[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1796, THE RESIDENTIAL CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING PREVENTION ACT,
AND H.R. 4805, THE FORMALDEHYDE STANDARDS FOR COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS
ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 18, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-106
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-018 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JAY INSLEE, Washington TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
Vice Chair Ranking Member
JOHN SARBANES, Maryland RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BART GORDON, Tennessee JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
BART STUPAK, Michigan MARY BONO MACK, California
GENE GREEN, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 2
Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Utah, opening statement........................................ 3
Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, opening statement..................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, opening statement................................ 6
Hon. Betty Sutton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, opening statement........................................ 8
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 8
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, opening statement..................................... 9
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 87
Witnesses
Robert J. Howell, Jr., Assistant Executive Director, Office of
Hazard Identification and Reduction, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission.............................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Eric Lavonas, M.D., Associate Director, Rocky Mountain Poison and
Drug Center, Emergency Physician, Denver Health Medical Center. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answers to submitted questions............................... 91
John Andres, Director of Engineering, Kidde Residential and
Commercial Division............................................ 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Answers to submitted questions............................... 95
Mark Devine, Vice President of Marketing, First Alert............ 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
James J. Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 45
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Tom Julia, President, the Composite Panel Association............ 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Answers to submitted questions............................... 97
Andy Counts, CEO, American Home Furnishings Alliance............. 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Answers to submitted questions............................... 102
Don Ryan, Sierra Club, Founding Board Member, The National Center
for Healthy Housing............................................ 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Melvin E. Andersen, CIH, PH.D., DABT, Director, Program in
Chemical Safety Sciences, The Hamner Institutes for Health
Sciences....................................................... 70
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Answers to submitted questions............................... 105
H.R. 1796, THE RESIDENTIAL CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING PREVENTION ACT,
AND H.R. 4805, THE FORMALDEHYDE STANDARDS FOR COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS
ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L.
Rush [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky, Sutton,
Matheson, Barrow, Matsui, Castor, DeGette, Radanovich,
Whitfield, Terry, Gingrey and Scalise.
Staff present: Michelle Ash, Chief Counsel; Robin
Appleberry, Counsel; Timothy Robinson, Counsel; David Kohn,
Press Secretary; Will Cusey, Special Assistant; Daniel Hekier,
Intern; Brian McCullough, Minority Senior Professional Staff;
Jerry Couri, Minority Professional Staff; Shannon Weinberg,
Minority Counsel; Robert Frisby, FTC Detailee; and Samuel
Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. The subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair wants to thank all the members and the witnesses
on both panels for your participation in this hearing this
morning. This subcommittee is here on H.R. 1796, the
Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, and also
H.R. 4805, the Formaldehyde Standards of Composite Wood
Products Act. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
The subcommittee is holding today's hearing on two
introduced bills that would protect scores of consumers from
highly dangerous and lethal carbon monoxide and formaldehyde
emissions. The first bill we will take up, H.R. 1796, the
Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, was
introduced by Mr. Matheson of Utah. The Consumer Product Safety
Commission reports that carbon monoxide poisoning is the
leading cause of poisoning deaths in the United States. Carbon
monoxide poisoning claims the lives of over 400 people each
year, hospitalizing another 4,000 individuals and it causes
20,000 individuals to seek emergency medical treatment. H.R.
1796 would amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to require
that residential carbon monoxide detectors meet current
voluntary safety standards. Warning labels would have to be
placed on portable generators advising consumers that they
should not be used inside residential and dwelling units. And
H.R. 1796 would authorize the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to establish a grant program to assist the States in
training fire code enforcement officials and educating the
public about carbon monoxide risks and the proper use of carbon
monoxide detectors.
Through these simple actions, H.R. 1796 will enable
consumers to better protect themselves against carbon monoxide
exposure and poisoning, and I want to take this time to commend
Mr. Matheson for his tireless work to prevent these outcomes,
many of which are avoidable, and I look forward to hearing from
our first panel of witnesses and our ensuing discussion on this
important bill and this important matter.
The second bill before us is H.R. 4805, the Formaldehyde
Standards of Composite Wood Products Act. This legislation will
achieve two very important goals: protecting American consumers
and protecting American jobs. H.R. 4805 will amend the Toxic
Substances Control Act by establishing a federal standard based
on requirements already set by the State of California to limit
the amount of formaldehyde that can be emitted from composite
wood products. Because this standard will apply nationally, the
legislation will result in greater protection for all
Americans. It will also ensure that we do not have a repeat of
the disaster with FEMA trailers that were used for emergency
housing following Hurricane Katrina, which I might remind all
of us, the thousands sick unnecessarily, and it would make all
of our consumers much safer.
Mrs. Matsui's proposed legislation will level the playing
field for American manufacturers. Currently, importers do not
have to meet these standards except to the extent that they
conduct business in California. As a result, badly needed
manufacturing jobs are going overseas and American consumers
are less safe. And I want to again take this moment to applaud
my colleague from the State of California, Mrs. Matsui, for
championing this legislation and working hard on this
legislation and ensuring that we are doing everything that we
can for both consumers and businesses.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time and
recognize the ranking member, Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes for
the purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Chairman, and I certainly
want to welcome all the witnesses today. We do look forward to
your testimony, your expert testimony on both of these bills,
and I certainly want to thank Mrs. Matsui for her bringing to
our attention the formaldehyde issue with her legislation, H.R.
4805, which is the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood
Products Act.
I don't think there is any question that all of us
recognize the concerns with formaldehyde, and the purpose of
these hearings of course is to bring out issues that are of
concern to us, and one of the concerns that I have about this
particular bill, which does not mean I am opposed to it in any
way, but it does not write an actual standard into law and it
does not direct the scientists at EPA to investigate this
matter. Instead, it explicitly cites a State regulation that
was adopted in California and it refers to the California
provision. The California regulation has not been fully phased
in yet. We cannot get a complete picture of any incremental
improvements in public health or how smoothly businesses
subjected to it have transitioned and whether consumers,
particularly low-income Americans, have been able to have
access to affordable products. On top of those concerns but no
less importantly, I do always have a concern when we set a
federal standard that there is not federal preemption, and I
know that one of the witnesses, I believe maybe it was Mr. Tom
Julia, although I am not 100 percent certain, expressed concern
about their only concern about trying to push for federal
preemption was that it might slow down this process. So I think
that is a couple of issues that we can explore today in this
hearing.
And then I certainly want to thank Mr. Matheson for H.R.
1796, the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, which we
also recognize is a real problem. I suppose that one issue that
we will want to explore in this hearing as well relates to
right now I guess about 25 States have voluntary standards on
this issue and I believe this legislation makes it mandatory,
and it is my understanding the Consumer Product Safety Act that
the Commission can invoke a mandatory standard but it has to be
under certain conditions and whether or not those are met in
this situation, I am not sure.
One other concern that I have, particularly with our
current financial situation in America with a $14 trillion debt
is starting a new grant program, and I don't remember precisely
how much money is authorized for this per year but my
recollection was maybe it is a couple of million a year, but
those are issues that you all are going to help us address and
so I want to thank you for being here, Mr. Chairman, and we
look forward to their testimony today.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah, the
author of the bill that is currently under consideration, Mr.
Matheson, for 2 minutes for the purpose of opening statements.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I do look forward to hearing from the
witnesses and look forward to hearing from my colleagues
because that is the purpose of these legislative hearings. We
try to look to work together to build more consensus, and I am
certainly not wedding to the specific text of the initial draft
of the bill. I think that is why we are here today is to learn
and improve on that to deal with what I think is a really
important issue. We have roughly 500 deaths a year in the
United States from carbon monoxide poisoning. An additional
15,000 people are hospitalized due to this. If there are
efforts we can make that are prudent to create greater
awareness of prevention, I think that is a worthy cause to take
up, so I am glad that this subcommittee has scheduled this
hearing on this legislation.
Just real quickly, there are three basic components to the
bill. It codifies current voluntary standards for carbon
monoxide detectors into law. It mandates labeling standards for
portable generators and establishes a grant program for States
that want to raise awareness and provide carbon monoxide
detectors.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate you calling this
hearing. I hope it is a productive hearing for all of us and we
look to improve on this legislation as we move forward. I yield
back my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes Dr. Gingrey for 2 minutes for the purposes of
opening statement.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I would like to
ask unanimous consent to submit my prepared remarks for the
record.
Mr. Rush. So ordered.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Gingrey. I want to spend my 2 minutes, Mr. Chairman,
relating something anecdotally, and I hope you will bear with
me. It was 53 years ago that I was a 14-year-old kid and my mom
and dad owned a small mop and pop motel at the state line
between South Carolina and Georgia, and in Georgia, it was
permitted to drink at age 21 but in South Carolina it was
permitted to drink at age 18. So a lot of the soldiers at Fort
Gordon would come across the river on the weekends and stay at
our motel for a couple of nights for relaxation and yes, of
course, to go across the street and drink a little beer. On a
cold March night on a Saturday night, we had three soldiers in
one of the motel rooms. Sunday morning my mom and my two
brothers and I, all Catholic, went to Mass, and when we came
back to the motel, we were shocked to see Army hearses in the
parking lot from Fort Gordon, Georgia. And what had happened
is, those three soldiers in that motel room died from carbon
monoxide poisoning that night because of a faulty heater. My
dad has been dead for a long time. I wish he were alive today
so he could know about Mr. Matheson's bill and be here and
listen to what we discuss today because he never got over that
emotionally. It wasn't his fault but of course as I say, he
felt to blame for the deaths of these 18-year-old and I believe
one 19-year-old soldier from carbon monoxide poisoning. Their
bodies were found right next to the door trying to get out of
that motel room. They almost made it but not quite. So I have
very strong feelings about this and I told my staff that
instead of reading the great written remarks he had prepared
that this really means a lot to me and it all comes back. It is
like it happened yesterday.
So this is serious business and I really commend Mr.
Matheson and I commend my good friend, Mrs. Matsui, as well. I
look forward to the testimony from the witnesses and discussion
from my colleagues, and Mr. Chairman, with that I will yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gingrey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.001
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Mrs. Matsui, for 2 minutes for the purposes of
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for calling today's hearing. I would also like to thank
the panelists for appearing before us today and I look forward
to hearing your views.
