorest performing manufacturers exceeded 100 ppb; 51%, 56%, and 53%, respectively. In addition, more of their units exceeded 300 ppb in the tests; 3%, 9%, and 11% respectively. Park model manufacturers’ units fared better than most travel trailer manufacturers in formaldehyde testing. The single separately tested manufacturer of park model units had a mean of 33 ppb of formaldehyde for its units tested, with a range of 3 to 170 ppb. Only 6% of its units exceeded 100 ppb in testing and none exceeded 300 ppb. A combined group of park models from other manufacturers, whose units were less FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 53 used by FEMA, had a mean of 48 ppb and a range of 11 to 160 ppb. Sixteen percent of this group tested at greater than 100 ppb, but none tested at greater than 300 ppb. Mobile home testing results were higher than park model results but lower than the results of most travel trailer manufacturers. The only separately tested manufacturer of mobile homes had a mean of 78 ppb of formaldehyde, with a range of 14 to 320 ppb. More than one-third of its units exceeded 100 ppb of formaldehyde in the tests, and 2% of its units tested at greater than 300 ppb. Since fewer mobile homes from other manufacturers were used in the Gulf Coast region, their units were grouped together in one test group. That combined group had a mean of 53 ppb, with a range of 11 to 120 ppb. Only 4% of these units tested at greater than 100 ppb and none tested at greater than 300 ppb. In general, CDC’s formaldehyde study shows a fairly wide range of exposure levels. All of the park models tested had a mean result of less than 50 ppb, as did the travel trailers of the two best-scoring manufacturers. The two groups of mobile homes tested both had means that were in excess of 50 ppb, but not by as much as the four poorestscoring manufacturers of travel trailers, three of whom had tested units with a mean of more than 100 ppb. The mixed group of mobile homes was the best of the tested groups in percentage of units scoring more than 100 ppb, with only 4% doing so. However, the best-scoring manufacturer of park models and the best-scoring manufacturer of travel trailers tied with only 6% of their tested units scoring greater than 100 ppb, while the only individually tested manufacturer of mobile homes had 36% of its units test at greater than 100 ppb. The CDC study also noted that formaldehyde readings are higher during warmer weather and tend to decrease as a trailer ages. The CDC results, which were measured during the winter and only after the trailers had been lived in for about 2 years, may therefore under-represent the long-term exposure levels of FEMA trailer residents. The report concluded: “On the basis of the data reported here and in previous scientific reports and publications about adverse health effects associated with exposure to elevated formaldehyde levels, CDC recommended that FEMA relocate Gulf Coast residents displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita and still living in trailers.” Causes of Delay in the Testing Effort for Occupied Units FEMA administrative procedures and a lack of planning on how to announce the results of testing and its implications delayed testing of FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 54 occupied units by nearly 4 months. But this appears to have been more the result of a lack of management effort rather than an intentional effort to delay testing until winter. We did not conclude that FEMA officials were trying to delay the CDC testing to a time when the results would be better. Although delaying the testing until the cooler weather of December and January probably did result in lower formaldehyde readings than would have been the case if the testing had been conducted in late summer or early fall, there is no evidence that FEMA officials delayed the process in order to obtain such lower formaldehyde results. Lower formaldehyde readings from testing would not necessarily have worked to FEMA’s interests. As one FEMA official noted in an email to other FEMA officials: “Conventional wisdom suggests that FEMA is withholding information to keep occupants in the trailers, yet in fact nothing is further from the truth.…Cynics would argue that is why we’ve ‘delayed’ testing until the cooler weather. Again, untrue. …FEMA doesn’t need to test. We want Katrina victims out of travel trailers. We have acknowledged that there may be elevated levels of formaldehyde. The industry and their consumers have known this for years. And we don’t dispute that elevated formaldehyde levels have health effects. We have already researched and recommended mitigation strategies and urged occupants to work with us to explore and accept alternate housing options. Unfortunately, the remaining occupants are overwhelmingly reluctant to accept the options. Short of testing, and requiring federal actions, we are running out of administrative authorities to move or house these remaining Katrina victims. In the meantime, we are working closely with CDC to try and articulate a federal standard, and continue to lead research in mitigation strategies. This is just being smart as the largest block consumer and holder of travel trailers. It is not FEMA’s place to determine ‘safe.’ It would be nice to have defined for us a ‘safe’ level for future application of future THUs [temporary housing units] or disposal of current THUs. But the public health community should test, apply the results to the body of scientific knowledge and communicate guidance to all consumers and occupants, including FEMA.” Even though we did not find any indications that FEMA officials wanted to delay the conduct of testing, actions and lack of action by FEMA officials significantly delayed the testing of occupied units. In general, there was no urgency to test occupied units until a senior DHS official FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 55 directed that medical professionals from the OHA become involved in the process. Before that time, most of the key officials’ experience, focus, goals, and frameworks of reference were in the areas of disaster recovery, legal liabilities, emergency housing, or scientific studies. Their primary focus over the prior 14 months of formaldehyde-related efforts was, unfortunately, not on the medical conditions of the occupants of the trailers. But, within 10 days of assigning medically qualified OHA staff to the formaldehyde problem, FEMA’s focus finally came to rest on the key actions that were needed. These included a statistically valid sample of occupied trailers being tested for formaldehyde and other VOCs, a medical evaluation through interviews with trailer occupants, a toxicological review recommending target levels based on past and ongoing research, and an engineering review looking for long-term engineering solutions for formaldehyde in trailers. Having officials with the right background and expertise helped FEMA focus its formaldehyde effort on the critical issues. But even after FEMA began to focus on the critical issues, it would be 5 months before the first step of testing occupied trailers was ready to commence. Most of that time was needed to work out administrative details between FEMA and CDC because there was no existing interagency agreement in place between FEMA and CDC to undertake this type of health study. FEMA was not able to respond adeptly to such a situation calling for quick administrative action. It took more than 6 weeks to issue a formal request to CDC asking for their assistance. CDC officials, while not critical of FEMA, told us that they were rather surprised at how long it took FEMA to get the formal letter of request to CDC, considering that FEMA officials had acted as if the matter was urgent. Furthermore, CDC officials had to keep asking FEMA to “shake loose” the letter that they had previously warned was necessary to get the effort underway. FEMA actions delayed CDC testing, but did not otherwise significantly interfere with it. We asked all of the CDC officials that we interviewed whether FEMA officials had in any way tried to influence the scientific conduct or outcomes of the study. Every one of the CDC officials we interviewed stated that in no way had FEMA officials made any attempt whatsoever to influence the scientific conduct or outcomes of the formaldehyde study. There had only been some minor conflicts concerning public affairs efforts. Once the testing process was in place, a questionable FEMA decision set the process back by another 2 months. The Deputy Administrator caused work on the testing of occupied units to be stopped just as testing was FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 56 about to begin, resulting in the testing contract being canceled for the convenience of the government and resulting in more than an 8-week delay before another contract could be issued and a contractor put in place. The Deputy Administrator had the testing stopped because, in the absence of needed standards for “safe” levels of formaldehyde in trailers, it would be extremely difficult to communicate to the occupants of trailers just what degree of health threat they were facing. Also a plan was needed for how FEMA would respond and what actions it would take if the testing found that formaldehyde levels exceeded acceptable levels. In addition, the Deputy Administrator wanted to have a “message” ready for Congress and the media. All of these issues could and should have been anticipated prior to the commencement of the testing efforts, or could have been completed concurrently with the testing process. In any case, there never was, and still has not been, a determination of what constitutes a “safe” level of formaldehyde in travel trailers, and testing eventually went forward under a second contract without any such determination. Usually, such an arbitrary stop-work and contract cancellation order could have cost the government significant damages. However, in this case it worked out favorably because the second contract’s costs were lower than the first by more than the amount in damages that had to be paid to the first contractor. More important though, terminating the first contract delayed the testing process until winter when formaldehyde levels and, therefore, test results would be lower and delayed the announcement of the formaldehyde conditions to occupants by another 2 months. Conclusions Initiating testing of occupied trailers to determine the nature, causes, extent, and impact of the formaldehyde problem took far longer than necessary. Part of the reason is that the officials who were originally managing the program did not have the medical background or focus to take the necessary actions in an effective and expeditious manner, although they did attempt to reach out to scientific experts. Whenever FEMA clients face health or safety problems, it is important that qualified consultants quickly be made part of the problem management team. In the case of health issues, this means bringing in medically qualified persons. Once OHA personnel were part of the management team, they were able to help FEMA focus its efforts on medical priorities, as was appropriate in this case. OHA may not always have adequate resources to assist FEMA in such cases, but FEMA needs access to the type of expertise that they brought to the team. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 57 Health issues are a frequent component of disasters, and FEMA has interagency agreements to address many related health program needs. However, there was no such agreement in place for performing the types of testing and analysis that were needed in the case of the FEMA trailers’ formaldehyde problems. It is likely that such problems and needs will occur in the future. Given the amount of time and problems encountered in putting a single individual agreement in place, it would be beneficial to have a standing interagency agreement to provide such testing services in the future. The decision to stop testing occupied trailers to work on improving the FEMA message and provide trailer occupants with meaningful information explaining how to apply the data was not justified by the circumstances. The necessary preparation should have been done long before testing commenced or could have been done concurrently while allowing testing to go forward. Testing to determine the prevalence, extent, and nature of health threats should not be held up in order to develop or improve messages. Recommendations We recommend that FEMA: Recommendation #8: Develop a standing agreement with OHA or another organization to provide medical consultants as needed to help design approaches for dealing with client health issues in FEMA operations. Recommendation #9: Establish a standing interagency agreement with the CDC or another qualified agency to provide testing and evaluation services for future health threat issues. Recommendation #10: Develop policy and related guidelines that make clear that identification and analysis efforts related to health threats to FEMA clients are not to be stopped or held up except when absolutely necessary. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 58 Epilogue – Actions and Efforts Related to Formaldehyde in Trailers After the February 14, 2008, News Conference Although the scope of this report ends with the February 14, 2008, formaldehyde news conference, FEMA has subsequently continued efforts to address the formaldehyde problem and has instituted new efforts. There also have been a number of ongoing efforts and some new joint efforts with CDC. These efforts were outside the scope of our review and many are ongoing and still changing. All of the occupants whose trailers had been part of the formaldehyde testing by the CDC contractor were encouraged to have an individual “explanation session” with CDC and FEMA officials. CDC and FEMA representatives visited the occupants of the trailers and described how their unit had fared in the tests, what the test results implied, and what housing options were available to them. In addition, FEMA offered formaldehyde testing to all of the occupants whose units had not been included in the original sample of 519 trailers, but only when they requested such testing. The testing was conducted by the same firm that had performed the testing of the 519 units in the original tests, but under a FEMA contract rather than a CDC contract. As of October 15, 2008, the occupants of more than 3,500 FEMA trailers had taken advantage of this offer. FEMA’s goal was to find alternative housing for all residents of temporary housing units in the Gulf Coast area. Many of the occupants were in trailers that had been located on their property while they repaired their homes. Some of the occupants had completed repairs to the point where they could move back into their homes. It was not that difficult for those individuals to give up their trailer. But others were not so fortunate. Repairs to their homes were not yet complete because of disputes over insurance payments, the slowness of some assistance programs, the extent of damage to their residences, or other problems. Many of those individuals did not want to give up their FEMA trailers and move to alternative housing. Doing so would make it more difficult to complete the repairs to their homes, and some feared that moving away from their partially finished homes would leave them vulnerable to vandals and thieves. Other occupants of FEMA trailers were located on group or commercial sites. Many of those individuals and families had been renters before the hurricanes hit. Many were low-income families who were faced with the fact that much of the low-cost rental stock had been destroyed and the remaining rental properties had greatly escalated in price as a consequence of the reduced supply. FEMA offered alternative housing, such as FEMA-funded rentals and motel rooms, but many were reluctant to take these offers owing to doubts about what would happen to them when FEMA rental assistance was discontinued. Nevertheless, FEMA and local officials were successful in transferring most trailer occupants back into their private residences or to alternative rented houses, FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 59 apartments, or motels. By October 15, 2008, only 11,461 households remained in FEMA trailers. FEMA is also working to develop a supply of emergency housing units that do not present significant formaldehyde problems. Some of the existing FEMA housing stock, particularly mobile homes, park models, and travel trailers from some manufacturers, have lower formaldehyde levels. All of the FEMA mobile homes were required to be constructed to HUD standards, including HUD restrictions on formaldehyde. Meeting those standards, however, does not mean that a unit will be below a formaldehyde level that is acceptable to FEMA. The HUD standards were originally designed to keep mobile homes below 400 ppb of formaldehyde. Although the 69 FEMA mobile homes tested by the CDC were below 400 ppb, one was greater than 300 ppb and around 25% of the units tested at more than 100 ppb. FEMA park model units actually fared better than FEMA mobile homes in the CDC tests. None of the 90 park model units tested at more than 300 ppb formaldehyde and only around 10% of the units tested at more than 100 ppb. FEMA officials are having the mobile homes and park models that are in their usable inventory tested for formaldehyde and certified by a qualified contractor. Those units that have results within an acceptable level are being offered to states suffering disasters, such as Iowa after the 2008 floods. The levels of formaldehyde in the units are made known to state officials and the states have the option of rejecting any units that are above their respective acceptable levels. In addition, FEMA officials have developed specifications and designs for procuring future emergency housing stock that will not pose a formaldehyde threat of more than 16 ppb. Previously, in July 2007, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate had directed that the implementation of contract specifications for the new park model units be halted because the plans had included using the HUD mobile home standards for formaldehyde in materials as the standards for the new park models. He directed that: “Those specs will not suffice. Please suspend any purchases until this issue is resolved.” By October 21, 2007, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, had announced, “We are using .015 as our current de facto standard for new purchases. This is .001 ppm below the NIOSH cellular-effect level.” There is some question as to the validity of this “cellular-effect” level. CDC officials told us that NIOSH officials made this determination because it was the lowest level that the metering devices available at that time could measure, rather than being based on any particular test data. Nevertheless, the 15 ppb specification, which has been subsequently revised to 16 ppb, is an extremely ambitious specification and if met, would make FEMA trailers among the most FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 60 formaldehyde-free of any new trailers. Several trailer manufacturers, in testimony before a congressional committee, testified that they did not believe such a specification would be workable. In August 2008, however, FEMA officials told us that the majority of the park models being produced under the current contract are meeting this standard and that the rest are being sent back to the contractor for corrective work. FEMA’s intention is to purchase park models and mobile homes that will all be constructed to the new standard of 16 ppb, or less, in tested formaldehyde readings. In addition to the testing of the 519 occupied trailers in Louisiana and Mississippi, FEMA and CDC have cooperated in developing further research that examines the causes and effects of the formaldehyde problem. These efforts should lead to future trailers being much safer in terms of formaldehyde. On April 24, 2008, CDC released a study titled “Assessment of health complaints among pediatric residents living in FEMA temporary housing in Hancock County, Mississippi.” The purpose of the study was to determine whether there was a relationship between families living in FEMA trailers and their children having air-quality related illnesses. The study found similar illness patterns between children who had lived in FEMA trailers and children who had not. However, the availability of pre-Katrina data was limited and the fact that all of the children tested would likely have health effects from just living through the hurricane and its aftereffects placed limitations on the study. In a FEMA and CDC joint effort, sometimes referred to as the “chain-saw study,” to examine the causes of formaldehyde in trailers, four travel trailers from four different manufacturers were disassembled and a total of 45 formaldehydeemitting component parts were shipped to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California for analysis. The report of this analysis was released on May 8, 2008. Before disassembly, these four units had daytime formaldehyde readings of 35 to 78 ppb. The tests found that 44 of the 45 tested components actually met the HUD standards for components of mobile homes, even though the components of these travel trailers were not required to meet the standards. The study concluded that elevated formaldehyde levels in travel trailers are most likely due to the cumulative effect of too much formaldehyde-emitting material in too small a space with insufficient ventilation, even though construction materials individually meet standards generally used in the building industry. CDC officials told us of several additional ongoing or planned joint efforts of FEMA and CDC. These include a study of mitigation methods that might be used to reduce the formaldehyde levels of existing trailers; a “chain-saw” study of 10 to 15 more units including mobile homes, park models, and travel trailers to determine what factors allow some to have low levels of formaldehyde and what factors cause others to have high levels; and a study to validate a type of meter FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 61 that would allow for quick and easy testing of formaldehyde levels of FEMA trailers in the field. FEMA officials also reported that CDC and FEMA are making an initial combined investment of $14 million on a health registry and children’s health study to further examine and monitor the health impacts of formaldehyde on the subject population. Conclusions FEMA and CDC have undertaken significant efforts to address current formaldehyde exposure of trailer occupants and improve the formaldehyde exposure in future emergency housing. FEMA offered formaldehyde testing services to current occupants of FEMA trailers and has actively encouraged the occupants to accept alternative housing. FEMA is also working aggressively to develop new low-formaldehyde trailers. These development efforts, if successful, could set new standards of excellence in air quality for trailers in the industry. FEMA and CDC have supported and conducted research that has given new insight into the causes of formaldehyde problems and the steps that need to be taken to address such problems. Planned future research should help address the causes and effects of formaldehyde exposure and may assist in the development of much-needed residential formaldehyde standards. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 62 Management Comments and OIG Analysis FEMA concurred with all of the recommendations we offered to improve efforts to promote and protect the health and safety of its clients. During the audit and after our fieldwork, FEMA officials took steps to address formaldehyde and other health and safety issues in emergency housing units. Based on FEMA’s comments and actions to date, all of the report’s recommendations have been resolved. FEMA will apprise us of its progress in implementing all of the recommendations within 90 days. We will close each recommendation when FEMA provides evidence that the recommendation has been fully implemented. Two issues raised in FEMA’s response to our draft report merit further clarification. FEMA officials believe the report was “unreasonable” in stating that “the contracts that FEMA entered into to purchase housing units did not result in units that had currently acceptable levels of formaldehyde.” We agree that FEMA contracting officers at the time of purchase did not have knowledge of the problems that subsequently developed or of the importance of addressing such problems. We believe, however, that the report presents a reasonable analysis of one of the factors that allowed trailers with formaldehyde problems into the FEMA housing supply. Analysis of such factors is appropriate to determining what the causes of the formaldehyde problems were and what corrective actions would be needed for the future. FEMA officials also believe “the report does not adequately emphasize the compelling fact that there were no established formaldehyde standards for travel trailers and no consensus in the health and regulatory communities as to what constituted acceptable residential formaldehyde levels.” We agree that there is a lack of formaldehyde standards for travel trailers and confusion as to acceptable residential standards. We believe, however, that issue is appropriately addressed in the “Formaldehyde Standards” section of the report. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 63 Appendix A Purpose, Scope and Methodology This review was mandated by Congress under the terms of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (PL 110-161). Specifically, the 2008 Appropriations Omnibus Explanatory Statement provided that: “The IG is directed to investigate the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) policies and processes regarding formaldehyde in trailers purchased by the agency to house disaster victims. The IG shall investigate the process used by FEMA to collect and respond to health and safety concerns of trailer occupants; whether FEMA adequately notified occupants of potential health and safety concerns; and whether FEMA has proper controls and processes in place to deal with health and safety concerns of those living in trailers following disasters. The IG is to report its findings to the Committees on Appropriations, including any recommendations.” (Page 1026) and “Additionally, the Committees on Appropriations direct the Inspector General to report to the Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee regarding FEMA’s decision-making regarding formaldehyde in trailers.” (Page 1077) The objectives of our review were to determine: (1) how some of the FEMA emergency housing came to have formaldehyde problems; (2) when FEMA officials learned of the formaldehyde problems in the housing units; (3) what was done to protect housing residents and prevent further problems; and, (4) why it took as long as it did for FEMA officials to determine the extent of the formaldehyde problems in FEMA emergency housing units. The scope of our review included all FEMA actions and other significant events relating to formaldehyde in FEMA emergency housing units (mobile homes, travel trailers, and park models trailers) from procuring the first emergency housing units in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in early September 2005 through the joint FEMA/CDC press conference announcing the results of formaldehyde testing on February 14, 2008. We also sought relevant information related to those actions taken subsequent to that date that are clearly related to the reported actions and events. That additional information is reported in the epilogue section. We reviewed available files and documents relating to formaldehyde in FEMA emergency housing units, including all available FEMA email FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 64 Appendix A Purpose, Scope and Methodology documents from the period under review that included reference to the topic of formaldehyde. Quotes from these emails are referred to throughout this report. Because emails frequently have common errors of spelling or grammar, corrections were made as appropriate. However, in no case was the meaning or content of any email modified. We interviewed responsible officials from pertinent FEMA offices, including the Disaster Assistance Directorate, the Office of the Chief Counsel, the Logistics Management Directorate, the Occupational Safety and Health Office, the Gulf Coast Recovery Office, the Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office, and the Mississippi Transitional Recovery Office. We also interviewed officials from the DHS Office of Health Affairs, CDC, and ATSDR. We conducted fieldwork in Washington, DC; New Orleans and Baton Rouge, LA; Biloxi, MS; and Atlanta, GA. We conducted our review from February through October 2008 under authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. The findings and recommendations in our report were prepared independently of any pending or anticipated litigation, and our report was not drafted to satisfy the evidentiary standards of a court of law. It is the position of DHS that nothing in the OIG report is an admission for purposes of litigation. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 65 Appendix B Timeline of Key Events August 29, 2005 – Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Louisiana/Mississippi state line. September 3, 2005 – The first FEMA trailers arrived in the Gulf Coast region. September 10, 2005 – The first FEMA trailer in the Gulf Coast region was occupied. September 24, 2005 – Hurricane Rita made landfall on the Texas/Louisiana state line. November 11, 2005 – OSHA conducted formaldehyde tests on unoccupied FEMA trailers in Purvis, MS. March 16, 2006 – A Biloxi television station reported on formaldehyde problems in a FEMA trailer. FEMA officials were quoted by the press as requesting that…“if anyone suspects a serious problem [with formaldehyde] to call the FEMA maintenance number at 1-866-877­ 6075.” April 6, 2006 – A testing company found unacceptable formaldehyde levels in an occupied FEMA trailer. April 11, 2006 – A FEMA contractor tested a trailer’s formaldehyde levels at the occupant’s request. The results were high. May 17, 2006 – The Sierra Club issued a press release and reported they had tested occupied FEMA trailers, and formaldehyde levels, in most, ranged from approximately 100 ppb to more than 300 ppb. June 13, 2006 – Sierra Club officials wrote to the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, and recommended that FEMA test trailers to determine formaldehyde levels, supplement manufacturers’ warnings, and tell trailer occupants to vent their units. June 14, 2006 – FEMA OGC received Hillard v. United States, et al., Civ. Action No. 06-2576 (E.D. La.) and the case was assigned to a FEMA litigation attorney. The Hillard plaintiffs asserted that the trailers provided by FEMA contained dangerous levels of formaldehyde and sought class action status, $1 billion in damages, and injunctive relief. FEMA OGC advised that because of the lawsuit, FEMA persons dealing with FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 66 Appendix B Timeline of Key Events applicants on formaldehyde issues must coordinate with the FEMA litigation attorney assigned to the case and the Department of Justice. June 14, 2006 – In response to concerns regarding whether a disaster victim’s death might be related to formaldehyde in a trailer, a FEMA official sent out an email: “Has the Agency conducted our own testing of the units? If not we need to do so ASAP and put this issue to rest or remove people from harm.” June 15, 2006 – FEMA OGC responded: “Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK. While I agree that we should conduct testing, we should not do so until we are fully prepared to respond to the results. Once you get results and should they indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them.” June 16, 2006 – FEMA officials decided to address the complaining occupants on an individual basis. Occupants should be directed to air out their units, run their air conditioners and: “As a final recommendation, we would swap out the unit for a used, renovated unit which would not present the off-gassing problems experienced in the new units.