The legislative proposals being discussed will help
industry achieve consistent standards of compliance, create
jobs, protect public health, boost consumer confidence and
reduce harmful emissions. It is for these reasons that
Congressman Matheson is to be applauded for sponsoring H.R.
1796, which will require the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission to enforce stronger standards to protect
people nationwide against the deadly dangers of carbon
monoxide. As we continue to discuss ways in which certain
products impact American consumers, it is critical that the
federal government adopt approaches that are stimulative,
effective, innovative and efficient. It is equally important,
however, that we ensure that our Nation follows best practices
and adheres to the toughest production standards in the world.
Toward that end, I have partnered with Congressman Ehlers
to introduce H.R. 4805, which would establish national
standards for formaldehyde in domestic and imported composite
wood products. The emissions of formaldehyde, which is a
chemical widely used in a variety of composite wood product
applications, are known to have adverse effects on human health
and resulted in cases of toxicity for those storms victims
provided FEMA trailers following Hurricane Katrina.
H.R. 4805 would apply the rule recently adopted by the
California Air Resources Board, otherwise known as CARB, in
collaboration with industry, regulatory authorities and public
interest groups to lower limits for formaldehyde emissions in
those composite wood products. In doing so, the bill would
direct the EPA to accept the standard that is already being
practiced by our domestic industries and ensure that ongoing
economic recovery efforts continue. I urge my colleagues to
favorably consider this bipartisan, bicameral legislation which
is publicly endorsed by industry, environmentalists, labor and
health care advocates, and I commend Senators Klobuchar and
Crapo for offering the Senate counterpart and for their
leadership on jobs and consumer health issues.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for calling today's hearing
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
Whitfield for having this hearing today.
I believe it is important that our subcommittee continue to
examine chemicals and substances that are used in our everyday
lives as well as the laws governing their use in commerce. It
is our obligation to ensure that consumers are properly
protected. As I have said before, we must also find the
appropriate balance between protecting our health and the
environment and protecting jobs in this economy and the
manufacturers who make the products that we enjoy.
Of particular interest to me and my constituents for this
hearing is formaldehyde. It is a chemical that is widely used
but one that unfortunately my constituents are all too familiar
with. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed more than
300,000 homes and displaced approximately 700,000 people. As a
result, FEMA and its contractors shipped over 200,000 mobiles
home, travel trailers and other temporary housing units to our
region. These temporary units helped meet the critical housing
need following the 2005 hurricanes. Only later did we find out
that some of these trailers contained formaldehyde and had
exposed people to health risks associated with this chemical.
According to the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector
General, approximately one-third of the units had ``significant
potential formaldehyde problems.'' This led to many people
experiencing health and respiratory issues and some even had to
move out of the trailers.
Given the challenges we have faced, formaldehyde is an
issue that we take very seriously in south Louisiana. That is
why I am pleased to see some of my colleagues focusing on this
issue and introducing legislation aimed at setting standards
for formaldehyde in composite wood products. However, I do have
concerns with the legislation and would like to see changes
made. My office has discussed this legislation with a number of
organizations and businesses involved in the composite wood
industry and they have all echoed support for these changes.
Chief among these is preemption. As many members have already
said, I am afraid that without preemption, businesses will face
a myriad of different state regulations that will only make it
more difficult for them to conduct business. If California is
essentially setting the national standard, what is to prevent
them from changing the standard again, thereby creating
different requirements and compromising the national standard?
I am also concerned about the timing requirements and
restrictions that could be placed on businesses. It is my
understanding that implementation was delayed in California
because of the challenges business faced in meeting the
requirements. I hope that we would look at these issues and the
potential unintended consequences that could result from this
bill.
Again, Mr. Chairman, formaldehyde is a serious issue that
has impacted many of my constituents and I am pleased that we
are having this hearing. I do hope that we will fully examine
the legislation and proceed carefully when debating the
possibility of implementing the prescriptive requirements of
one State across the Nation. I look forward to hearing from our
panelists on their views on H.R. 4805, particularly on whether
preemption would improve the bill. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton, is
recognized for 2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BETTY SUTTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Ms. Sutton. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and thank you for
holding this hearing on these two bills that are critically
important moving through the subcommittee. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of these initiatives and I commend Mr. Matheson and
Mrs. Matsui for their leadership on these very important safety
issues.
The Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act
will require all manufacturers to meet widely accepted
standards for carbon monoxide detectors, and the Formaldehyde
Standards for Composite Wood Products Act will protect the
health of American families from high uses of formaldehyde in
common household products like flooring, paneling, cabinets and
doors, both important objectives.
Carbon monoxide poisoning is the leading cause of poisoning
death in the United States and formaldehyde has been recognized
as a carcinogen. National standards will certainly enhance
safety for consumers and will level the playing field between
foreign and domestic manufacturers. Currently, foreign
manufacturers who use unsafe levels of harmful toxins like
formaldehyde are able to undercut domestic manufacturers who
put safety above profit. Every year, countless Americans are
injured, sometimes fatally, by harmful products that have been
manufactured abroad and imported into the United States.
I recently introduced the Foreign Manufacturers Legal
Accountability Act of 2010 to protect American consumers and
businesses from defective products manufactured abroad. It is
our job to protect American consumers. The American people
expect and demand that the products that they are sold are safe
for themselves and their families. When they install a carbon
monoxide detector, they expect that it will warn of dangerous
levels of carbon monoxide, and when they install a new
countertop or paneling, they expect that the wood products are
harmless, and we must ensure that that is the case regardless
of where products are made. Dangerous products are dangerous
products, and those who would profit over the safety of the
American people must not escape accountability simply because
they manufacture unsafe products abroad and ship them to the
United States for our use, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for
2 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of the Residential Carbon Monoxide Prevention Act,
which would establish a mandatory safety standard for all
carbon monoxide detectors and requires warning labels on
portable generators, a major source of carbon monoxide
poisoning. I can't think of more dramatic and compelling
testimony than we heard from Representative Gingrey about how
important this legislation is, and I am not going to try and
elaborate on that.
We do know, according to the Illinois Department of Public
Health, however, that infants are even more susceptible to
carbon monoxide poisoning because their hemoglobin binds with
carbon monoxide better than adults do, so this is a special
problem for children. The highest rates are among seniors
because they are most likely to mistake the symptoms of carbon
monoxide poisoning for the flu or general fatigue. So I am very
happy to join my colleagues in H.R. 1796.
The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act
is another very important bill, and I would ask my colleague,
Representative Matsui, to add me as a cosponsor of the bill to
establish a strong standard for emissions of formaldehyde from
the covered products, which are very common in usage and in
most of our homes and backyards. But I think it is important to
emphasize that Congress is being forced to act on this measure
because the Environmental Protection Agency hasn't been able to
do so under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act. This is
another reason why we will turn our attention to reforming TSCA
later this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska,
Mr. Terry, for 2 minutes.
Mr. Terry. Waive opening statement.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 2
minutes.
Ms. DeGette. I will put my opening statement in the record.
[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.]
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 2
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and good morning,
everyone.
It is a good day when we can come to a hearing and discuss
bipartisan legislation that will put more Americans back to
work and make families and communities safer. I am supportive
of both of these bills because there is no doubt they will save
lives and jobs. When industry and public health can agree that
new laws are in the best interest of all involved, that is very
positive. However, I want to stress that these bills should be
viewed as just steps in the path to where we really need to go.
They don't really bring us across the finish line.
Now, H.R. 1796, the carbon monoxide bill, requires that the
voluntary standard for carbon monoxide alarms be made
mandatory, as many of you know, carbon monoxide, it is the
leading cause of poisoning death in the United States each year
so the urgency to pass this bill is particularly acute for
Floridians because we are beginning to plan for hurricane
season, and besides bottled water and batteries, Floridians are
going out to buy generators, and when the big storms roll up
through the Gulf or the Atlantic, they lose power and start
their generators, and these generators, they will put them in
the garages and the gas is colorless, odorless, and this poison
can kill them while they sleep and we have had some very sad
occasions there. So we need to pass this uniform standard. This
is going to protect all of us. It is a good start but what we
really need to do is pass comprehensive TSCA reform so that we
don't create more loopholes with piecemeal chemicals
legislation. We need to give EPA the authority to regulate
harmful chemicals in many of the products that are being dumped
on us from overseas.
So in closing, I strongly support both of these bills and
encourage my colleagues to vote for them as well.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and the Chair
thanks all the members for their opening statements.
It is now my privilege to welcome our panel of witnesses
before this subcommittee. It is indeed an esteemed panel, and I
will introduce each panelist beginning on my left where we find
Mr. Robert J. Howell, Jr., who is the assistant executive
director of the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction
for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Seated next to
Mr. Howell is Dr. Eric Lavonas, who is the associate director
of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, and he is an
emergency physician at the Denver health Medical Center in
Denver, Colorado. And seated next to Dr. Lavonas is Mr. John
Andres, who is the director of engineering for the Kidde
Corporation. And seated next to Mr. Andres is Mr. Mark Devine,
who is the vice president of marketing for First Alert, which
is an outstanding and illustrious company from my home State of
Illinois located south of Chicago in Aurora, Illinois, where I
visited many times, and First Alert is indeed an excellent
Illinois corporate citizen.
I want to welcome all of the witnesses today, and I want
you to know that it is the practice of this committee that each
witness must be sworn in, so would you stand and raise your
right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Rush. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have
all answered in the affirmative.
And now we will invite Mr. Howell to present his opening
statement. Mr. Howell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. HOWELL, JR., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND REDUCTION, U.S.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION; ERIC LAVONAS, M.D.,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POISON AND DRUG CENTER,
EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN, DENVER HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER; JOHN ANDRES,
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, KIDDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
DIVISION; AND MARK DEVINE, VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING, FIRST
ALERT
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. HOWELL, JR.
Mr. Howell. Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Whitfield and members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection. My name is Robert Howell and I am the
assistant executive director for the Office of Hazard
Identification and Reduction at the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you this morning regarding H.R. 1796, the Residential
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act and the overall
dangerous of carbon monoxide poisoning.
Before I begin, I would like to note for the record that
the testimony that I will give this morning is mine and
reflects the views of my technical staff. The testimony has not
been reviewed or approved by the Commission and may not
necessarily reflect the views of the Commission.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas
that results from the incomplete combustion of fuels such as
natural gas, gasoline, oil, coal and other fuels. The health
effects related to carbon monoxide depend upon its
concentration in the blood, which in turn depends upon its
concentration in air, the duration of exposure and each
individual's general health.