…Further, OCG has advised that we do not do testing, which would imply FEMA’s ownership of this issue.” June 27, 2006 – A FEMA official emailed the Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate, and other FEMA officials, and stated that FEMA had to move past OCC’s objections to testing and needed to prepare a safety notice for emergency housing unit occupants. The Acting Deputy Administrator for Recovery responded: “I discussed this with [FEMA official] yesterday, and his recommendation, which I support, is to mission assign EPA to do a full assessment of the formaldehyde problem, and make recommendations. Agreed that you should not wait to post notices.” June 28, 2006 – EPA, FEMA, and ATSDR officials discussed the concept of formaldehyde testing. July – August 2006 – More than 268,000 formaldehyde brochures were sent to trailer occupants. The brochure described formaldehyde, its effects, and actions occupants should take to reduce formaldehyde levels. September 18, 2006 – An EPA contractor commenced testing neveroccupied trailers at baseline and under two ventilation methods: by FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 67 Appendix B Timeline of Key Events running the air-conditioning with the bathroom vents open and by opening the windows and vents. October 19, 2006 – The testing of unoccupied units by an EPA contractor was completed and the contractor processed the preliminary data. Late November 2006 – FEMA received the EPA testing data and forwarded the data approximately 1 week later to ATSDR for analysis. February 1, 2007 – ATSDR sent their “Health Consultation” report on the analysis of EPA testing results to FEMA stating: “In summary, the opening of windows and vents was effective in reducing formaldehyde concentrations below levels of health concern.” March 17, 2007 – ATSDR sent a letter to FEMA warning that the February 1, 2007, “Health Consultation” report did not address the fact that formaldehyde may cause cancer, the report had been completed without a policy review by the senior technical staff, and the report was incomplete and perhaps misleading. March 22, 2007 – The FEMA Mobile Home Operations (MHOPS) Maintenance Coordinator issued revised formaldehyde guidelines to MHOPS Field Staff for handling complaints. March 23, 2007 – A FEMA official informed Congress that FEMA was not aware of any significant health risks to trailer occupants. May 1, 2007 – A national news report aired a feature titled “Toxic Trailers.” May 17, 2007 – A senior DHS official sought DHS OHA involvement in the problem and OHA contacted CDC regarding testing of occupied trailers. May 18, 2007 – A conference call was held with CDC regarding the formaldehyde issue. DHS OHA, on behalf of FEMA, continued formaldehyde discussions with CDC officials to shape the questions that needed to be addressed. June 12, 2007 – Policy was released directing the replacement of formaldehyde problem trailers with rental housing rather than with used trailers. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 68 Appendix B Timeline of Key Events July 13, 2007 – FEMA sent a letter to the CDC Director formally requesting assistance in designing additional tests related to formaldehyde and enhanced strategies for mitigation. July 20, 2007 – The formal letter of request from FEMA for CDC assistance in testing and analysis of occupied trailers was received at CDC. July 31, 2007 – The FEMA Administrator issued an Interim Direction announcing several additional steps FEMA was taking to address formaldehyde concerns and to work more closely with occupants who may have concerns about formaldehyde exposure including an information portal for formaldehyde concerns and the provision of rental housing to replace trailers. August 16, 2007 – The FEMA interagency agreement with CDC for testing and analysis of occupied trailers was signed. October 2007 – The revised and updated version of the February 2007 ATSDR “Health Consultation” addressing the testing of unoccupied trailers was issued. October 29, 2007 – FEMA officials caused a stop-work order to be placed on the testing of occupied trailers. December 11, 2007 – CDC awarded a new contract for testing occupied units. December 21, 2007 – The testing of occupied units commenced. January 23, 2008 – The testing of the 519 occupied trailers was completed. February 14, 2008 – The FEMA Administrator and the CDC Director held a joint press conference announcing the results of testing occupied trailers. February 29, 2008 – The interim CDC report on testing of occupied units was released. April 24, 2008 – The CDC report on assessment of children’s health was released. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 69 Appendix B Timeline of Key Events May 8, 2008 –The CDC contracted report on the testing of trailer components for formaldehyde emissions was released. July 2, 2008 – The final CDC report on the testing of occupied trailers was released. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 70 Appendix C Consolidated List of Recommendations We recommend that FEMA: Recommendation #1: Include specifications in contracts for future purchases of mobile homes, travel trailers, and park models that provide for acceptable maximum formaldehyde levels in units that are delivered. Recommendation #2: Establish quality assurance/quality control requirements to ensure that excessive formaldehyde levels will be prevented, and institute inspection procedures to detect and reject units with unacceptable formaldehyde levels. Recommendation #3: Promulgate a policy that any issue or problem that might affect the health and safety of occupants of emergency housing must be quickly forwarded to the responsible headquarters offices as defined in this new policy. Recommendation #4: Train FEMA and contractor “front-line” employees who have contact with disaster victims on how to respond to health and safety issues. Recommendation #5: Establish a policy that whenever a health or safety issue arises concerning its clients, all reasonable actions will be taken to determine the nature, cause, extent, and consequences of the problem. Recommendation #6: Whenever a problem might affect the health and safety of FEMA clients, such as occupants of emergency housing, promulgate consistent and effective guidance to the field concerning how to address such problems. Recommendation #7: Establish clear policy over the decision making processes related to matters of health and safety. This policy should mandate that responsible program and management officials make decisions after obtaining and considering all appropriate professional advice, including opinions and input from medical, scientific, and legal experts. Moreover, FEMA should ensure that responsible program officials and managers have access to critical information and advice related to the health and safety effects of all FEMA programs. Recommendation #8: Develop a standing agreement with OHA or another organization to provide medical consultants as needed to help design approaches for dealing with client health issues in FEMA operations. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 71 Appendix C Consolidated List of Recommendations Recommendation #9: Establish a standing interagency agreement with the CDC or another qualified agency to provide testing and evaluation services for future health threat issues. Recommendation #10: Develop policy and related guidelines that make clear that identification and analysis efforts related to health threats to FEMA clients are not to be stopped or held up except when absolutely necessary. FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 72 Appendix D Management Comments to the Draft Report FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 73 Appendix D Management Comments to the Draft Report FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 74 Appendix D Management Comments to the Draft Report FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 75 Appendix D Management Comments to the Draft Report FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 76 Appendix D Management Comments to the Draft Report FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 77 Appendix E Report Distribution Department of Homeland Security Secretary Deputy Secretary Chief of Staff for Operations Chief of Staff for Policy General Counsel Executive Secretariat Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office Acting Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Acting Deputy Administrator Acting Assistant Administrator, Disaster Assistance Directorate Acting Director, Office of Policy and Program Analysis Assistant Administrator, Management FEMA Audit Liaison (Job Code: DC8M01) Office of Management and Budget Chief of Homeland Security Branch DHS OIG Budget Examiner Congress Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 78 Appendix F OIG Contributors Kaye McTighe, Director Donald Norman, Senior Program Analyst Nigel Gardner, Senior Program Analyst FEMA Responses to Formaldehyde in Trailers Page 79 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4199, fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. OIG HOTLINE To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or operations: • Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; • Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; • Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or • Write to us at: DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, Washington, DC 20528. The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller. 4/30/2015 Summaries for S. 1660 (111th): Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act ( version) ­ GovTrack.us Set District Log In (/accounts/login?next=/congress/bills/111/s1660/summary) Search HOME (/) CONGRESS (/CONGRESS)   BILLS (/CONGRESS/BILLS)   S. 1660 (111TH) (/CONGRESS/BILLS/111/S1660) BROWSE (/START) ABOUT (/ABOUT) TRACK (/START) USE OUR DATA (/DEVELOPERS) < BACK to S. 1660 (111th Congress, 2009–2010) (/congress/bills/111/s1660) Summaries for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Library of Congress Library of Congress Summary The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress. 7/7/2010--Public Law. Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Section2 Amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to establish formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in the United States. Lists exemptions from such standard for hardboard, structural plywood (as specified in the Voluntary Product Standard-Structural Plywood standard numbered PS 1-07), structural panels (as specified in the Voluntary Product Standard-Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels standard numbered PS 2-04), structural composite lumber (as specified in the Standard Specification for Evaluation of Structural Composite Lumber Products standard labeled ASTM D 5456-06), oriented strand board, glued laminated lumber (as specified in the Structural Glued Laminated Timber standard labeled ANSI A190.1-2002), prefabricated wood I-joists (as specified in the Standard Specification for Establishing and Monitoring Structural Capacities of Prefabricated Wood I-Joists labeled ASTM D 5055-05), fingerjointed lumber, wood packaging (including pallets, crates, spools, and dunnage), and composite wood products used inside new vehicles, rail cars, boats, aerospace craft, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1660/summary 1/3 4/30/2015 Summaries for S. 1660 (111th): Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act ( version) ­ GovTrack.us aircraft, or windows, exterior doors, and garage doors that contain de minimis amounts of composite wood products. Sets forth provisions concerning compliance with such standards. Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a rulemaking process to determine whether the definition of hardwood plywood should exempt engineered veneer or any laminated product. Applies the formaldehyde emission standard regardless of whether an applicable hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, or particleboard is in the form of an unfinished panel, or incorporated into a finished good. Establishes emission standards for: (1) composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde-based resins; and (2) ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resin. Directs the Administrator, by July 1, 2013, to promulgate implementing regulations that ensure compliance with the standards, including its provisions relating to labeling, chain of custody requirements, sell-through provisions, ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins, noadded formaldehyde-based resins, finished goods, third-party testing and certification, auditing and reporting of third-party certifiers, recordkeeping, enforcement, laminated products, and exemptions from the emission requirements for products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products. Requires sell-through provisions, with respect to composite wood products and finished goods containing regulated wood products, to: (1) be based on a designated date of manufacture (which shall be no earlier than the date 180 days following the promulgation of such regulations) of the composite wood product or finished good, rather than date of sale of the composite wood product or finished good; and (2) provide that any inventory of composite wood products or finished goods containing regulated composite wood products manufactured before the designated date of manufacture of the composite wood products or finished goods shall not be subject to the formaldehyde emission standard requirements. Requires implementing regulations to: (1) prohibit the stockpiling of inventory to be sold after the designated date of manufacture; and (2) not require any labeling or testing of composite wood products or finished goods containing regulated composite wood products manufactured before the designated date of manufacture. Requires the Administrator, by July 1, 2013, in coordination with the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other appropriate federal agencies, to revise regulations promulgated under TSCA concerning import certification of any chemical substance, mixture, or article containing a chemical substance or mixture as necessary to ensure compliance with this Act. Provides that an individual or entity that violates any requirement under this Act shall be considered to have committed a prohibited act under TSCA. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1660/summary 2/3 4/30/2015 Summaries for S. 1660 (111th): Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act ( version) ­ GovTrack.us Section3 Requires the Administrator within a year of this Act's enactment and annually thereafter through December 31, 2014, to report to specified congressional committees on the status of the measures to be carried out pursuant to formaldehyde standards for composite wood products and the extent to which relevant industries have achieved compliance with such requirements. Section4 Requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), within 180 days of the Administrator promulgating such standards, to update its regulation regarding formaldehyde emission controls standards for plywood and particleboard materials in manufactured homes to ensure that the regulation reflects TSCA formaldehyde standards. site MENU HOME (/) START TRACKING (/START) ABOUT GOVTRACK (/ABOUT) FOR DEVELOPERS (/DEVELOPERS) LOG IN (/ACCOUNTS/LOGIN) follow GOVTRACK FACEBOOK (HTTP://WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/PAGES/CIVIC-IMPULSE/312186525430) TWITTER (HTTP://TWITTER.COM/GOVTRACK) BLOG (/BLOG) SOURCE CODE (HTTPS://GITHUB.COM/GOVTRACK/GOVTRACK.US-WEB/COMMITS/MASTER) Launched in 2004, GovTrack helps everyone learn about and track the activities of the United States Congress. This is a project of Civic Impulse, LLC (http://www.civicimpulse.com). GovTrack.us is not a government website. About the Site (/about) Contact Us (/contact) You are encouraged to reuse any material on this site. GovTrack supports other Congress-tracking websites through our open data (/developers). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s1660/summary 3/3 ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1eaa PENN Of?ce UfNIa?agement and Budget Abe ut ?MBle The Budget Management Regulatien E: [rife ma?a]: Felice,T legislative Infermatien din REGULATION E: PDLIC 1' Abdul DIHA Federal Cellectidn of Meeting Reedtd Meeting ?eet-rd Regarding: Formaldehyde Emissians Standards fer Eempasite Precincts Infennatidn Infen?natidn Policy Regulatory Matters Meetings and Outside Cemrnunicatien Date: 5 Eli Dam Mancini Reperts te Gangress Fm?lgencies Tam Halldway Arelln Ins. Regulatenr Refdrm Elilly Hull GP Chemitals Statistical EL Standards Charlie Griaale The Gristle Ed. Half?i?dhp Arclin Int. trendiner Anna Tu CED Stiven Faster CED Randi.r Berg Mementive David Dunlap HEPS JenniferStrachman UETP David M. Harman Mementive Jenah EPA Elruce Pedan DSTP Rebecca Edelstein EPA Karen Thundiyil US EPA Kevin hieyland DMEHDIPA Meeting material previded td DMEI Fla-35. Ice-E Datument1;32 pages. 4:2 mh: 1 I'.r Mementive the MHGUSE US Get Email Updates 1" BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTIGIPATE PENN . 't?q . I -I, -v . ?In-.111 ilk i - Of?ce efManagemen't. and Hedger . I H. I - . .- n-L Ahth I DM?leg I TheBudget I Management I Regulatien?elnferma?enlleliey I legislative Infermatieu I Jain I Centaet REGUIATIDH E: MDRJIATIDN A.me DINA Cull?'