Some symptoms of CO poisoning may mimic common illnesses,
such as influenza or colds, opening up the opportunity for an
initial misdiagnosis. Patients are frequently unaware of
exposures to carbon monoxide, and health care providers may not
always consider carbon monoxide poisoning as a cause of such
nonspecific symptoms.
CPSC staff estimates that there were 180 unintentional,
non-fire carbon monoxide poisoning deaths in 2006 associated
with consumer products with 71 percent of these deaths
occurring in homes. Gas furnaces and boilers have historically
been a leading cause of carbon monoxide deaths associated with
consumer products. However, portable generator-related have
increased more than 350 percent in recent years from an average
of about 16 deaths per year from 1999 through 2001 to about 75
deaths per year from 2004 through 2006. But regardless of the
type of appliance involved in the incident, CPSC data show that
carbon monoxide poisoning and death are much more likely to
occur in homes with no functioning carbon monoxide alarms.
CPSC recommends that every home have a carbon monoxide
alarm in the hallway near the bedrooms in each separate
sleeping area. These alarms should be battery operated or plug-
in with a battery backup. CPSC publishes annual press releases
on the importance of maintaining home heating systems using
carbon monoxide alarms, meeting the requirements of the UL 2034
standard and installing carbon monoxide alarms outside every
sleeping area in the home. We also issue our rapid response
media alerts when an oncoming storm is likely to spur power
outages, as happened in this winter's historic snowfalls. The
Commission has also taken action to warn consumers of the
specific danger posed by the improper operation of portable
generators. In January 2007, the Commission issued a final rule
making a portable generator labeling requirement mandatory on
units manufactured after May 13, 2007.
The Commission has also directed staff to investigate
methods to address the carbon monoxide hazard associated with
portable generators. CPSC staff is working expeditiously and
making excellent progress to develop and demonstrate a proof of
concept for technology that would lower the risk of carbon
monoxide poisoning associated with portable generators. To
date, the work has yielded promising preliminary results such
as prototype generators which would significantly lower
emissions rates than found in today's marketplace. However, it
likely will take another 2 years of additional testing and
modeling before the Commission is ready to consider a proposed
rule to regulate carbon monoxide emissions from portable
generators.
CPSC staff supports the goals of H.R. 1796. Carbon monoxide
alarms save lives by warning consumers of the presence of
carbon monoxide before the onset of its debilitating effects.
CPSC staff believes that the current edition of UL 2034 is an
effective standard and that products meeting those requirements
provide adequate protection against carbon monoxide poisoning.
Making conformance to UL 2034 mandatory will establish a
minimum acceptable performance standard for carbon monoxide
alarms and will give CPSC greater authority to keep non-
complying carbon monoxide alarms out of the U.S. marketplace.
CPSC staff also supports the provisions in H.R. 1796 for a
state grant program for carbon monoxide alarms. Reportedly,
only 35 to 50 percent of U.S. households have carbon monoxide
alarms. Working with state and local authorities is critical to
amplifying our message on the dangers of carbon monoxide
poisoning. Getting carbon monoxide alarms into more American
homes, both existing and new construction, will save lives. We
believe the passage of H.R. 1796 along with our work to reduce
or eliminate carbon monoxide emissions at the source, alerting
consumers to the presence of hazardous carbon monoxide levels
if they occur, and educating consumers to the hazards posed by
carbon monoxide will provide a comprehensive approach to
addressing the risk to the American consumer from carbon
monoxide.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify on H.R. 1796 and the overall issue of carbon monoxide
dangers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Howell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.007
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Lavonas for 5
minutes for the purposes of opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF ERIC LAVONAS
Dr. Lavonas. Good morning, and thank you. I would like to
thank the committee and particularly Mr. Rush and Mr. Matheson
for inviting me to be here today. As Mr. Rush said, I am an
emergency physician and a medical toxicologist from Denver. I
am one of Ms. DeGette's constituents. Thank you. I am the
associate director of the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug
Center, which is the State-designated poison control center for
five States, and also a faculty member at the University of
Colorado.
As Mr. Gingrey said, this is serious business, and I am
passionate about this, probably for the same reason that Mr.
Gingrey is. Carbon monoxide poisoning is the leading cause of
unintentional poisoning death. That is after you subtract out
deaths related to complications from drug abuse. The most
recent data from CDC reports 562 unintentional deaths caused by
carbon monoxide poisoning. That was in 2004. That is not
counting fire-related deaths nor is it counting another 1,200
deaths due to suicide. There are approximately 20,000 people
treated in America's emergency departments each year because of
unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning. Again, that is not
counting suicide attempts. As Ms. Schakowsky pointed out,
infants and the elderly are at increased risk, as are women.
Surprisingly, there is not much variation around the country.
North, south, east or west, this is still a big problem. Of
those 20,000 or so people treated in emergency departments
every year, about a quarter will have lasting brain damage, and
that is even with the best available medical treatment. This is
a major public health problem in the United States.
So Mr. Gingrey stole my thunder. Statistics are important
but sometimes it helps to understand two or three deaths
instead of 562. In November 2008, we had an incident in the
Colorado mountains in which the Lofgren family from Denver won
use of a ski house in their kids' Presbyterian school charity
auction. Unfortunately, a vent pipe in the heating system of
that home had come unglued, apparently well installed but some
glue failed. A pipe was disconnected. Parker and Caroline
Lofgren, their 10-year-old son, Owen, and their 8-year-old
daughter, Sophie, never woke up the next morning.
In January of 2009, we had a winter storm blow through
Denver, as it is wont to do, and it loosened the chimney cap on
an apartment building near the University of Denver. So the
building super went up on the roof, tightened the cap down as
you should do, and accidentally killed a 23-year-old graduate
student named Lauren Johnson, who was found dead in her
apartment the next morning.
But let me tell you a success story, and these kinds of
success stories are why I am here. So when I was in Charlotte,
North Carolina, we helped to pass and then strengthen a
residential carbon monoxide alarm ordinance. The Charlotte
ordinance requires a carbon monoxide alarm in every dwelling
unit in the county. So this January, about 2 months ago, a
woman, presumably a single mom, for reasons that I don't
understand decided to use a charcoal grill inside the house to
cook a meal for herself and her three small children. Now, the
landlord is a good landlord and he complied with the law so
there was a carbon monoxide alarm and a smoke alarm in every
dwelling unit in the building. Her carbon monoxide and smoke
alarms went off but she knew the building wasn't on fire. She
didn't understand about carbon monoxide and presumably she
pulled the batteries. A few hours later, the carbon monoxide
alarm in the upstairs apartment went off. The upstairs neighbor
recognized the problem, went downstairs to check on his
neighbor. He could hear people moving inside the apartment but
nobody could answer the door, so he called Charlotte Fire
Department. They gained entry to the apartment, found the
mother semicomatose on the floor and the children severely ill.
Happy ending. So if you want to know why am I here today, there
are five very good reasons why I am here today. We had a good
landlord spurred by a good law.
The impact on the survivors is meaningful. For example, I
took care of an international--this is a patient I treated, so
I can't use his name but an international building business
consultant who flew back from wherever he flew back from, got
home to his apartment, dropped his bag on the couch, went to
bed. In the middle of the night his carbon monoxide alarm went
off. He had to crawl down the steps to get help but we were
able to treat him. He initially made what looked like a good
recovery and then subsequently developed some problems with
concentration. I lost track of him after we had referred him to
brain injury rehab but he was unable to work, unable to perform
his job.
So as you have heard, carbon monoxide poisoning is called
the silent killer. This poison has no warning properties. You
can't see it, you can't smell it. It mixes freely with air. The
first signs that you are being poisoned feel like the flu:
vomiting, diarrhea, achiness, fatigue, headaches. Doctors miss
this diagnosis a lot, sometimes with tragic results.
If we are going to do something about this, we need three
things: source reduction, early detection and public education.
Now, I am sitting next to an expert from the Consumer Product
Safety Commission so it is silly for me to talk about source
reduction. I am not an engineer. Public education is important
and both CDC and CPSC are doing aggressive messaging for public
education. We can always do more. But we are here today to talk
about early detection, carbon monoxide alarms. Even if you
could control the behavior of 303 million Americans, there are
127 million households in this country and things break. I have
had a carbon monoxide leak in my own home, and my home is 2
years old. Carbon monoxide alarms are inexpensive. They are
about 20 bucks, and the price keeps going down. The sensor
reliability for modern alarms is very good. We tracked our
false alarm rate in Charlotte and found that about 60 percent
of the time when Charlotte Fire Department got called for CO
alarm activation, they found CO in the home.
As Ms. Castor said, this bill is a small step towards an
important goal and I support the goals of this bill, and would
look forward to an opportunity to come back with something even
more effective and impactful in the future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lavonas follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.011
Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Andres for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN ANDRES
Mr. Andres. Good morning. I am John Andres, director of
engineering for Kidde Residential and Commercial Division
located in Mebane, North Carolina. Thank you, Chairman Rush and
members of the committee, for the opportunity to contribute to
the discussion on the prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning
in the United States.
Kidde Residential and Commercial Division is part of UTC
Fire and Security, a subsidiary of United Technologies
Corporation. We are a proud leader in designing and
manufacturing lifesaving residential carbon monoxide alarms and
other fire safety devices and are committed to strict
compliance to industry standards.
Kidde supports enactment of H.R. 1796, the Residential
Carbon Monoxide Safety Act. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention report each year unintentional CO poisoning kills
more than 400 Americans, requires 20,000 more to seek emergency
medical attention and causes more than 4,000 hospitalizations.
H.R. 1796 is a strong first step toward preventing these
tragedies. I commend Congressman Matheson for his leadership in
elevating this public health and safety issue.
H.R. 1796 would focus much-needed federal attention and
resources toward ending accidental carbon monoxide poisoning,
The bill's provisions to create a grant program supporting
residential CO alarm laws are especially important. However,
for the purposes of today's hearing, my comments will focus on
describing the carbon monoxide hazard and how CO alarms operate
to provide warning and on explaining why it is necessary to
establish mandatory federal product safety standards as laid
out in H.R. 1796.