?ti?? ?f ?eeting Recent Renardirm: Fermaldelwde Ernie aims Standards fer Wand lnfannalien Date: 7 ?3.11 321112 lnfunnalinn Pulley ?mm? ?m Meeiingeand Duteide -- Gummunica?m Danielle .Je nee TQM BJDIHA Reperte in Congress 'Hennine We ng {Ill-? AQEWPE Mancini ?eM BIDIRA Regulatary Referrn Sarah SEAAdveeacy Staiie?rjeal Pregame S: - Standards Amanda Lee DMEHDIRA Peter Emim EPA Pehecea Edeleteln EPA I-{aren Thunle EPA Il?inely.r Wheeler EPA Kevin Neyland nick: Titus Meeting materiel previded tn pagE. thr- El Dncurnentl [3 pages. we we *** EO 12866 Review Draft – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During the Review *** EO12866_RIN2070-AJ92_Formaldehyde-Imp_NPRM_EA-A4-table_2013-04-11_MARKUP.docx Reg Plan Costs and Benefits Table for Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule SAN 5287; RIN 2070-AJ92 Units Category Primary Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Year Dollars Disc Period Covered Notes/Source Citation Benefits Annualized Monetized $millions/year Not estimated $919 $13723 2010 7% 2014 to 2044 Source: EA, Executive Not estimated $18420 Summary $27848 2010 3% 2014 to 2044 Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% Annualized Quantified Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% Qualitative: Unquantified benefits due to avoided cases of upper respiratory tract pathology, pulmonary functionrelated effects, reduced female fertility, allergic sensitization, immune function effects, neurological and behavioral toxicity, and developmental toxicity. Costs Not estimated $7280 $8189 2010 7% 2014 to 2044 Source: EA, Executive Annualized Monetized Not estimated $8172 Summary $8981 2010 3% 2014 to 2044 $millions/year Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% Annualized Quantified Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% Qualitative Transfers Federal Annualized Monetized $millions/year Other Annualized Monetized $millions/year Not applicable Not applicable From: Not applicable Not applicable From: Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable To: Not applicable Not applicable To: 7% 3% Effects State, Local, and/or Tribal Government Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule’s requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture, fabricate, distribute, or sell composite wood products. The rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications. Small Business Approximately 879,000 small firms impacted: ~851,000 have costs impacts < 1% of revenues, ~23,000 firms have impacts between 1% and 3%, and ~4,000 firms have impacts > 3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts > 1% have annualized costs < $250. Wages Not estimated Growth Not estimated. Unlikely – rule costs are less than $1 billion per year. Source citation: Economic Analysis of the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Implementing Regulations Proposed Rule. AHFA Position on the EPA's Proposed Implementation Rules for the Federal Formaldehyde Standard JULY 2013 – The American Home Furnishings Alliance is a member of the Fabricators Coalition, a collection of industries affected by the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rules for implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act. The coalition’s name is derived from its status under the California formaldehyde rule. As consumers of certified composite wood products, the coalition represents numerous industries that laminate and finish these certified composite panels and manufacture them into finished products. The finishing and sealing of these laminated composite panels significantly reduces the formaldehyde emission characteristics of the end product. The coalition represents industries in communities across the country – industries that employ over a million manufacturing workers who will be impacted if the proposed rule is finalized without changes. Along with the other industries in the coalition, AHFA believes the EPA moved far beyond the intent of Congress when it passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act. The EPA has vastly expanded the scope of the regulation while adding no additional environmental or health benefit. Key concerns include the following: 1. As proposed, the EPA’s formaldehyde rule fundamentally changes the formaldehyde emissions certification model currently in place in California by adding a new point of certification. This was not the intent of the legislation passed by Congress. Under the California rule, the manufacturer of composite wood products is responsible for certifying that their products meet the formaldehyde emission standard. Manufacturers of finished furniture – known as “fabricators” – purchase these composite wood products as components and then manufacture them into finished furniture.The EPA’s rule calls on fabricators to re-certify their products in process before the piece of furniture is finished. Ironically, the finishing process vastly reduces formaldehyde emissions, making recertification all the more nonsensical. This alters the compliance scheme for manufacturers globally, forcing them into unrealistic, component-level certification that will require costly new equipment, testing and personnel, all for no environmental or health benefit. 2. In calculating the rule’s cost benefit, the EPA stated that “the estimated cost of the proposed rule exceeded the quantified benefits. ” Nevertheless, the agency justified the rule using “unquantified benefits.” This analysis is flawed in several ways. It relies on an erroneous assumption that all laminators will be able to use no-added formaldehyde resin technology in all circumstances. In reality, NAF resins are not technologically capable of being used by many veneer application processes given the characteristics of the resin. It is based on a false assumption of unquantified “avoided health effects.” It vastly overestimates the societal benefits of the rule, as according to the EPA, over 98% of the board supply is already CARB ATCM compliant. These assumptions, along with the fact that the EPA split the rule into two parts, allowed OMB to score the rule as “non-major.” 1. EPA disregarded its legislative mandate to evaluate laminated products by ignoring available and published data demonstrating that finished products dramatically reduce the emission profile of laminated products used as component parts of finished goods. The rule as proposed, offers no improvement in emission performance for finished goods, but will require fabricators to absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in process quality and certification testing. EPA gives no credit or recognition to the significant reduction in emissions when a product is laminated and finished. This is true whether it is a vinyl, paper, foil, other synthetic laminate or wood or woody grass veneer. Once laminated and finished, emissions of the product are significantly reduced. There is no benefit to be gained with further testing or regulation, and proven products should not be subject to further regulatory requirements.EPA failed to understand that many laminated products will not be able to use a NAF resin system, and thus will be required to be certified. 2. The EPA’s proposed rule requires importers of laminated composite wood products to certify their products under TSCA Section 13. A TSCA Section 13 import certification currently requires the following certification statement: “I certify that all chemical substances in this shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA and that I am not offering a chemical substance for entry in violation of TSCA or any applicable rule or order under TSCA.”This enforcement mechanism creates an equivalency between hazardous bulk chemical imports and finished composite wood products. In other words, the EPA now requires importers of finished goods to certify their products as toxic chemicals, subject to seizure, impound and destruction. The criminalization and penalties of importing finished products are simply not aligned to the applications of the provisions under TSCA Section 13. FEDERAL FORMALDEHYDE RULES FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS In 2010, Congress passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, or Title VI of the Toxic Substances Control Act. This legislation established emission standards for formaldehyde from composite wood products and directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to propose rules to enforce the Act’s provisions. In May 2013, the EPA finally released its proposed rules for enforcing the formaldehyde standard. One rule includes testing requirements, laminated product provisions, product labeling requirements, chain of custody documentation requirements, a stockpiling prohibition and enforcement provisions. The second rule proposes a third-party certification framework, including requirements and responsibilities for third-party certifiers. Q. How will the proposed rules impact furniture manufacturers? The federal formaldehyde standard incorporated emission limits adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2007. AHFA, along with other industry stakeholders, worked with CARB officials for more than seven years to help establish workable enforcement and testing methods for the California standard. Within the CARB enforcement framework, composite wood product producers are responsible for testing, certification and record-keeping. Furniture manufacturers are not required to perform additional batch testing or third-party certification. The EPA considered this a “loophole” in the California regulation and attempted to close it by adding requirements for furniture manufacturers to conduct in-house quality control batch testing and quarterly third-party, product-type certification. In essence, the federal rules propose to transfer the point of compliance from the composite wood product producer to the furniture manufacturer. This change would impact all manufacturers around the globe that produce furniture using composite wood products. Q. What is estimated cost of compliance? AHFA maintains that the cost of this rule to the residential furniture industry will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, these added costs do nothing to decrease formaldehyde emissions nor to increase the health benefit to consumers. The cost of a single daily certification test is estimated at $600. The rule requires furniture manufacturers to conduct a daily compliance test for EACH hardwood-plywood type so, for example, a cabinet using 18 mm MDF for the top panel and 18 mm particleboard for the side panels and 12 mm MDF for door and drawer fronts would require THREE certification tests each day. Different veneers are considered additional “types” of composite panel, so it is easy to imagine how quickly compliance costs will multiply. Quarterly third-party certification tests and on-site certification personnel for the daily testing would add dramatically to the overall bill for compliance with the proposed federal rules. Q. What is AHFA doing? AHFA developed a “cost calculator” to help member companies estimate what compliance with the proposed federal rules would cost. After several companies completed the calculations, AHFA compiled the data and created two graphic illustrations to share with lawmakers. A team of executives from AHFA member companies convened in Washington, D.C., on July 17, to bring their urgent message to key legislators: Left unchanged, the proposed federal formaldehyde rule will dramatically impact the residential furniture industry, forcing additional plant closures, job loss and costly production gridlock at furniture manufacturing facilities around the world. Companies participating in the Washington visit included both domestic and overseas producers, among them Ashley Furniture, Bassett Furniture, Home Meridian International, Hooker Furniture, La-Z-Boy and Vaughan-Bassett. In addition to meeting with officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Small Business Administration, the group met with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), as well as Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Mark Warner (D-VA), Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Thad Cochran (R-MS), as well as Representatives Doris Matsui (D-CA), Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Lee Terry (R-NE). AHFA’s Washington team asked lawmakers to sign onto a letter to the EPA detailing the industry’s concerns about the proposed rules. Q. How can my company assist AHFA in its mission? If you want AHFA to effectively represent your interests – and our industry as a whole – you must join. You should not expect that AHFA can be successful without your participation. Whether you make upholstery or case goods or accessories, whether you manufacture in the U.S. or overseas, whether you produce furniture for the masses or furniture that is made-to-order, AHFA is at work on issues that are vital to your success. AHFA is the only association dedicated to serving the home furnishings industry. Your membership helps ensure that AHFA continues to have a strong voice on the state and federal regulations that impact your bottom line. Meeting with Representatives from the American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA) and Ashley Furniture (July 16, 2013) Attendees: Brian J. Adams (Ashley Furniture) Chris Andresen (AHFA) Robert Courtnage (EPA) Rebecca Edelstein (EPA) Sara Kemme (EPA) Barbara Nuckles (Ashley Furniture) Bill Purdue (VP Regulatory Affairs, AHFA) Lynn Vendinello (EPA) Eric Winchester (EPA) At the request of the American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA), EPA met with representatives from AHFA and Ashley Furniture on July 16, 2013 to discuss the proposed rule on Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products. AHFA and Ashley Furniture expressed concerns about the impact on furniture manufactures of including laminated products in the definition of hardwood plywood. They specifically mentioned concerns about proposed testing and certification requirements and the economic impact this would have on their industry. AHFA and Ashley also provided emission test data on furniture, which EPA has placed in the docket. EPA encouraged AHFA and Ashley Furniture to submit their comments and recommendations to the public docket in regulations.gov so that EPA can carefully consider and respond to them in the final rule. 中国 WTO/TBT 国家通报咨询中心 China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center No. 18 Xi Ba He DongLi, ChaoYang District, Beijing,China,Tel: 86-10-84603890 Fax:86-10-84603813 FAX TO： Anne Meininger WTO TBT U.S. Inquiry Point National Center for Standards and Certification Information National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, MS-2160 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2160 Date: July.19, 2013 Copies: Department for WTO Affairs, Ministry of Commerce of P.R. China Fax: 301-926-1559 Tel: 301-975-4040 or 301-975-2921 E-mail: ncsci@nist.gov or anne.meininger@nist.gov Number of pages: 2+2 Fax: +86 10 65197726;65128304 E-mail: wtonoti@mofcom.gov.cn liuna@mofcom.gov.cn Permanent Mission of P. R. of China Fax: +41-22-9097688 to WTO E-mail: sunxinhuacn@gmail.com WTO Affairs Office, General Fax: +86 10 82260553 Administration for Quality E-mail: wto@aqsiq.gov.cn Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, P.R.C. From: China WTO/TBT National Tel: 86-10-84603987 Notification & Enquiry Center, Fax: 86-10-84603813 Standard and Regulation Researching E-mail: Cuilu@aqsiq.gov.cn Center, AQSIQ, P.R. China. Subject: Comments from P. R. China on USA Notification G/TBT/N/USA/827&828 Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products 1 Comments from P. R. China on USA Notification G/TBT/N/USA/827&828 Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Dear Sir or Madam, We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the notified regulation proposed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Enclosed please find comments in English and Chinese. Please acknowledge receipt of the comments by e-mail to cuilu@aqsiq.gov.cn. Thank you very much in advance for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) taking into account comments from P. R. China. Your formal reply will be ap preciated. Best regards, Wang lizhou Deputy Director General China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center No. 18 Xi Ba He DongLi, ChaoYang District, Beijing Post Code: 100028 Tel: 86-10-84603987 Fax: 86-10-84603813 E-mail: Cuilu@aqsiq.gov.cn 2 Comments from P. R. China on USA Notification G/TBT/N/USA/827&828 Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products The Chinese government appreciates the efforts that the USA makes to protect environment and human health and would like to express its appreciation to the USA for the opportunity to make comments on the Notification G/TBT/N/USA/827 and 828. According to Article 2.9.4 of the WTO/TBT  Agreement  “without  discrimination,   allow reasonable time for other Members to make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take these written comments and the results of these discussions  into  account.”,  China  would  like  to  put  forward  the  following  comments   on the notified Draft Regulation and hope the USA can take these comments into consideration and give a reply: 1. The draft regulation of Notification G/TBT/N/USA/827 stipulates the formaldehyde emission standards, which limit the formaldehyde emission of hardwood plywood to 0.05PPM, MDF boards to 0.11PPM, thin MDF boards to 0.13PPM and particle boards to 0.09PPM. Taking into consideration that the formaldehyde emission standard set by many countries, including EU, Japan and China, is 9mg/100g (90PPM), and that the formaldehyde emission standard for children’s clothing set by the USA is 5PPM, China suggests the USA should reassess the standard limits and risks of formaldehyde emissions of the board materials based on the special scenario of product’s lifecycle in order to prevent unnecessary obstacles incurred by the implementation of the draft regulation to the normal international trade of board materials. 