Known as the silent killer, carbon monoxide is a byproduct
of incomplete combustion. Potential sources are gas-burning
appliances such as a furnace, water heater, stove and grill as
well as other fuel-burning devices like fireplaces and engines.
If such devices are improperly installed or malfunction, carbon
monoxide can build up inside a home. Carbon monoxide easily
mixes with the air and can quickly reach dangerous levels.
Because one cannot see, taste or small carbon monoxide, the
only safe way to detect the gas is to install working carbon
monoxide alarms. Kidde and fire safety experts such as the
National Fire Protection Association recommend placing carbon
monoxide alarms outside each bedroom and on every level of an
occupied dwelling.
When inhaled, carbon monoxide bonds with the blood's
hemoglobin to form carboxyhemoglobin, which then deprives cells
of oxygen. The CO alarm works by measuring CO concentrations
over time to ensure that an alarm will sound before a person's
blood level reaches 10 percent carboxyhemoglobin. Below this
level, a normally healthy adult will not experience symptoms of
CO poisoning.
Two key attributes of carbon monoxide alarms are accuracy
and reliability. These form the cornerstone of Underwriters
Laboratories UL standard 2034, an independent third-party
standard for which carbon monoxide alarms are voluntarily
tested and listed. UL 2034 is an American National Standards
Institute, or ANSI, accredited standard that combines input
from medical experts, approval bodies like UL, government
agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act,
the National Fire Protection Association, users and
manufacturers in order to create a robust standard of
performance. First published in 1992, UL 2034 has gone through
several revisions, each of which is based on years of field
test data intended to progressively strengthen the standard.
Kidde supports this standard because it specifically tests the
product design for electrical safety, mechanical robustness and
the accuracy of CO detection over time and in different
environmental conditions. UL 2034 is continually reviewed by a
standards technical panel in order to keep pace with
technological advances and past lessons learned. This revision
process has led to the creation of CO-sensing technology that
is more advanced, stable and reliable than past generations.
To date, 24 States have enacted laws requiring CO alarms in
residential dwellings, and while most mandate that CO alarms
meet UL 2034, there is no uniform requirement. More States will
likely adopt similar legislation in order to avoid confusion
among regulators, consumers and the industry. State lawmakers
need a consistent standard to define what constitutes an
approved alarm. Without such a reference, conflicting
regulations arise that counter one of the CPSC's objectives,
which is to develop uniform safety regulations for consumer
products and to minimize conflicting State and local
regulations.
In closing, each week we hear families whose lives have
been saved through the use of carbon monoxide alarms. Having a
CO alarm can make the difference between life and death. A
federal standard would provide an umbrella of protection for
all consumers in the United States as well as increased
awareness and save lives.
Again, I thank the committee members for their
consideration of H.R. 1796 and for raising awareness about CO
dangers. Congressman Matheson, we look forward to working with
you to pass this important legislation expeditiously. Thank you
for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andres follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.016
Mr. Rush. Mr. Devine is recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MARK DEVINE
Mr. Devine. Thank you very much, and good morning. As the
chairman indicated, I am Mark Devine, vice president of
marketing for First Alert and BRK Brands in Aurora, Illinois. I
would like to first take this opportunity to thank all of the
members for bringing this important issue in front of us all
today. I would like to also thank Chairman Rush for his kind
words regarding our company. We do enjoy being in Illinois with
you, sir. In addition, I would like to thank Mr. Matheson for
really representing this whole event in front of us today.
First Alert is a whole-home safety company with a
foundation in fire safety, carbon monoxide safety and
extinguishing products. Our name is very synonymous with
alarms, and like Mr. Andres, we also take pride in our quality,
innovation, engineering and our manufacturing. We are also a
leader in our industry in terms of public outreach and
collaboration with all the fire safety organizations.
I speak for First Alert when I say that we are concerned
about protecting and preserving human lives. That is the
primary reason that we support in its entirety the Residential
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, H.R. 1796. As we
understand it, this bill would require carbon monoxide alarms
to be installed in residential dwellings and places where
people sleep. This provides an effective way to reduce the
incidence of carbon monoxide poisoning.
The need for such federal regulation is strong. Carbon
monoxide continues to be the number one cause of accidental
poisoning in the United States. Each year, tens of thousands of
people as we have heard are driven into the medical care
facilities as well as over 400 lives are lost each year. We are
keenly aware of how many fatal CO poisoning incidents occur in
this country. Another example is just recently Amanda's Law
took effect in the State of New York. This was named for Amanda
Hansen. She died of CO poisoning at age 16 while sleeping at a
friend's house. The law requires that New York State residents
take necessary precautions to protect themselves from the
silent killer. Amanda's father, Ken Hansen, has become a vocal
proponent of measures that would require consumers to protect
themselves from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Moreover, each year we receive hundreds of calls, letters
and e-mails from individuals whose families have been saved,
and I brought just a few examples today of the literally
hundreds of examples that we receive from people who purchased
alarms and who have had unfortunate incidents but the alarms
saved their lives. These people take the time to literally
write in, call in, e-mail, send photographs because they feel
so compelled after they have had the saving incident from the
alarm, so it is a strong testimonial as to why I am here today
is to help more individuals understand the necessity for alarms
within their homes.
To better ascertain consumers' knowledge about carbon
monoxide and their awareness, we conducted a survey in 2009
where we spoke to 1,000 adults across the United States. The
survey that we conducted, we found some very startling
statistics. Forty-seven percent of households still do not have
carbon monoxide alarms. These products have been in existence
for well over 10 years, a lot of education, a lot of
information, but again, nearly 50 percent still do not have
alarms. We also asked consumers do you understand the
importance of carbon monoxide. Seventy-three percent of those
individuals said yes, they do understand carbon monoxide is
very hazardous and it is very important to them that they have
protection but yet they are not going out and purchasing
products to protect themselves. We also learned that 23 percent
of those individuals who have purchased alarms have never
replaced them. These products, as you stated, have been in
existence for well over 10 years. They do need to be replaced
as time goes on, just like any electronic device within your
home. So the message is not fully penetrating the American
public at this time.
With this said, we can also confidently state that
education can work. In 2002, there was a study that indicated
that 40 percent of households claim to have a carbon monoxide
alarm, but in our recent study that number has only increased
in 7 years by 9 percent. So there are still many homes that are
unprotected. Because of the effectiveness of education, we do
support earmarking grant money for additional public education
efforts. We believe this will further curb the rate of
accidental carbon dioxide poisoning. We greatly are encouraged
by the number of States and municipalities who have enacted
legislation. We also are grateful to legislators like
yourselves who are now working hard to gain that federal
support.
Again, I want to thank all of this committee and the
chairman, Mr. Rush, for allowing us to be here today to provide
this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Devine follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.018
Mr. Rush. Thank you. The Chair thanks all the witnesses,
and now the Chair recognizes himself for the purposes of asking
questions of the witnesses, and the Chair recognizes himself
for 5 minutes.
I am going to begin with you, Mr. Howell. In your
testimony, you state that a properly functioning carbon
monoxide alarm should be installed in all residences and
currently many States and localities require that carbon
monoxide detectors be installed in homes to protect against
carbon monoxide poisoning. The question that I have, actually
four questions, I will ask them all in consideration of the
time that I have and you can answer them, and if anybody else
wants to chime in, please. The first question is, have these
State and local regulations generally been effective in
protecting people from harmful exposure to carbon monoxide, and
are there any inconsistencies that give you concern? Should
some form of these State and local requirements be adopted at
the federal level, and lastly, States and localities also have
regulations on fire detection. Are there efforts being made to
ensure that the two detectors, fire and carbon monoxide, that
they work together or be combined in some way?
Mr. Howell. Thank you, sir. In regards to the first
question, as far as the effectiveness of State and local codes
in requiring alarms, they certainly are effective. Given the
fact that our data shows that 35 to 50 percent of homes have no
alarms at all, I think I need to emphasize that there is an
urgent need to get an alarm in every home, so whether it be a
federal requirement or a State or local requirement, any move
that would put an alarm in every home would certainly be
effective in reducing the number of incidents, death and
injuries, from carbon monoxide poisoning. As far as the
question regarding a need for a federal requirement versus
State and local, you know, I represent the technical arm of the
agency and that truly would be a policy question. From a
technical perspective, once again, regardless of what the
source of the requirement was, any move to get an alarm in the
home would certainly improve the odds of the American consumer
surviving if exposed to hazardous levels of carbon monoxide.
Mr. Rush. And what about combining fire and----
Mr. Howell. There are combined smoke alarms and CO alarms.
You know, at this point in time as technology advances, you
know, certainly there be an opportunity to combine those but
the sensing technologies required for those devices are
certainly unique and we want to ensure that the performance
standards for each device reflect the particular hazard that is
trying to identify an alarm to.
Mr. Rush. Dr. Lavonas, do you have any response to that?
Dr. Lavonas. Certainly. In answer to your first question, I
absolutely agree with Mr. Howell. The State and local laws are
generally effective. They are a patchwork quilt of some strong
and some weak provisions. However, every step in the right
direction gets you one step further in the right direction.
There are inconsistencies, and I would love to see a federal
standard on this, but that would be a much longer discussion
than what we are prepared for today.
In terms of the combinations, in my home I have two
combination dual-head smoke-carbon monoxide alarms, three wire
nuts to switch them. I dropped down the existing smoke head,
three wire nuts, put up a smoke-carbon monoxide combination
head. That takes advantage of the interconnect system that is
part of smoke alarms in the code. Both of the major building
standards, code-setting organizations have adopted carbon
monoxide alarms. It is in the most recent version of both the
international residential code and the National Fire Protection
Association 720 code. However, building codes only trigger when
you build or renovate a structure so if we are going to use
building codes to solve this problem, it will take a good 30
years. We are losing people every week, so I would love to see
a strong federal initiative on this question. That is my
opinion.
Mr. Rush. I am going to now recognize Mr. Whitfield for 5
minutes.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
all very much for your testimony.
Mr. Howell, I want to start off with you, a couple
questions. I notice in your testimony that you said that the
Consumer Product Safety Commission supports the goals of H.R.
1796. Do you all support this specific legislation?
Mr. Howell. We do certainly, and this is from a technical
staff perspective. Technical staff certainly supports the
intent of the legislation. We believe that there is a need to
work together on the language of the warning label, but beyond
that, certainly putting a smoke alarm in every home, a grant
program and, you know, making the UL standard for carbon
monoxide alarms mandatory, we certainly support that language.