2. The implementation of the draft regulation will result in the dramatic cost rise of enterprises who export products to the USA, with the cost of board materials increasing by 30-50% and the furniture by 15-25%. Undoubtedly, it will bring about a comparatively great barrier to such enterprises. The draft regulation introduces the specification, production processes and testing methods based on the domestic raw materials of the USA and the assessments of influences on production costs are conducted based on the US enterprises rather than those of exporting countries, which may cause the unfair treatment in the global composite wood product trade. China suggests the USA should simplify the processes, reduce the frequencies of compliance verification of products and set the reasonable effective assessment cycle of testing methods and the transitional period of products. 3. China suggests the USA should establish the certification system consistent with the international standards for the third-party certification of formaldehyde emission of composite wood products based on the communications with various stakeholders to make the interested parties of trade conduct the qualified assessments of products and to thoroughly embody the principles of indiscrimination, free trade, predictability, 3 fair competition and encouraging development. 4. China suggests the USA should further confirm that if the third-party certified composite wood products to be exported to the USA fail the tests, how the products will be handled, and that if some problems occur, whether the manufacturers or agents are allowed to ask the agents in the USA to address such problems on behalf of them. Comments in Chinese are in below: 中国政府赞赏美国在保护环境和人类健康方面所做的努力，同时感谢美方给 予评议 G/TBT/N/USA/827、828 号通报的机会，根据 WTO/TBT 协定 2.9.4 条“无 歧视地给予其他成员合理的时间以提出书面意见，应请求讨论这些意见，并对这 些书面意见和讨论的结果予以考虑”的规定，请美方对中方的评议意见予以考虑 并做出答复，中方具体意见如下： 一、在美方 827 号通报法规草案中，提出新的甲醛释放量标准，其中硬木胶 合板限量为不超过 0.05PPM，中密度板限量为不超过 0.11PPM，薄中密度板限量 为不超过 0.13PPM，刨花板限量为不超过 0.09PPM。考虑到很多国家，如欧盟、 日本和中国等国甲醛释放量标准为 9mg/100g(90 PPM)；而且，美国的儿童服装 甲醛释放量标准为 5 PPM。建议美方基于产品生命周期特定场景甲醛释放量重新 评估板材甲醛标准限量及危害风险，避免该法案的实施对板材正常国际贸易造成 不必要的障碍。 二、该法案的实施，将大大增加输美企业的成本，板材的成本将提高 30-50%， 家具产品的成本将提高 15～20%，给出口企业带来了较大的阻碍。提案规定引入 了基于美国国内的原料规格、生产流程和检测方法，对生产成本的影响评估主要 基于美国企业，而非针对主要出口国的相关企业，因此有可能对全球复合木制品 贸易造成不公平待遇，中方建议美方简化流程，降低产品符合性验证的频率，设 定合理的检测方法等效性评估周期和产品过渡期。 三、建议美方有关复合木制品甲醛第三方认证在多方沟通基础上形成国际协 调一致的认证标准体系，以便贸易相关方对产品进行合格评定，以充分体现非歧 视性、自由贸易、可预见性、公平竞争、鼓励发展的原则。 四、建议美方进一步明确经过第三方认证的复合木制品出口到美国，如果检 验不合格应当对产品如何处理，出现问题后是否同意生产商、代理商寻找美国境 内的机构做一些代理的处理。 4 ('Inngreaa at the ?atten gtatea ?01 20515 August 5, 2013 Ms. Gina McCarthy Administrator US. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator McCarthy, We are writing to express our concern about the current Environmental Protection Agency?s (EPA) proposed Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products Implementing and Certifying rules, published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2013. The Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was enacted to provide authority to the EPA to implement rules regarding formaldehyde emissions from composite wood panels and products. The goal of the legislation was to implement nationwide the California formaldehyde standards already in existence. The California emissions standards are currently the most stringent in the world. As you know, the bi-partisan legislation that was signed into law was carefully crafted to reflect a compromise between a wide range of stakeholders, including environmental and public health groups, along with US. manufactures, that occurred over several years. However, with respect to laminated products and ?nished goods, the current EPA rules as proposed differ signi?cantly from the California rule in their applicability, requirements and costs as was the intent of the legislation. These changes, if implemented, could severely impact the American manufacturing sector. The signi?cant reduction of ?exibility and increased costs for ?nished goods manufacturers without corresponding bene?ts is contrary to the policy of this Administration, as well as, the intent of the bi- partisan legislation. To reduce the unnecessary burdens of the rule without compromising public health and safety, we urge the EPA to carefully follow the California approach for laminated products. In doing so, it would eliminate redundant testing and recertifying of components by ?nished goods manufacturers. As EPA develops the ?nal rule, we hope you will carefully consider these comments and focus on providing appropriate health and environmental protections to our nation?s citizens without jeopardizing industries, jobs or our economy. Thank you for your commitment to addressing this important issue. is awake} DORIS O. MATSUI ALAN EE Member of Congress Member of Congress Sincerely, PRINTED 0N RECYCLED PAPER itlnitzd 0%tatzs ?znatz WASHINGTON, DC 20510 August 2, 2013 The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator McCarthy, We are writing to express our concern about the Environmental Protection Agency?s proposed orrnaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products Implementing and Certifying rules, published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2013. The Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was enacted to provide authority to the EPA to implement rules regarding formaldehyde emissions from composite wood panels and products. The goal of the legislation was to implement nationwide the California formaldehyde standards already in existence. The California emissions standards are currently the most stringent in the world. Finished goods manufacturers build their products from already certi?ed composite panels. These certi?ed panels are then further processed within ?nished goods manufacturing, sealing the ?nished product and reducing emissions even more. The EPA rules as proposed differ signi?cantly from the California rule in their applicability, requirements and costs. These changes will impact over a million US manufacturing jobs. By erroneously assuming both the size of the newly regulated stakeholders group, as well as the technical feasibility of the exempted resins, the EPA failed to account for this adverse impact on jobs. The signi?cant reduction of ?exibility and increased costs for ?nished goods manufacturers without corresponding bene?ts is contrary to the policy of this Administration. To reduce the unnecessary burdens of the rule without compromising public health and safety; the EPA staff should follow the California approach, which would eliminate redundant testing and recertifying of components by ?nished goods manufacturers. As EPA develops the ?nal rule, we hope you will carefully consider these comments and focus on providing appropriate health and environmental protections to our nation?s citizens without jeopardizing industries, jobs or our economy. Thank you for your commitment to addressing this important issue. Sincerely, ?anitzd 0%tatza 0%matz DC 20510 United Stat 3 Senator cc: Howard Shelanski, Administrator, Of?ce of Information Regulatory Affairs, OMB '?nitrd ?tatts 5EHQEE WASHINGTON, DC 20510 November 20, 2013 The Honorable Gina McCarthy US. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator McCarthy: We write to call your attention to comments submitted by members of the home furnishings industry regarding draft Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products Implementing and Certifying Rules. Furniture manufacturers, who by de?nition are fabricators of laminated products, have shared with us data that suggest EPA can use its statutory discretion to exempt intermediate laminated products from the de?nition of hardwood- plywood in the ?nal rule. We all agree on the need to reduce hazardous formaldehyde levels in ?rmiture. Under regulations, hardwood-plywood products must be certi?ed as meeting formaldehyde standards before distribution to fabricators. When hardwood-plywood is manufactured into component parts of ?nished products, the platform or composite wood product core (MDF, particle board) must meet the formaldehyde emission standards. Credit must also be given to the ?value added process? of ?nishing which acts as a barrier effectively preventing the off- gassing of any residual formaldehyde. Test data con?rms and demonstrates a reduction of the emission pro?le of greater than 80%. Based on the accuracy of the data, it appears redundant to require certi?cation of the intermediate laminated product used as a component part of a ?nished product which has been certi?ed and where the manufacturing process has further reduced exposure. We encourage you to give full consideration to the technical data that has been provided. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, War .6 711/4; Mark Warner Tim Kaine   SIGN IN     CONTACT US     PRINT PAGE   Select Language ​ ▼ BECOME A MEMBER Enter search criteria... MENU Influence Engine Sign In Username LATEST ISSUES   In 2010, the home furnishings industry allied with other industry stakeholders and environmental groups to pass legislation that would nationalize the world's most stringent formaldehyde standards currently required by California. The EPA has ignored its congressional mandate and created a rule that would go beyond the requirements of California. For details on the rule and its impacts click here. Take action now by notifying key members of Congress, the Administration, and the EPA of your concerns. Simply complete the form below to have your voice heard. My first name is: My last name is:   My company name is: I am a: My business employs: 12/2/2014 TBI - APHI Sustainable Business Event People I'm located in: Calendar My ZIP code is: I want to influence: EPA (View Letter) Congressional Representation (View Letters) Committee Leadership (View Letters) My email address is: Lacey Password Act Updates Remember Me GSP CITES Listings for Sign In Brazilian Rosewood and Forgot your password? Guaiacwood/Palo SantoBecome a Member "10+2" Maritime Security Proposal Latest News more Plywood Emissions Regulations: 3/11/2015 Resources IWPA&Joins Industry Updates Associations in Hardwood Statement on Plywood from Deconstructive Testing China:for AD/CVD Formaldehyde Investiagtions Emissions Update 3/2/2015 IWPA Statement on Formaldehyde Emissions in Composite Wood Products Primary Submit *Please note you will be copied on all emails sent to influence primary members in Washington. Your current choices will send approximately 49 emails. When these emails are sent, they will be more 3/18/2015 » 3/20/2015 IWPA 59th World of Wood Convention 4/6/2016 » 4/8/2016 IWPA 60th World of Wood Convention 3/15/2017 IWPA 61st World of Wood automatically sent via the email address entered. Terms of Service Privacy Policy x EPA EPA Members Ms. Gina McCarthy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. As you may be aware, your agency has recently published proposed rules for implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act. As written, this Act will create enormous burden for my business and the home furnishings industry. Consumers buy furniture from my business to add comfort and style to their homes and businesses. A primary consideration of comfort is safety. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. To add additional concern, the EPA exercised a long-dormant opportunity to define the word "article" within TSCA Section 13 to include furniture within its definition. Simply stated, this overreach now classifies the products I sell every day as toxic substances. This is simply not warranted by any justification of the rule. As the leader of the EPA, it is your primary responsibility to ensure that the efforts of your agency provide benefit and improve environmental quality for the American people. The rulemaking team has not shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with "unquantified" benefits, the analysis published indicates that the agency could not find empirical evidence or justification for the rules' costs. The exemption provided for laminating veneers with NAF resins is an inadequate solution. The surveys and assumptions are not representative of current furniture manufacturing processes, and NAF resins are not feasible for substitution in many Convention veneering applications. Additionally, these are performance-based rules addressing formaldehyde emissions. De-selection or prescription of materials used in meeting these standards is not warranted nor supported by known credible research. As long as the finished composite wood product meets the performance standards, materials selection, including resins, should remain the responsibility and choice of the furniture manufacturer. I ask that you use your new leadership position to: 1. Direct EPA staff responsible for the implementing and certifying rules under the "Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act" to exempt all laminated products, including hardwood and woody grass-veneered products, as intended by Congress based on the consistent reduction in emissions that all of these products demonstrate when finished 2. To remove or re-define "article" to maintain the integrity and heightened security of TSCA Section 13 to allow it to be used appropriately to protect Americans from toxic substances, without misrepresenting entire categories of products that simply do not belong within these classifications 3. To produce rules with appropriate, empirical and quantified cost-benefit that eliminate harmful practices while encouraging responsible production and sale of safe products within the stream of American commerce I look forward to seeing the hallmarks of your leadership within the EPA and the U.S. government. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Jim Jones, Acting Assistant Administrator Cindy Wheeler, EPA Lynn Vendinello, Branch Chief Robert Courtnage, EPA Rebecca Edelstein, EPA Sara Kemme, EPA Eric Winchester, EPA Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman, Senate Oversight Subcommittee, Environment & Public Works Committee Senator James Inhofe, Ranking member, Senate Oversight Subcommittee, Environment & Public Works Committee Congressman Tim Murphy, Chairman, House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Energy & Commerce Committee Congressman Michael Burgess, Vice-Chairman, House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Energy & Commerce Committee Congresswoman Diana DeGette, Ranking Member, House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Energy & Commerce Committee x Congressional Representation Senator / Representative The Honorable (name), Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as medium-density fiberboard (MDF), particleboard and plywood. As you may be aware, the US EPA has recently published proposed rules for implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act that will create enormous burden for my business as written. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120) which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rules goes well beyond the California requirements and will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder without a justified benefit to the environment or health. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rules will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rules currently cost as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with unquantified benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. Kindly use your elected position in the (House of Representatives / Senate) to fight for my business, my employees and my consumers. The EPA must answer for delivering a rule that extends beyond what Congress intended, at the expense of the American people, without a quantifiable benefit. Revisions to these rules should include clear categorizations and exemptions for laminated products incorporated into furniture and other finished goods. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Cindy Wheeler, EPA Lynn Vendinello, EPA x Primary Committee Leadership OMB H-APP H-BUD S-APP S-BUD H-E&C H-E&C - Oversight H-E&C - E&TE H-E&C - Oversight - E&TE S-EPW S-EPW - Oversight S-EPW - ST&EH S-EPW - Oversight - ST&EH Office of Management and Budget Ms. Sylvia Mathews Burwell Director, Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. As you may be aware, the U.S. EPA has recently published proposed rules for implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act that will create enormous burden for my business as written. Consumers buy furniture from my business to add comfort and style to their homes and businesses. A primary consideration of comfort is safety. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, further reducing their ability to export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The economic analysis of this rule indicates that assumptions were made by the EPA that significantly understate the costs and impacts of this rule. As one example, the EPA chose to survey a very small (eight) group of hardwood plywood producers, rather than the actual furniture manufacturers and similar laminators, to determine the scope and practices of those who laminate over certified panels. Additionally, it made the assumption that nearly all of the impacted regulatory community could and would simply change laminating adhesives based on the cost savings its exemption would create. This assumption does not reflect the feasibility or low probability of such a switch. Additionally, the EPA has not provided empirical data demonstrating the NAF resins used in lamination produce a lower emitting finished product when compared against the wide variety of adhesive technologies currently in use. To add additional concern, the EPA exercised a long-dormant opportunity to define the word "article" within TSCA 13 to include furniture within its definition. Simply stated, this overreach now classifies the products I sell every day as toxic substances. As a primary gatekeeper in the rulemaking process, OMB is responsible for ensuring that both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 are enforced. Among other things, these requirements ensure that agencies are proposing rulemaking tailored to impose the least burdensome requirements on businesses, individuals, and society. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rules will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The costbenefit published in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with "unquantified" benefits, the analysis published indicates that the agency could not find empirical evidence or justification for the rules' costs. I ask that you use your position within the Office of Management and Budget to: 1. Direct EPA staff responsible for the implementing and certifying rules under the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act to exempt all laminated products, including hardwood and woody grass-veneered products, as intended by Congress based on the consistent reduction in emissions that all of these products demonstrate when finished 2. Remove or re-define "article" to maintain the integrity and heightened security of TSCA Section 13 to allow it to be used appropriately to protect Americans from toxic substances, without misrepresenting entire categories of products that simply do not belong within these classifications 3. Appropriately justify the cost of this major rule based on research, stakeholder input, technical feasibility and current practices of the regulated community. We look forward to seeing the hallmarks of your leadership within the rulemaking process. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Howard Shelanski, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Danielle Jones, Policy Analyst, Natural Resource Environment Branch, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cindy Wheeler, EPA Lynn Vendinello, EPA House Appropriations The Honorable Chairman Harold Rogers & The Honorable Ranking Member Nita Lowey: Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with regard to your role on the House Appropriations Committee in regards to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for CompositeWood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rule goes well beyond the California requirements and will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder without a justified benefit to the environment or health. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with unquantified benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. There is every reason to believe that consumers will not buy products that cost more without tangible improvements in value or safety. As an elected official on a committee responsible for the spending of American tax dollars, you hold the responsibility to fund only those things which benefit the American public. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written have the potential to harm businesses that contribute heavily to the pool of tax dollars you oversee. As a guardian of the American people's tax dollars, I urge you to prevent the EPA from spending any of the American taxpayer's dollars on rules that: 1. Fail to exempt laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from the rules 2. Fail to remove the classifications of furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other users/manufacturers of laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Fail to deliver on the intent of Congress regarding the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Thank you for considering the impact these rules will have on my business. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Congressman Adam B. Schiff Congressman Ander Crenshaw Congressman Andy Harris Congresswoman Betty McCollum Congressman Bill Owens Congressman C.W. Bill Young Congressman Chaka Fattah Congressman Charles W. Dent Congresswoman Chellie Pingree Congressman Chuck Fleischmann Congressman David E. Price Congressman David Joyce Congressman David Valadao Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Congressman Ed Pastor Congressman Frank R. Wolf Congressman Henry Cuellar Congressman Jack Kingston Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler Congressman James P. Moran Congressman Jeff Fortenberry Congressman Jo Bonner Congressman John Abney Culberson Congressman John R. Carter Congressman José E. Serrano Congresswoman Kay Granger Congressman Kevin Yoder Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart Congressman Michael K. Simpson Congressman Michael M. Honda Congressman Mike Quigley Congressman Peter J. Visclosky Congressman Robert B. Aderholt Congressman Rodney Alexander Congressman Rodney P. Frelinghuysen Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro Congressman Sam Farr Congressman Sanford D. Bishop Congressman Steve Womack Congressman Tom Graves Congressman Tom Latham Congressman Tom Rooney House Budget The Honorable Chairman Paul Ryan & The Honorable Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen: Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with regard to your role on the House Budget Committee in regards to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rule goes well beyond the California requirements and will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder without a justified benefit to the environment or health. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with unquantified benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. There is every reason to believe that consumers will not buy products that cost more without tangible improvements in value or safety. As an elected official on a committee responsible for the spending of American tax dollars, you hold the responsibility to fund only those things which benefit the American public. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written have the potential to harm businesses that contribute heavily to the pool of tax dollars you oversee. As a guardian of the American people's tax dollars, I urge you to prevent the EPA from spending any of the American taxpayer's dollars on rules that: 1. Fail to exempt laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from the rules 2. Fail to remove the classifications of furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other users/manufacturers of laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Fail to deliver on the intent of Congress regarding the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Thank you for considering the impact these rules will have on my business. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Congressman Alan Nunnelee Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz Congresswoman Barbara Lee Congressman Bill Flores Congressman Bill Pascrell Congressman David Cicilline Congresswoman Diane Black Congressman Earl Blumenauer Congresswoman Gwen Moore Congressman Hakeem Jeffries Congresswoman Jackie Walorski Congressman James Lankford Congressman Jared Huffman Congressman Jim McDermott Congressman John Campbell Congressman John Yarmuth Congressman Ken Calvert Congressman Kurt Schrader Congressman Luke Messer Congressman Mark Pocan Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham Congressman Reid Ribble Congressman Rob Woodall Congressman Roger Williams Congressman Scott Garrett Congressman Scott Rigell Congressman Sean Duffy Congressman Tim Ryan Congressman Todd Rokita Congressman Tom Cole Congressman Tom McClintock Congressman Tom Price Congressman Tom Rice Congressman Tony Cardenas Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler Senate Appropriations The Honorable Chairwoman Barbara Mikulsk & The Honorable Ranking Member Richard Shelby: Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with regard to your role on the Senate Appropriations Committee in regards to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for CompositeWood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rule goes well beyond the California requirements and will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder without a justified benefit to the environment or health. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with unquantified benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. There is every reason to believe that consumers will not buy products that cost more without tangible improvements in value or safety. As an elected official on a committee responsible for the spending of American tax dollars, you hold the responsibility to fund only those things which benefit the American public. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written have the potential to harm businesses that contribute heavily to the pool of tax dollars you oversee. As a guardian of the American people's tax dollars, I urge you to prevent the EPA from spending any of the American taxpayer's dollars on rules that: 1. Fail to exempt laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from the rules 2. Fail to remove the classifications of furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other users/manufacturers of laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Fail to deliver on the intent of Congress regarding the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Thank you for considering the impact these rules will have on my business. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Senator John Boozman Senator Tom Udall Senator Dan Coats Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Jack Reed Senator Jeanne Shaheen Senator Jerry Moran Senator John Hoeven Senator Jon Tester Senator Lamar Alexander Senator Lisa Murkowski Senator Mark Begich Senator Mark Kirk Senator Mark Pryor Senator Mary Landrieu Senator Mike Johanns Senator Mitch McConnell Senator Patrick Leahy Senator Parry Murray Senator Richard Durbin Senator Roy Blunt Senator Susan Collins Senator Thad Cochran Senator Tim Johnson Senator Tom Harkin Senate Budget The Honorable Chairman Patty Murray & The Honorable Ranking Member Jeff Sessions: Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with regard to your role on the Senate Budget Committee in regards to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rule goes well beyond the California requirements and will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder without a justified benefit to the environment or health. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with unquantified benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. There is every reason to believe that consumers will not buy products that cost more without tangible improvements in value or safety. As an elected official on a committee responsible for the spending of American tax dollars, you hold the responsibility to fund only those things which benefit the American public. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written have the potential to harm businesses that contribute heavily to the pool of tax dollars you oversee. As a guardian of the American people's tax dollars, I urge you to prevent the EPA from spending any of the American taxpayer's dollars on rules that: 1. Fail to exempt laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from the rules 2. Fail to remove the classifications of furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other users/manufacturers of laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Fail to deliver on the intent of Congress regarding the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Thank you for considering the impact these rules will have on my business. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Senator Angus King Senator Bill Nelson Senator Charles Grassley Senator Chris Coons Senator Debbie Stabenow Senator Kelly Ayotte Senator Lindsey Graham Senator Mark R. Warner Senator Mike Enzi Senator Pat Toomey Senator Rob Portman Senator Ron Johnson Senator Ron Wyden Senator Tammy Baldwin Senator Tim Kaine House Energy & Commerce The Honorable Chairman Fred Upton & The Honorable Ranking Member Henry Waxman: Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with respect to your leadership roles on the House Energy and Commerce Committee regarding the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rule will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with "unquantified" benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. As an elected official on the committee responsible for the Congressional oversight of the EPA, you have a responsibility to ensure that the rules promulgated by the EPA follow the intent of the legislation. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written do not meet the intent of Congress. As authors of the original bill, I urge you to direct the EPA to promulgate a rule that: 1. Exempts all laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from these rules 2. Removes the classifications of furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other users/manufacturers of laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Appropriately provides adequate benefits for the costs associated with the rule Thank you for continuing to ensure that the legislation that was carefully crafted by Congress is appropriately promulgated by the EPA. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Congressman Greg Walden, Oregon Congressman Lee Terry, Nebraska Congressman Mike Rogers, Michigan Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington Congressman Leonard Lance, New Jersey Congressman Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Congressman David McKinley, West Virginia Congressman Mike Pompeo, Kansas Congressman Adam Kinzinger, Illinois Congressman Gus Bilirakis, Florida Congressman John Dingell, Michigan Congressman Bobby Rush, Illinois Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, California Congressman Eliot Engel, New York Congressman Michael F. Doyle, Pennsylvania Congressman Jim Matheson, Utah Congressman G. K. Butterfield, North Carolina Congressman John Barrow, Georgia Congressman John Sarbanes, Maryland Congressman Jerry McNerney, California Congressman Ben R. Luján, New Mexico House Energy & Commerce - Oversight This letter will be sent to the following Representatives: Congressman Marsha W. Blackburn, Congresswoman Kathy Castor, Congressman Joe L. Barton, Congressman Bill Johnson, Congressman Billy Long, Congressman Bruce L. Braley, Congressman Cory Gardner, Congressman Gregg Harper, Congresswoman Janice D. Schakowsky, Congressman The HonorableMichael (name),C. Burgess, Congressman H. M. Griffith, Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with respect to your role on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in regards to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the6 furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put US manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, further reducing their ability to export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rule goes well beyond the California requirements and will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with "unquantified" benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. As an elected official on the committee responsible for the oversight of the EPA, you have a responsibility to ensure that the rules promulgated by the EPA follow the intent of the legislation passed by Congress. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written do not meet the intent of Congress. With the responsibility for the oversight of this agency, I urge you to contact the EPA to ensure that the final rule: 1. Exempts all laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from these rules 2. Removes the classifications of furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other users/manufacturers of laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Appropriately provides adequate benefits for the costs associated with the rule Thank you for continuing to ensure that the legislation that was carefully crafted by Congress is appropriately promulgated by the EPA. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Cindy Wheeler, EPA Lynn Vendinello, EPA House Energy & Commerce - Environment & The Economy This letter will be sent to the following Representatives: Congressman Bill Cassidy, Congressman Robert E. Latta, Congresswoman Doris O. Matsui, Congressman Ed Whitfield, Congressman Frank J. Pallone, Congressman John M. Shimkus, Congressman Joseph R. Pitts, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Congressman Ralph M. Hall, Congressman Tim Murphy The Honorable (name), Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with regard to your role on the House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee with respect to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within In requiring furniture manufacturers to purchase and exclusively use panels certified to meet the safe levels of the emissions standard, the performance of the finished laminated products are consistently shown to fall below the emissions standards of the statute. Additional testing or recertification after laminating or veneering on a certified composite panel provides no additional value or safety, but introduces significant cost and regulatory burden. The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120) which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world and that furniture manufacturers buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products begin with certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rule goes beyond the California requirements and will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder without a justified benefit to the environment or health. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with "unquantified" benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. I respectfully request that you guide the EPA to: 1. Exempt all laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from these rules 2. Remove furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other laminated products, from the definition of article under TSCA Section 13 3. Deliver rules which represent the intent of Congress regarding the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Thank you for considering the impact these rules will have on my business and for ensuring that the EPA delivers rules promulgated to reflect the intent of Congress. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) House Energy & Commerce - Oversight - Environment & The Economy This letter will be sent to the following Representatives: Congresswoman Diana L. DeGette, Congressman Gene E. Green, Congressman Paul Tonko, Congressman Phil Gingrey The Honorable (name), Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with regard to your role on the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee as well as the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee with respect to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for CompositeWood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within In requiring furniture manufacturers to purchase and exclusively use panels certified to meet the safe levels of the emissions standard, the performance of the finished laminated products are consistently shown to fall below the emissions standards of the statute. Additional testing or recertification after laminating or veneering on a certified composite panel provides no additional value or safety, but introduces significant cost and regulatory burden. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world and that furniture manufacturers buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products begin with certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. As a member of two subcommittees primarily responsible for the oversight of the EPA and toxic substances, you are uniquely positioned to significantly influence the path that the EPA has chosen in this rule. Business owners in the United States already contend with a greater regulatory burden than others in the world. The EPA has greatly underestimated the effects these rules will have. TSCA Section 6, which falls under your committee's oversight, requires the EPA use the least burdensome means to adequately protect against unreasonable risk. The EPA's approach to the rulemaking has not taken the least burdensome approach. It has not been shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of these products. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written do not meet the intent of Congress. I respectfully request that you guide the EPA Administration and staff to: 1. Exempt all laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from these rules 2. Remove furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Deliver rules which represent the intent of Congress regarding the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Thank you for considering the impact these rules will have on my business and ensuring that the EPA delivers rules promulgated to reflect the intent of Congress. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Cindy Wheeler, EPA Lynn Vendinello, EPA Senate Environment and Public Works The Honorable Chairman Barbara Boxer & The Honorable Ranking Member David Vitter: Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with respect to your leadership roles on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee regarding the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath. The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within. The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, further reducing their ability to export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. As an elected official on the committee responsible for the original passage of the legislation, you have a responsibility to ensure that the rules promulgated by the EPA follow the intent of the legislation. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written do not meet the intent of Congress. As authors of the original bill, I urge you to direct the EPA to promulgate a rule that: 1. Exempts laminated products used as a component part in construction of a finished good from the definition of hardwood plywood 2. Removes the classifications of furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other users/manufacturers of laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Appropriately provides adequate benefits for the costs associated with the rule Thank you for continuing to ensure that the legislation that was carefully crafted by Congress is appropriately promulgated by the EPA. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming Senator Jeff Sessions, Alaska Senator Thomas Carper, Delaware Senator Benjamin Cardin, Maryland Senator Bernard Sanders, Vermont Senate Environment and Public Works - Oversight This letter will be sent to the following Senators: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse The Honorable (name), Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today with respect to your role on the Oversight Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee regarding the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world. This law also requires furniture manufacturers to buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products are made of certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, further reducing their ability to export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. The EPA's newly proposed rule goes well beyond the California requirements and will add layers of extraordinary cost, risk and recordkeeping that will increase the administrative burden my business must shoulder without a justified benefit to the environment or health. It will also re-write the definition of my products to "toxic substances", and foreseeably increase the cost of the furniture I buy and resell to consumers. The EPA has not shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of the products I am currently selling. The cost-benefit published by the EPA in the implementing rule shows that the rule currently costs as much as $79 million more than the estimated benefits to the American public. While justifying the gap in cost-benefit analysis with "unquantified" benefits, the analysis published clearly demonstrates that the EPA could not find empirical evidence or justification for its costs. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. As an elected official on the committee responsible for the oversight of the EPA, you have a responsibility to ensure that the rules promulgated by the EPA follow the intent of the legislation passed by Congress. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written do not meet the intent of Congress. With the responsibility for the oversight of this agency, I urge you to contact the EPA to ensure that the final rule: 1. Exempts laminated products used as a component part in construction of a finished good from the definition of hardwood plywood 2. Removes the classifications of furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other users/manufacturers of laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Appropriately provides adequate benefits for the costs associated with the rule Thank you for continuing to ensure that the legislation that was carefully crafted by Congress is appropriately promulgated by the EPA. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Cindy Wheeler, EPA Lynn Vendinello, EPA Senate Environment and Public Works - Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health This letter will be sent to the following Senators: Senator Michael D. Crapo, Senator Roger F. Wicker, Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Deb Fischer, Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand The Honorable (name), Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today regarding your role on the Senate Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health Subcommittee with respect to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within In requiring furniture manufacturers to purchase and exclusively use panels certified to meet the safe levels of the emissions standard, the performance of the finished laminated products are consistently shown to fall below the emissions standards of the statute. Additional testing or recertification after laminating or veneering on a certified composite panel provides no additional value or safety, but introduces significant cost and regulatory burden. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world and that furniture manufacturers buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products begin with certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. Business owners in the United States already contend with a greater regulatory burden than others in the world. The EPA has greatly underestimated the effects these rules will have. TSCA Section 6, which falls under your committee's oversight, requires the EPA use the least burdensome means to adequately protect against unreasonable risk. The EPA's approach to the rulemaking has not taken the least burdensome approach. It has not been shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of these products. I respectfully request that you guide the EPA to: 1. Exempt all laminated products used as a component part in the construction of a finished good from these rules 2. Remove furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13. 3. Deliver rules which represent the intent of Congress regarding the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act. Thank you for considering the impact these rules will have on my business and for ensuring that the EPA delivers rules promulgated to reflect the intent of Congress. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Senate Environment and Public Works - Oversight - Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health This letter will be sent to the following Senators: Senator James M. Inhofe, Senator Max S. Baucus, Senator Mazie K. Hirono The Honorable (name), Re: Public Law 111-199 Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380 I am (your name), a (furniture importer / furniture manufacturer / furniture retailer / professional sales representative) doing business in (location). My business employs (# of employees) people. I am contacting you today regarding your role on the Senate Oversight Subcommittee as well as the Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health Subcommittee with respect to the rules proposed by the EPA implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite-Wood Products Act. I sell furniture. Much of this furniture contains composite wood panels, such as MDF (medium-density fiberboard), particleboard and plywood. With regard to formaldehyde in composite wood products, finished furniture consistently represents one of the most impressive records of supporting and decreasing consumer exposure to formaldehyde in the global marketplace. The sealing and lacquering process creates two primary benefits in the furniture I sell: It makes the furniture durable, easy to care for and attractive, by adding a finish that seals the surfaces, preventing liquids and moisture from penetrating and damaging the materials underneath The barrier created not only protects and keeps liquids out, it has also been proven to inhibit the release of formaldehyde from within In requiring furniture manufacturers to purchase and exclusively use panels certified to meet the safe levels of the emissions standard, the performance of the finished laminated products are consistently shown to fall below the emissions standards of the statute. Additional testing or recertification after laminating or veneering on a certified composite panel provides no additional value or safety, but introduces significant cost and regulatory burden. This will greatly impact my ability to remain competitive and support my employees. The law was written with the intent to implement nationwide California state law (CA 93120), which regulates the manufacture of composite panels. The California law requires that composite panel manufacturers produce and certify their MDF, particleboard and plywood to the most stringent formaldehyde emissions standards in the world and that furniture manufacturers buy and use certified panels to make their furniture. Knowing that my furniture products begin with certified, low-emission panel components, coupled with the proven benefits of laminating, sealing, and lacquering brings me confidence that the emissions in the furniture I sell provide the safety and peace of mind that my consumers expect. The increased costs in importing and manufacturing will put furniture organizations at a competitive disadvantage in the domestic and global marketplace, further reducing their ability to sell and export goods due to the increase in testing, certification and recordkeeping costs. As a member of two subcommittees primarily responsible for the oversight of the EPA and toxic substances, you are uniquely positioned to significantly influence the path that the EPA has chosen in this rule. Business owners in the United States already contend with a greater regulatory burden than others in the world. The EPA has greatly underestimated the effects these rules will have. TSCA Section 6, which falls under your committee's oversight, requires the EPA use the least burdensome means to adequately protect against unreasonable risk. The EPA's approach to the rulemaking has not taken the least burdensome approach. It has not been shown how the proposed rule will further reduce the formaldehyde emissions of these products. The burdensome requirements proposed by the EPA and the expansion of the definition of laminated products do not provide benefit to the American public, and as written do not meet the intent of Congress. I respectfully request that you guide the EPA to: 1. Exempt laminated