Mr. Whitfield. So on the technical side, the warning label
is just one area that you would like to----
Mr. Howell. And it is really a minor issue. Warning labels
are a tricky science and we have human factor experts that
would certainly be willing going forward to work with committee
staff to develop the appropriate language for a warning label.
Mr. Whitfield. And would there be any other technical areas
that you would be concerned about?
Mr. Howell. No, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, one other question I wanted to ask you.
Under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, you all
have the authority to promulgate a safety standard if two
conditions are met. Do you have the authority to mandate the
standard of alarms?
Mr. Howell. Section 7 of the CPSA requires the Commission
to rely upon voluntary consumer product safety standards rather
than promulgate a consumer product safety standard whenever
compliance with the voluntary standard is adequate or would
eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury and it is
likely that there is substantial compliance with the standard.
At this point we believe that the standard is indeed adequate
to reduce or eliminate the risk of injury and we also believe
that there is substantial compliance.
Mr. Whitfield. So that would prohibit you from making it
mandatory?
Mr. Howell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
I notice in the legislation on page 4, and Mr. Andres, have
you read this legislation?
Mr. Andres. Yes, I have.
Mr. Whitfield. It says, ``Paragraph 2 does not apply to any
carbon monoxide detector not covered by the standard as
provided in section 1.4 of the standard.'' What is that
referring to?
Mr. Andres. We actually read through that and we were a
little bit confused by some of the language in there, and I
think we need to work with Mr. Matheson to look at some of the
language. I think the way that the provision is written right
now, there is a lot of confusion between the term ``detector''
and ``alarm'' and they use those two terms interchangeably, and
technically they are actually two different devices. So I think
there is some language adjustments that need to be made to
clean that up because honestly I didn't really understand what
they were referring to in that section.
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, so I think it is important that we
remember alarm and detector are two separate things, correct?
Mr. Andres. That is correct, and oftentimes a different UL
standard would be applicable.
Mr. Whitfield. And on page 3 where they make this a
mandatory standard, it says ``mandatory consumer product safety
standard, the American National Standard for single and
multiple station carbon monoxide alarms.'' What is that safety
standard in layman's terms? What is that?
Mr. Andres. Well, UL 2034 is the standard for conformance
so----
Mr. Whitfield. For performance?
Mr. Andres. It not only looks at performance but also has
requirements for design characteristics, so Underwriters
Laboratories would actually accept a manufacturer's, a number
of their alarms, and that particular standard would be used to
test the design characteristics of that. When it comes to
carbon monoxide alarms, they are going to look at not only
electrical and mechanical safety but they are also going to
look at specificity to detection of carbon monoxide. They are
also going to look at the accuracy of carbon monoxide
detection, which is very important, and they are going to look
at the accuracy over time. So the UL 2034 standard has evolved
over the years and it is actually a very good standard now. It
has gone through a number of changes that have made it a very
robust standard.
Mr. Whitfield. I know that we have an issue in the United
States of not enough people have these in their homes, but how
many alarms would you say are being sold in the United States
today that do not meet this standard that is set out in this
legislation, or would you have any idea?
Mr. Andres. I actually think today we are fortunate that
most alarms that I am aware of are actually listed to this ANSI
standard. I am not aware of any right now that are not.
Mr. Whitfield. Even imported alarms?
Mr. Andres. Correct.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah,
the author of the legislation, Mr. Matheson, for 2 minutes.
Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Howell, you may have referenced this a little bit in
your opening statement but there is a Senate version of this
bill, as you are aware, and in the Senate version, it includes
a provision that mandates the use of a shutoff switch, it is my
understanding, on portable generators, where the machine
would--you know, there is detection of carbon monoxide level at
some point and it would disable the generator. And I understand
the CPSC has been working in conjunction with the University of
Alabama in looking at the development of this type of a device.
Could you just give us a quick update on the progress of this
study and how effective the shutoff switch has been in reducing
the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning?
Mr. Howell. Yes. CPSC staff investigated two approaches to
the concept of a gas-sensing shutoff device to shut off an
operating portable generator before it created a hazardous CO
exposure. Both methods pose significant disadvantages. One
approach was that of a shutdown system in which the CO-sensing
device was mounted on the generator to detect the level of CO
in the vicinity of the generator. Staff found that a
disadvantage to this approach was a propensity for false
shutdowns when the generator was operated in a ventilated
outdoor environment but where the exhaust tended to accumulate
around the generator. Staff also is concerned about the sensory
reliability and life which may be comprised when exposed to the
door environmental conditions, engine vibration, combustion
products and heat.
The second approach the staff investigated involved a CO-
sensing device located in a remote location away from the
generator where occupants in the house might be that would shut
down the portable generator using wireless technology if unsafe
CO was developing inside the house. We conducted a
demonstration using off-the-shelf components including a
residential CO alarm, a radio frequency receiver and
transmitter, and a portable generator. One disadvantage, and I
want to say a major disadvantage of this approach was that it
required the consumer to properly locate the remote sensor in
the occupied area in order for it to work successfully and
therefore it could be easily defeated by the consumer.
Mr. Matheson. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get the Consumer Product
Safety Commission's understanding of those difficulties because
that is one of the differences between the House and the Senate
bill, and the reason we did not include this language in the
House version was because of these concerns about how well a
shutoff switch would work, and I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes for 2 minutes the gentleman from
Nebraska, and the Chair acknowledges the fact that the
gentleman waived his opening statement so if you require an
extra 2 minutes----
Mr. Terry. I appreciate that. My questions will be short. I
am not sure about the answers, though.
Let me first attack, or not attack but talk about the
standards for both the detectors and the alarms. You need to
help me work through why we need to have Congressional law to
mandate the standard when it seems to me that that isn't really
what the issue is. The issue is that too many homes don't have
CO detectors. Which one of you said that you actually had
incident in your own home? Was that you, Doctor?
Dr. Lavonas. That was me, Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. Yes, we have had the same thing in our home. I
have got three little kids, and we had our CO detector go off
and found out that there was some crack in a part of the
furnace, and so I am a believer in having those, but making the
standard that everyone seems to agree on is adequate today
mandatory, I am not sure we need to do that.
Mr. Howell, you are on the technical side. Explain to me
why the voluntary standard that two of you have already said
seems to be adequate needs to be made mandatory.
Mr. Howell. Mr. Terry, the decision to make this standard
mandatory certainly would be the prerogative of the Congress.
CPSC, as I indicated, not only is not currently involved in a
move to make this standard mandatory but the CPSA actually
prohibits us from making it mandatory as long as we feel like
there is substantial compliance and that the standard
adequately protects the American consumer.
Mr. Terry. So if there wasn't compliance to this voluntary
standard and that was inadequate, then you could make it
mandatory?
Mr. Howell. We could make it mandatory or we certainly
could promulgate a standard that was more stringent than the
current UL standard.
Mr. Terry. But you think that the current voluntary
standard is adequate, if I buy a CO detector that is going to
meet the standards?
Mr. Howell. Absolutely. Having said that, if I may, making
this standard mandatory would give CPSC greater authority to
keep any non-complying carbon monoxide alarms out of the U.S.
market should they try to enter the market.
Mr. Terry. Have you found instances of noncompliance?
Mr. Howell. At this point we have not.
Mr. Terry. And then the other is on the warning labels and
pictograms on portable generators. I think Jim has done a good
job of showing why I think we probably need to do that, but the
question then is begged, why does Congress need to mandate that
on you? And that would be your-sorry, Mr. Howell. You get to
represent the agency that has the authority.
Mr. Howell. That is not a problem. As I indicated before,
in 2007 CPSC actually mandated warning labels on portable
generators and on the packaging, and very clearly identified
the risk to the consumer and the correct behavior. Our label
clearly states using a generator indoors--and this part is in
bold and caps--can kill you in minutes. There are also
pictograms that indicate the behavior that we wanted to
discourage. It says never use inside a home or garage even if
doors and windows are open, and then it also illustrates the
correct behavior. Only use outside and far away from windows,
doors and vents. The Commission upon staff's recommendation and
the development of this label by our human factors experts felt
like this was a good label and served the purpose.
Mr. Terry. Thank you very much. Yield back my 4 seconds.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair wants to apprise members that the staff has just
informed me, or reminded me, rather, that there are 5 minutes
under the committee rules for questioning, 2 minutes for
opening statements and 5 minutes for questioning, and those who
have gone before, if you require more--you are OK for now? All
right. Well, thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Mrs. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Andres, the CPSC has estimated that 180 unintentional
non-fire carbon monoxide poisoning deaths occurred in 2006 and
were associated with consumer products. Of these deaths, 71
percent took place in homes. The data also showed that carbon
monoxide poisoning deaths are more likely to arise in homes
with no functioning alarms. To reduce deaths, CPSC has
attempted to reduce carbon monoxide levels in homes by
examining the limitations and detection capabilities of low-
cost carbon monoxide alarms. Mr. Andres, I want to know how
industry has worked with the CPSC and other stakeholders to
develop voluntary standards to improve consumer product
performance.
Mr. Andres. Yes. In fact, as outlined in some of the ANSI
protocols to develop a recognized standard, there is a
technical committee that is formed. We refer to it as the
standards technical pattern, and in fact, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission oftentimes participates in technical
discussion on the performance of carbon monoxide alarms, and I
have personally attended a number of these technical panel
reviews over the years, and if anybody were to look at the
amendments that have been made towards UL 2034, you would see
that the standard has evolved into a very robust-type standard.
Some of the major changes that have been made toward the
standard are, number one, a requirement to demonstrate whatever
sensing technology you are employing that that technology be
proven to be accurate, not just accurate on day one at the time
that the Underwriters Laboratory engineering is going to test
the product, but certainly accurate years down the line. We
have at Kidde, for example, over 10 years of ongoing test data
that is third-party witnessed by Underwriters Laboratories. At
the same time, Underwriters Laboratories has imposed
environmental tests so that sensing technology is proven to be
accurate under high humidity extremes or low temperature
extremes or high temperature extremes. The Consumer Product
Safety Commission has participated in many of these technical
discussions and they have also raised issues in the past about
performance of these sensing technologies, brought those into
industry so that we could all discuss it, and that has led to
the evolution of much better sensing technology today.
Mrs. Matsui. I think that many of us have been made aware,
particularly some of the testimony here, about the tragedies
that occurred, and I think some of us have experienced this
historic storm that we had in February where many of us lost
our power and our heat sources, and once again we were reminded
about the dangers of carbon monoxide. And it is unfortunate
that things like that have to happen for us to be reminded of
that, and that is why, you know, I look at some of the data
about the deaths and injuries that might occur. Do you believe
that you are at a point where you don't need the stronger
regulatory law? I mean, can we reduce more deaths or risks of
deaths if we have a stronger regulatory law or reduce the risk
of carbon monoxide as source?
Mr. Andres. Alarms have evolved to a point where you can
buy an excellent alarm for an $18 price tag that covers you for
multiple sources of CO source. You know, we talked about
generators but it is beyond generators. There are fireplaces,
charcoal grills, attached garages with running cars, water
heaters. I mean, for a $20 device being able to protect against
all those individual sources, that is just a fantastic deal. I
mean, the same time we look at what we are doing here today. I
mean, this is National Poison Prevention Week. We are having a
very good discussion on, you know, a very pertinent point,
carbon monoxide. Anything we can do to raise awareness will
naturally leave to saving additional lives, so we are going to
raise the awareness to the American public. They are going to
react to that, many of them, and purchase carbon monoxide
alarms. What you are doing here today will help raise that
awareness.
Mrs. Matsui. And I just wanted to comment, I think that,
you know, we are looking at these things sometimes in silos. We
are looking at the alarms right now. But you mentioned the
other aspects of it, you know, the generators and all of this
that are really a greater part of it too. So in a certain
sense, we have to address some of those concerns and how they
might affect as being the source of this and so I think that
you are right, it is absolutely important to do this but I also
think that we need to look beyond this also because this is--
partly it is education but part of it is also the
interconnectedness of all of this, and I think that is really
the important thing. So with that, I yield back my time.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes now the gentlelady from
Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to give an official welcome to Dr. Lavonas, who is my
constituent, and almost as importantly works for Denver Health,
which this committee has heard me sing the praises of many,
many times and does such a wonderful job not just with
providing health care to folks but with some of these public
health issues throughout our region. I want to welcome you, and
Mr. Matheson and I both agreed that the entire panel provided
excellent testimony and in particular you, Doctor.
I just want to ask a couple of questions of the panel. The
first one, as we know, the legislation provides for grants to
States and localities to assist in certain activities related
to preventing carbon monoxide poisoning. Dr. Lavonas, do you
think that the grants are a helpful way to address this issue?
Dr. Lavonas. Yes, I do. I have been through--this is my
third time working with a governmental body on questions
regarding carbon monoxide alarms, and so I have heard from my
previous experience the barriers that they face. The biggest
barrier that the State of Colorado faced was cost. It costs
money to implement a standard, particularly if there is
government-owned housing or government-imposed requirements
that are going to require training. I think this bill does
address that. I think that it may be helpful to allow the
States to use this grant money in some additional ways as well
as they see fit, for example, to allow the States to apply for
grant money to put alarms in State-controlled housing or to
fund alarm programs to provide subsidized alarms for low-income
communities. But fundamentally, cost is a barrier. Every State
in the Nation is struggling with their budget this year.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, and also the local governments, many of
which like Pitkin County which passed a law after that tragic
death in the family that you described and many other counties,
they are struggling with their budgets too. So what you are
saying is, if we are going to do a grant system, be sure we
give maximum flexibility so that that money can be used as
wisely as possible.
Dr. Lavonas. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. DeGette. I wanted to ask you, one struck me during your
testimony about the patient that you had who had brain injuries
from carbon monoxide poisoning because we do hear, there are
these tragic deaths. Mr. Devine has letters from people who
survived. But my question is, we have the tragic deaths but we
have many more people who have the poisoning who are somehow
rescued. What are the long-term health impacts on folks who
have survived from these poisoning episodes?
Dr. Lavonas. These impacts can be significant. About three-
quarters of survivors do OK. About a quarter of survivors
develop a brain injury that sometimes can get worse for a few
days after the poisoning. The problems have to do with--
everybody is a little different but problems with
concentration, problems with what is called executive
processing like can I read a map, can I follow instructions,
problems with short-term memory and problems with movement,
tremors, similar to somebody with Parkinson's disease.
Ms. DeGette. And do we have any sense annually about how
many of these lasting brain injuries there are as a result of
carbon monoxide poisoning?
Dr. Lavonas. Well, we know there are--if you add the
suicide and the unintentional exposures together, probably
about 45,000 or 50,000 people who visit an emergency department
for carbon monoxide poisoning each year. We know from good
research that about a quarter of these, perhaps more, will
develop a lasting brain injury.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Howell, I am wondering if you can tell me,
as you know, the bill requires the CPSC to publish the existing
voluntary Underwriters Laboratories 2034 standard for carbon
monoxide alarms as a federal mandatory standard. Do you know
how--can you tell us--I am sure you know how--the Underwriters
Laboratories standard for carbon monoxide detectors was
determined?
Mr. Howell. If you are asking how the standard came to be,
it certainly is a gathering of technical experts, industry,
stakeholders and of course CPSC is represented. Performance
standard design criteria is developed and it is balloted and
approved by technical experts that work to develop these
standards.
Ms. DeGette. Do you think it will sufficiently protect the
public?
Mr. Howell. At this point our indications are that it is
adequate to protect the public from the risk as we see it
today.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Just one last question. What proportion of
carbon monoxide alarms currently available on the market
conform to that standard?
Mr. Howell. I do not have an exact number but it is our
indication that there is substantial compliance with the UL
2034 standards.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Devine, do you know?
Mr. Devine. At this time we really understand that all the
alarms that are available at retail establishments for
consumers to purchase are compliant to the UL 2034 standard.
Essentially all of the major retailers require us as
manufacturers to have compliance to this standard today.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
There was a question that came to mind, so the Chair will
entertain any requests for one additional question from the
members here, and the Chair recognizes himself for 1 minute.
Can anybody provide any information on the threat of carbon
monoxide poisoning in any other place other than homes? And I
am particularly concerned or interested in any evidence of
carbon monoxide poisoning in automobiles.
Mr. Howell. Let me take the question as it began, which is
any place outside of homes. CPSC actually has recorded
incidents of people in outdoor environments, campers and tents,
whether either through the use of generators or other fuel
appliances that are used to either heat or cook have resulted
in deaths to those from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Mr. Rush. Anyone else?
Mr. Devine. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In addition to outside of
the residence, also concerning to us is the hotel-motel while
people are traveling. There have been occurrences, unfortunate
incidents where people have had carbon monoxide poisoning while
they are in a hotel-motel from a variety of different sources
as well.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the ranking member for 1 minute.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. Howell, I wanted to ask you a question. You didn't come
up to testify on H.R. 4805, the formaldehyde bill, which
applies to hardwood, plywood, medium-density fiberboard and
particleboard, all of which are products, and since you are the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, are you familiar with this
formaldehyde legislation?
Mr. Howell. I am aware that it was there. I have not
actually studied the legislation at this point.
Mr. Whitfield. I was just thinking that these are products
and you all deal with products and whether or not maybe your
agency should have the jurisdiction over this formaldehyde
issue, but we can talk about that later. I was just curious if
you had looked at it. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank the witnesses. You have
really been providing an invaluable service to this committee
with your testimony and your answers to the questions. The
Chair would like for you to know that we will keep the record
open for 2 weeks, and if there are any members of the
subcommittee who are not present who would like to submit
questions to you in writing, would you please respond to those
questions promptly within a 2-week period. Thank you so very
much, and thank you for your time and your investment in the
future of America. Thank you so much and God bless.
The Chair wants to thank the members of the second panel
for their participation in this hearing and wants to introduce
the second panel of this hearing for a discussion on the other
matter that is before this subcommittee, the bill introduced by
Mrs. Matsui. The Chair wants to thank all the witnesses for
your investment of your time in this hearing.
The Chair wants to introduce beginning at his left Mr.
James J. Jones, who is the deputy assistant administrator for
the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances of
the U.S. EPA. Seated next to Mr. Jones is Mr. Tom Julia, who is
the president of the Composite Panel Association. And seated
next to Mr. Julia is Mr. Andy Counts, who is the CEO of the
American Home Furnishings Alliance, and Mr. Don Ryan is sitting
next to him, who is of the Sierra Club and a founding board
member of the National Center for Healthy Housing. And next to
Mr. Ryan is Dr. Melvin E. Andersen, who is the director of
Program in Chemical Safety Sciences at The Hamner Institutes
for Health Sciences. Again, we welcome all of the witnesses.
It is the practice of this committee to swear in the
witnesses, so will you please stand and raise your right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Rush. Please let the record reflect that the witnesses
have all answered in the affirmative.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jones for 5 minutes for the
purposes of an opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. JONES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; TOM JULIA, PRESIDENT, THE
COMPOSITE PANEL ASSOCIATION; ANDY COUNTS, CEO, AMERICAN HOME
FURNISHINGS ALLIANCE; DON RYAN, SIERRA CLUB, FOUNDING BOARD
MEMBER, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTHY HOUSING; AND MELVIN E.
ANDERSEN, CIH, PHD, DABT, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM IN CHEMICAL SAFETY
SCIENCES, THE HAMNER INSTITUTES FOR HEALTH SCIENCES
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. JONES
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Radanovich and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today regarding the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's efforts on formaldehyde and
the potential legislative action in Congress.
Formaldehyde is a widely used chemical and may be found
both indoors and outdoors. It is used in building materials and
household products and also produces a byproduct of combustion.
In homes, the most significant sources of formaldehyde are
likely to be pressed wood products made using adhesives that
contain urea-formaldehyde resins.
Inhalation of formaldehyde can cause irritation of the
eyes, nose, throat and skin as well as inflammation and damage
to the upper respiratory tract. Additionally, there is growing
evidence that formaldehyde exposure may impact pulmonary
function and increase respiratory symptoms, asthma and allergic
sensitization in children. In 1989, EPA classified formaldehyde
as a probable human carcinogen.
EPA is currently engaged in a reassessment of the potential
cancer and non-cancer risks of formaldehyde that will be
entered into EPA's Integrated Risk Information, or IRIS
program. As a result of this reassessment process, EPA is
reexamining its conclusions regarding the cancer and non-cancer
effects of formaldehyde. This assessment will be ready for
external review soon. The agency has also asked the National
Academy of Sciences to provide independent external scientific
peer review, and EPA will offer opportunities for public
comment on the underlying science.