products used as a component part in construction of a finished good from the definition of hardwood plywood 2. Remove furniture, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, laminated flooring and other laminated products, from the definition of 'article' under TSCA Section 13 3. Deliver rules which represent the intent of Congress regarding the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Thank you for considering the impact these rules will have on my business and ensuring that the EPA delivers rules promulgated to reflect the intent of Congress. Respectfully, (your name) (State), (ZIP code) Cc: Cindy Wheeler, EPA Lynn Vendinello, EPA x Terms of Service This website collects the voluntarily submitted information you enter via the form provided. This information is reviewed and stored to understand the participation that is occurring. This information will not be sold, or used for commercial purposes at a later date. This submission form is intended to send e-mails to key members of government. The e-mails that are sent are intended to become part of the publicly available docket for this specific rulemaking. The docket information may show the e-mail that was sent. If placed in the publicly available docket, the e-mail may show identifiable information of the sender, recipient, message, and other information. If you do not wish for this information to be available, do not use this form to submit e-mails. If you have any questions or concern about how this tool is used, the data collected, or anything additional, please contact us at e-coordinator@ahfa.us. x Privacy Policy Thank you for visiting an American Home Furnishings Alliance web site. Your privacy is important to us. To better protect your privacy, we provide this notice explaining our online information practices and the choices you can make about the way your information is collected and used. We do not collect identifying information from users of the public areas of this site, except to the extent that information may be voluntarily provided by a user. As with any Web site operator, we analyze our Web site logs to constantly improve the value of our Web site. We and our authorized agents use an external service, which provides real-time reporting of browser access to our site. This reporting includes page views, unique views, unique visitors, repeat visitors, frequency of visits, and peak-volume traffic periods. We do not use this service to gather, request, record, require, collect or track any Internet users' personally identifiable information. There are portions of the site that are accessible to AHFA members only. These members, by sending an e-mail to AHFA, may provide us, at their own discretion, any individual identifying information and contact information they so choose to provide. AHFA does not share information gathered through this site with organizations outside the membership for their commercial use. This site also contains an AHFA Membership Directory and Supplier Resource Guide for the use of the membership. Only contact information that is provided by members to the American Home Furnishings Alliance may be added to these directories. AHFA will remove any individual or company from its directory listings upon request made to e-coordinator@ahfa.us. When you place orders or register for a meeting online, we use a secure server. This secure server software, SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) encrypts all information you input before it is sent to us. Furthermore, all of the customer transactional data we collect is protected against unauthorized access with the use of digital certificates. Digital certificates for the American Home Furnishings Alliance are issued by VeriSign, one of the most established signers of digital certificates. To learn more about our online security, simply click on the "Security" icon (it usually appears as a padlock) in your browser tool bar, at the bottom of your browser window. This site links to other sites. The American Home Furnishings Alliance is not responsible for the privacy practices or the content of such web sites. We will not pass your information along to the linked site; however, we cannot protect your information if you provide information to that site. Contact Connect with IWPA IWPA ­ 4214 King Street ­ Alexandria, Virginia 22302 Phone: 703/820­6696; Fax: 703/820­8550; email Find us online in several social media forums.             54 Copyright © 2008­2015 IWPA ­ All rights reserved About Directory Annual Convention Government Affairs International Wood Magazine Industry Resources Join   Association Management Software Powered by YourMembership.com®  ::  Legal HOME FURNISHINGS & FORMALDEHYDE In 2010, Congress passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, or Title VI of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which established emission standards for formaldehyde from composite wood products. The Act also directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to propose rules to enforce the act’s provisions. In June 2013, the EPA proposed two rules designed to ensure that composite wood products – whether manufactured domestically or imported – meet the emission standards. Background The American Home Furnishings Alliance has been actively involved in the regulatory development of formaldehyde emission standards – as well as the enforcement framework for those standards – for more than a dozen years, beginning with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and continuing with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AFHA members have in fact, diligently worked to implement the regulatory requirements of the CARB ATCM, which has become a ‘de facto’ global standard. The CARB regulation was finalized in California in 2008 - with further reduction in the emissions standards completed in 2012. As the de facto standard, the global community has already realized the benefits of the reduction for over seven years. Throughout this time, AHFA has consistently worked to help achieve an effective and efficient regulatory framework that would provide the home furnishings industry with reliable mechanisms for demonstrating compliance across its vast global supply chain. AHFA provided a technical perspective that helped frame the legislative language within both the California and federal laws – including the requirement for the EPA to develop implementing rules for the federal standard. Although AHFA supports the federal formaldehyde emission standard, it believes the EPA’s proposed enforcement framework ignores definitive research supporting an exemption of laminated products from the definition of hardwood plywood. Research conducted by worldclass air quality laboratories demonstrates that finished home furnishings products have a reduced emission profile from that of a composite panel, calling into question why it would be regulated as a raw composite panel.. Over the last five years, as the EPA has moved toward its proposed enforcement rules, AHFA has traveled to meet with EPA and CARB scientists, participated in various joint studies to identify data gaps, and worked with the private sector and regulatory agencies to bridge those gaps to ensure accuracy and reliability of the test methods and to eliminate any embedded uncertainty in the regulatory framework. Despite these efforts, opportunities for strengthening the federal regulation remain, including: • • reducing method variability; strengthening requirements for third-party certifications; • • • • • increasing sampling requirements; addressing method correlation uncertainty; recognizing reduced emission profile of finished goods; performing scientific review of deconstructive testing; and, addressing outlined deficiencies before finalizing federal rule. Reducing Method Variability AHFA has worked to demonstrate to both CARB and the EPA the variability concerns in the testing methods specified by their regulations. Put simply, neither method has been evaluated for repeatability, reliability, or reproducibility at the low levels of formaldehyde emissions to which the methods test. The precision and bias studies performed when ASTM’s testing methods were adopted used significantly higher levels of formaldehyde emissions to establish the repeatability and reproducibility levels for the method. But the levels specified in the CARB and EPA emissions limits are outside of the range evaluated by the ASTM round-robin evaluations. One outstanding issue is the lack of a standard testing material to ensure consistent measurements throughout the supply chain verification system, including both CARB and thirdparty certifiers and their internal chamber testing. Because the testing methods specified in the regulations have not been proven to be reliable when testing to such low levels of formaldehyde emissions, they fail to provide 100% reliability of compliance to the emissions standards. These issues have been discussed within CARB, but no action has been taken. The variability within the current test methods represents a serious flaw; one that fails to create a 100% certified and compliant supply chain. The AHFA has advocated for updating these studies to reflect the current formaldehyde testing levels. Strengthening Third-Party Certifications Certifying to a Grademark program (on which the CARB Third-Party Certifier program is based) and certifying to a health and safety emission safety standard require significantly different approaches in oversight, accountability, and testing. AHFA highlighted the numerous differences within these two certification structures, but the regulatory bodies continue attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole. The credentials for third-party certifiers within the CARB program were intended to follow stringent and defined requirements, including ISO 17020, 17025, 17065 (Guide 65), as well as round-robin verification testing. Regrettably, these requirements have been loosened over time, resulting in a weaker third-party certification system and less confidence within the supply chain. AHFA has been calling for stronger requirements within the third-party certification system to ensure compliant product for both furniture manufacturers and their consumers. Increasing Sampling Requirements AHFA members have a vested interest in buying properly certified and compliant products through a recognized chain of custody and a series of supply chain compliance entities. This certified supply chain includes CARB and a network of independent and reliable third-party certifiers. On many occasions, AHFA has pointed out that the number of samples that a manufacturing facility is required to extract to properly characterize the emissions performance of its products is significant. In contrast, the testing program specified by the regulation requires the board manufacturer to extract a single sample within an 8-hour production period. This sampling is equivalent to allowing a single footprint to speak for the quality of an entire football field. While this level of testing may be appropriate for internal quality controls, it does not reach the level of testing required for 100% certification of an entire batch/lot of engineered wood. In order to achieve a higher level of confidence, AHFA has continued to call for CARB and third-party certifiers to require additional sampling from board manufacturers. Currently, the sampling requirement places the integrity of the entire regulation in a single sample. Addressing Method Correlation Uncertainty AHFA has been working closely with the EPA and CARB to improve the predictability of a successful field test result to a certified third-party chamber. But the regulation does not define a “strong correlation” versus a “weak correlation.” Instead, it relies on a correlation between a quality control test in the manufacturing arena to properly predict a result within a highly controlled and globally recognized third-party laboratory. The correlation is established for one entity to speak for the other and successfully predict the result of the other. If a weak correlation is established and accepted, it creates a high probability of a less predictable result. This introduces risk into the supply chain. The third-party certifiers have the authority of establishing the correlation rules and requirements for the manufacturing mills. AHFA maintains that this is a conflict of interest, and both CARB and EPA should formally establish the correlation requirements and the windows of uncertainty that these correlations yield. It is very simple: The sampling methods specified by the regulations have not been tested as valid using an acceptable scientific study. The issue is that the level of confidence for the correlated method may not be strong enough to accurately predict the results of the testing. Although the regulation requires 100% compliance to an emission limit, a third-party certifier and board manufacturer may not be using a test method capable of providing this level of confidence. Recognizing Reduced Emission Profile of Finished Goods World-class testing and research laboratories have performed many studies showing that a finished piece of furniture provides a drastic reduction in emissions compared to a raw piece of engineered wood. This positive impact on emissions also has been verified and published by agencies such as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In fact, the CPSC’s Update on Formaldehyde specifically suggests, “purchasing furniture or cabinets that contain a high percentage of panel surface and edges that are laminated or coated” as a strategy for avoiding exposure to formaldehyde.” AHFA and its members have spent large amounts of time with CARB and EPA officials reviewing and explaining the data collected and analyzed by these research laboratories. The studies clearly show that a finished piece of furniture has a significantly different emissions profile, and this difference should be considered in the regulatory framework. The industry has asked both CARB and EPA to rely on the available scientifically and statistically significant research in their decision-making. Performing Scientific Review of Deconstructive Testing AHFA has been transparent and accommodating in supplying data, expertise and materials for any type of testing. Unfortunately, the same level of transparency has not been provided in return. Deconstructive testing remains undefined both in terms of the data collected by CARB, as well as the testing method used by the agency. This lack of transparency and discussion has led to vast uncertainty in the marketplace and no clear understanding of defined compliance. AHFA has outlined this concern to CARB on many occasions. Currently, the only statistically significant research on the reliability of a deconstructive testing method was conducted by AHFA. This study demonstrated the significant variability and concern with the method. This research has been extensively reviewed with CARB and EPA officials. As an industry, we have asked for review and rigorous examination of this data and additional scientific exploration of the method, if needed. Unfortunately, CARB has not pursued this issue with the rigor required to resolve it. Addressing Outlined Deficiencies Prior to Finalizing Federal Rule In spite of the concerns outlined above and the fact that the required reductions in formaldehyde emissions have already been realized through the implementation of the CARB regulation for over seven years, AHFA and its members have been strong supporters of moving the California regulation to a national level through federal legislation. The bill that would accomplish this move was supported by a broad coalition of industry associations, including AHFA. However, after years of inactivity, EPA surprised many by publishing a rule that moves in a direction that did not mirror the CARB regulation. It does not account for the differences between finished furniture goods and raw engineered composite board. This was not the intention of the bi-partisan bill – a point that has been made by a broad bi-partisan, bi-cameral coalition of Congressional members. AHFA maintains that EPA has the opportunity to correct the deficiencies within the CARB regulation. EPA has the expertise, resources, and ability to improve the science of formaldehyde emissions testing. AHFA remains a strong advocate for stronger oversight both by the California Air Resources Board and the third-party certifiers. Strengthening these requirements, both in oversight and in scientific rigor, are essential to accomplishing the goals of the emissions standards. The California regulation has been in place for many years, leaving many issues outstanding. The time to address these concerns is now – before the issues are taken nationally with the EPA’s regulatory scheme.