The recent focus of formaldehyde in the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances resulted from a
March 2008 petition to adopt the California State regulation
concerning emissions of formaldehyde from three types of
composite wood products. They petitioned EPA to exercise its
authority under TSCA section 6 to adopt and apply nationally
the California formaldehyde emissions regulation for these
composite wood products. In response, EPA announced on June 24,
2008, that it was partially granting and partially denying the
petition. While the agency denied the specifics of the petition
request, EPA announced plans to issue an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to initiate a proceeding to assist us in
obtaining a better understanding of the available control
technologies and approaches, industry practices and the
implementation of the California regulation.
The ANPR was issued on December 3, 2008, and describes
EPA's initial steps in that investigation and requested comment
information and data relating to formaldehyde emissions from
pressed wood products.
The challenge of regulating chemicals under our current
TSCA authority is worth noting. As Congress moves toward TSCA
reform legislation, we have stated in previous hearings that as
a result of the legal and procedural requirements TSCA places
on EPA to collect data, there are large, troubling gaps in the
available data and state of knowledge of many widely used
chemicals in commerce. Chemical producers are not required to
provide EPA the data necessary to fully assess a chemical's
risks. In cases such as formaldehyde where EPA has adequate
data on a chemical and it wants to protect against well-known
risks to human health and the environment, there are legal
hurdles that prevent quick and effective regulatory action.
In regards to formaldehyde, the agency noted in its 2008
ANPR that EPA does not have sufficient information to evaluate
whether the CARB standard would likely be the least burdensome
alternative necessary to protect adequately against such risks.
This finding illustrates the inherent difficulty the agency
faces in regulating chemicals under TOSCA even for a chemical
such as formaldehyde where data and information are available
regarding its health effects.
Restoring confidence in our chemical management system is a
top priority for EPA and an environmental priority for the
Obama Administration. This Administration's principles for how
TSCA should be revised and modernized call for stronger and
clearer authority for EPA to collect and act upon critical data
regarding chemical risks. Under a reformed TSCA, EPA should
have the necessary authority and tools to quickly require
testing and obtain other information from manufacturers that is
relevant to determining the safety of chemicals and should also
have clear authority to take risk-management actions when
chemicals do not meet safety standards.
EPA currently anticipates being able to make a
determination on whether to pursue regulatory action on
formaldehyde in 2011. If we were to propose a new regulation at
that time, a final rule could be anticipated 1 to 3 years later
depending on the comments we receive and additional analysis
and consultations which may be required in order to finalize.
As this committee considers legislation on formaldehyde, we
agree that formaldehyde is a hazardous chemical and support the
goal of legislation in reducing the risks of formaldehyde in
pressed wood products. Reducing formaldehyde emissions in
pressed wood products should be an important public health
goal. California has made a valuable contribution to
formaldehyde emissions reductions through it standards and is
providing a clear model for addressing the problem.
We look forward to working with this committee as it moves
forward to reduce exposure to formaldehyde from these products.
It is our hope that Congress will also be able to act on TSCA
reform since the Administration believes it is important to
work together to quickly modernize and strengthen the tools
available in TSCA.
Thank you for the opportunity to present EPA's views, and I
am happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.023
Mr. Rush. Mr. Julia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF TOM JULIA
Mr. Julia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Radanovich, members of the subcommittee, and thank you in
particular to Mrs. Matsui for taking the leadership to
introduce this important piece of consumer legislation.
I am Tom Julia, president of The Composite Panel
Association, a not-for-profit association representing more
than 90 percent of the North American production of
particleboard, medium-density fiberboard and hardboard. We are
representing manufacturers of two of the three products
regulated under this legislation, and we are here to offer to
our strong support.
Composite panel products used in construction materials,
furniture, cabinets and for hundreds of other uses are a major
worldwide industry. In the United States alone, panel mills
employ thousands of workers and the sale of our product affect
hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, typically in small
rural communities throughout the Nation. We are among the
greenest industries in the world, and most U.S.-made products
use 100 percent recycled residual or post-consumer wood. CPA
itself is a world leader in quality assurance, product testing
and certification and sponsorship of voluntary industry
standards.
I am proud to say today that nearly 100 percent of U.S.
production capacity of particleboard and MDF is compliant with
the California standard phase I and in many cases phase II, the
levels that would be required under this legislation. Our
sister trade association, the Hardwood Plywood Veneer
Association, represented in the audience today, can tell you a
comparable story for hardwood plywood products, the other
product regulated under this bill.
None of this happened by accident. It took a long-term
commitment to lower emission levels, a major and ongoing
capital investment in new technology, and an early commitment
to the California rule and to meeting its deadlines. We wish
that everyone would share this strong commitment to product
stewardship and lower formaldehyde emissions, especially some
of those making products overseas that are bound for American
markets. Fortunately, most of the U.S.-based trade associations
representing offshore producers have strongly committed
themselves to supporting this bill and responsible importers
are meeting the CARB rule. But there is still too much product
entering the U.S. market made by companies who don't
participate in trade associations, who don't get their products
tested and certified, who don't sell into California and who
often sell low-priced goods to the most vulnerable of our
citizens. These are the bad actors that H.R. 4805 will reach
while at the same time ensuring a consistent standard of
compliance and enforcement throughout the United States.
By establishing national requirements, you will give the
American public full confidence that panel producers are doing
everything possible to minimize the environmental footprints of
our products, that a rigorous federal standard stands behind
these products and that compliance doesn't just happen some of
the time, it happens all of the time. We submit to you that is
good for public health, this is good for domestic jobs and this
is good for the American consumer.
We are here today at a rare moment in history when industry
and environmentalists, labor and health care groups can come
together and support a common result. This is also a day to
think, as we heard earlier today, about the emergency housing
units provided to victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane
Rita. Had there been a national emissions standards in place
and third-party testing and certification to validate
compliance, it is very possible there never would have been a
FEMA trailer problem, at least one related to formaldehyde
emissions from composite wood. And by passing this bill, you
can make a statement that says we will never let it happen
again.
I cannot say enough about third-party testing and
certification. Responsible industries around the world are
embracing it and it indeed has become our industry's equivalent
to what President Reagan called trust and verify. It is also
the key to the success of this bill.
In closing, I urge you to take what California has called
the toughest production standard in the world and make it
America's standard too. Earlier today there were some questions
about preemption and the impact of this bill on the States, and
I would be happy in my responses to questions to address those,
Mr. Chairman, or at this time. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Julia follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.029
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Counts for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF ANDY COUNTS
Mr. Counts. Good morning. I am Andy Counts, chief executive
officer of the American Home Furnishings Alliance. I would like
to thank Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Radanovich, members of
the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify. I would
especially like to thank Congresswoman Doris Matsui for her
leadership along with Congressman Vern Ehlers for advancing
this important legislation.
The AHFA is the world's largest trade association, serving
the home furnishings industry. Member companies comprise an
extensive global network of manufacturers who produce home
furnishings or component parts constructed of composite wood
products.
AHFA supports the regulation of formaldehyde emissions from
composite wood products, and we support H.R. 4805. We believe
that a national approach is crucial in order to avoid
conflicting State standards and allow for the harmonized
distribution of products and supplies.
AHFA along with wood products industry, environmental,
health and labor organizations worked for more than 7 years
with the California Air Resources Board to establish
formaldehyde emission limits for composite wood products. These
new emission limits are the most stringent in the world.
Outside these emissions limits, however, there are several
aspects of the California rule that cannot be implemented
nationally. H.R. 4805 provides EPA the platform and flexibility
needed to address these issues and modify the California
approach, providing a commonsense, pragmatic national
regulation.
Of critical importance will be the inclusion of adequate
compliance timelines and sell-through provisions. Due to the
unprecedented economic conditions of the last few years,
inventory levels remain high. Unlike in California where
noncompliant inventories could be moved to other markets,
adequate sell-through provisions are needed nationally to
accommodate increased inventories and slow inventory turns. We
request a sell-through period of 36 months finished products
following the compliance deadline for composite wood products.
It is important to note that the California formaldehyde
standard and the national standard proposed under H.R. 4805
regulate emissions from composite wood products and not the
finished products that contain composite wood components. In
fact, the value-added steps associated with finished products
such as lamination and finishing have been proven to lower
emissions of composite wood components. EPA must focus
compliance and enforcement where it belongs: at the point of
manufacture and process control. The regulations should not
contain any provisions for the testing of finished goods such
as furniture or cabinets. If the raw board component parts are
properly regulated, downstream users of these products will be
required to purchase them and to only use or resell these safe
products to consumers. This ensures the overall safety of the
global supply chain and the citizens who purchase home
furnishings.
AFHA applauds the efforts of our global suppliers that have
worked tirelessly to comply with the California standards. We
stand ready to educate the industry on the new national
standard and provide the tools necessary to ensure compliance
on a global basis. We also look forward to working closely with
EPA during the development of this regulation.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Counts follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.031
Mr. Rush. Mr. Ryan is recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DON RYAN
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Radanovich and
Representative Matsui. My name is Don Ryan. It is my pleasure
to testify today in strong support of H.R. 4805. I testify on
behalf of two organizations: the National Center for Healthy
Housing and the Sierra Club. The National Center is dedicating
to ensuring that all Americans' homes are healthy and safe
through proven and practical steps. The National Center is
concerned about formaldehyde because of the enormous body of
scientific evidence documenting formaldehyde's human health
risks. Formaldehyde is an irritant, an allergen, a cancer risk,
and composite wood products are a significant source of
exposure, and just as importantly, an opportunity to
significantly reduce exposures.
The Sierra Club is one of the Nation's oldest and largest
environmental organizations. It is committed to protecting
public health as well as natural resources. And it was the
Sierra Club that first called the Nation's attention to the
dangers of high formaldehyde levels in FEMA trailers after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The primary source was
manufactured wood products with formaldehyde glue, most of
which apparently came from overseas.
The painful story of formaldehyde and FEMA trailers is not
yet over as just last week the federal government announced the
sale of 120,000 of these travel trailers. I am concerned about
the sale at several levels. The trailers may pose formaldehyde
hazards. They may pose other health hazards. Some of these
trailers may come to be occupied as permanent homes, even
though that is not their designed intent, and there is a chance
the warning labels may be removed before the resale to future
buyers. What I want to drive home is that all these health
hazards, these headaches, these heartaches could have been
completely avoided, and that is why H.R. 4805's enactment is so
important.
I want to applaud Representatives Matsui and Ehlers for
introducing this bill. I want to thank this subcommittee for
holding this hearing and moving it forward.
I also want to take a minute to salute the staff of the
California Air Resources Board because the opportunity before
us today to advance public health across the Nation is due to
their hard work over the past 7 years to carefully craft the
standard that is protective, that is practical, that is
enforceable. But there are limits to what one State can
accomplish when it comes to a worldwide market for products
such as composite wood products. As we have seen with other
consumer products, with drywall, with dog food, with children's
toys, ensuring compliance by overseas manufacturers is
absolutely critical and often very difficult. The California
formaldehyde standard is the toughest production standard in
the world. The standard has already taken effect. The standard
is already working. Manufacturers are already complying.
So at the most basic level, what H.R. 4805 does is two
things. It extends the California standard's public health
protections across the country as quickly as possible, and
number two, it strengthens enforcement to level the playing
field so that unscrupulous manufacturers cannot undercut
responsible manufacturers. So this bill is a giant step forward
for public health. It has the support of environmental, health,
labor and consumer advocates and this bill is a giant step
forward for responsible manufacturers because it levels the
playing field. It will create green jobs for American workers.
And finally, I want to note this bill is a big win for the
American taxpayer because it avoids the complexities and the
clumsiness of TSCA by directing EPA to issue its regulation
without delay.
So I would urge this subcommittee's support of the bill. I
think it deserves your bipartisan support. I hope it wins your
unanimous support, and I ask each of you to urge the full
Energy and Commerce Committee to recommend this bill's early
approval by the full House.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.034
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Dr. Andersen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MELVIN E. ANDERSEN
Mr. Andersen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am
Dr. Mel Andersen, director, Program in Chemical Safety
Sciences, The Hamner Institutes for Health Science.
I completely applaud the legislation. I think it is
important for the American people, and I am here actually to
take objection with the scientific basis of the California risk
assessment that has been used to support the emissions
standards.
My professional career spans 40 years and five or six
employers. My primary area of expertise is pharmacokinetics,
how chemicals get to target tissues in the body, what they do
there. In 1998 I served as a peer reviewer for an alternative
risk assessment other than the California risk assessment that
was developed by an organization, the Chemical Industry
Institute of Toxicology, peer reviewed in Canada. I was a peer
reviewer for that process.
The Hamner is the successor to CIIT. I have worked at The
Hamner since 2002. Before that I was a professor of
environmental health at Colorado State University in Fort
Collins, Colorado. Over the past 5 years, I have conducted
research at The Hamner funded by the Formaldehyde Council to
understand the changes in genes and gene expression in the nose
when rats are exposed to formaldehyde. More recently, we have
been studying this area called pharmacokinetics of formaldehyde
in the nose.
I want to stress that today I am here neither representing
the formaldehyde council nor The Hamner. I am here representing
a 40-year practitioner in toxicology and risk assessment.
You, me, all of us have substantial amounts of formaldehyde
in every single cell in our body. The number actually is 12,000
parts per billion. It is part of normal metabolism. We have to
have it. Formaldehyde causes toxicity when inhaled
concentrations increase the levels in the tissues in the front
of the nose to cause toxicity, cell death, regeneration and
ultimately cancer at high concentrations.
Our studies show that at 100 parts per billion, there is no
increase in the amount of formaldehyde in tissues in the nose
compared to background levels, background physiological levels.
But formaldehyde is a carcinogen, yes. It is a nasal irritant,
yes. In trailers where people are closed, it has irritant
properties. It could cause asthma. And we need to protect
against it and this legislation is a good legislation to help
us protect people who are in these trailers, people who live in
all kinds of homes.
My comments really come down to just two points. The
California risk assessment is extremely conservative using what
are now antiquated approaches from the 1970s. They have not
been updated by a better understanding of the biology of
formaldehyde, its effects on tissues or a better understanding
of cancer biology now that we have moved into the 21st century.
They are technologies that are quite old. The CIIT assessment
that was done 10 years ago is still in some ways outdated. It
is better. It actually predicts risks that are probably 2,000-
fold lower than estimated by the California risk assessment but
it is still outdated. Neither one of them take account of the
fact that there is a good bit of indigenous formaldehyde.
I provided two visuals, one a table showing this comparison
of the risks from what is an EPA risk assessment, almost
equivalent to the California one, and one is the CIIT
assessment. I provided a table that shows as a function of
concentration different effects, different exposures going from
5 to 10 parts per million in outdoor air to higher
concentrations, and then ones in which we have irritancy, 300
parts per billion, the threshold limit value of the American
Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, and then on to
concentrations which are clearly toxic.
The proposed legislation sets limits on emission rates from
building products. I am an industrial hygienist. Among all the
letters after my name, CIH is certified industrial hygienist.
As a certified industrial hygienist, it makes good sense to me
to limit off-gassing of formaldehyde from these products by
good manufacturing processes and to protect people from
irritation, from a likelihood of asthma and from respiratory
distress. However, I am here today because I find it, in my
professional judgment, I find it objectionable that this
decision is being taken based on outdated biologically
deficient risk assessment, an assessment that neglected a broad
body of research on formaldehyde carcinogenicity, on
formaldehyde toxicity, ignores the attributes of biochemistry
of cellular formaldehyde, a physiological material in our
bodies, and it creates the impression that formaldehyde at
concentrations only several parts per billion poses a
substantial, quantifiable cancer risk in people. That is the
piece of the legislation that I find most worrisome that you
are indirectly agreeing when you accept this--that levels of
formaldehyde well below any that would cause any significant
changes in formaldehyde in the body will cause cancer in some
definable number of people in a population.
This legislation should endorse the reduction in emissions,
clearly. I applaud the legislation. I applaud the people who
have brought this legislation to the committee. I wish it could
be done without endorsing the questionable risk assessment from
California that significantly overestimates the risks of
inhaled formaldehyde, and I believe in public concerns about
some particular end points, especially cancer.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide this
perspective on House 4805 and to visit a panel of this kind for
the first time in my career. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andersen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.040
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much, and I thank all the
witnesses. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the
purposes of questioning the witnesses.
There are a number of questions that I might raise, and I
guess in consideration of the limited time that I have, I
really want to focus on this proposed sale that you alluded to,
Mr. Ryan and Mr. Counts and others. This sale of these FEMA
trailers and mobile homes, is this a wise undertaking by the
federal government and are these mobile homes and trailers
safe, and what course of action do you recommend that the
federal government consider? I want to ask Mr. Jones and Mr.
Counts and Mr. Ryan this question.
Mr. Jones. I don't feel it is appropriate for me as an EPA
official to comment on FEMA, Homeland Security. We have briefed
the officials from FEMA about our assessment and so they have
awareness of how we view the risk associated with FEMA but it
really, I think, is up to FEMA and Homeland Security to respond
specifically to the appropriateness of their actions.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Counts or any other--Mr. Ryan, Dr. Andersen,
if you have any comments, I have 3 minutes.
Mr. Ryan. I would note the FEMA trailers present a vexing
problem. We certainly can't say they are safe. FEMA can't say
they are safe or EPA or CDC. In fact, the trailers are being
sold with a label, a cautionary label that is intended to warn
future buyers. The trailers are not intended as permanent
housing units but we have a housing crisis in this country and
almost certainly some of them will come to be occupied and used
as housing, and there is a concern in the resale of those
homes, whether the warning label may fall through the cracks.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Counts.
Mr. Counts. I feel I wouldn't be qualified to respond on
the FEMA trailers. Our members are not in the trailer business
nor do they supply to that industry. So I will----
Mr. Rush. Mr. Julia, Dr. Andersen raised some serious
disagreements on concerns about the California standards, and
what percentage of your membership are affected by the
California standards?
Mr. Julia. Mr. Chairman, it is fair to say that virtually
the entire U.S. industry is affected by the California
standards, and indeed we believe that even prior to California
our industry was manufacturing using exceedingly low levels of
formaldehyde and emissions levels are exceedingly low, and once
perfected under phase II of California and under federal law
will be truly de minimis standards. Moreover, the California
rule as this federal bill does incentivizes industry to develop
even lower, what are called ULEF and NAUF adhesive systems
which indeed would do exactly what I believe public policy
should do which would be to promote technological innovation
and capital investment in lower-emitting technologies. But it
is fair to say that the California regulation has become a de
facto law of the land. It is indeed practiced almost throughout
the United States by virtually every significant manufacturer
or user of composite panel products. The problem with the
California rule is that it is only enforceable in California.
Mr. Rush. The Chair's time is expired. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Radanovich.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and I appreciate
the testimony of all the witnesses.
Mr. Andersen, I am going to ask you a question. As I
understand your testimony, your research in the weight of the
current scientific evidence on formaldehyde shows that emission
levels significantly higher than those permitted in California
would not pose a health risk. Give me an idea of why you object
to the standard set in California but also if you can give me
an idea of the consequences of an emittance level that is set
dramatically low.
Mr. Andersen. I think the consequences from my point of
view is that California law is based on causing cancer. It is
based on an observation of cancer in rats at high doses when
formaldehyde is corrosive. I mean, formaldehyde would cause
cancer in you or I if we let ourselves be exposed to levels
which were corrosive in our nose for our whole lifetime. We
would walk away from it. But that is the basis. So they use
that to make projections of very low-dose cancer risks, levels
where the contribution of the formaldehyde is minuscule, absent
to natural formaldehyde. That is the first. The second
consequence from my opinion is the stress on trying to set the
standard based on cancer. The FEMA trailer issue was one of
irritation, respiratory distress and asthma. The levels should
be based on asthma recognizing that formaldehyde doesn't pose a
low-dose cancer risk. That is my professional opinion, which is
shared by a large number of individuals.
Mr. Radanovich. Does formaldehyde air out? If you open the
trailers in Louisiana for a certain amount of time, will that
level diminish?
Mr. Andersen. It will diminish, depending on how long
this--there is so much in the wood and it will come out for a
period of time and the concentrations in the air will
continually diminish.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Julia, I appreciate your testimony. Your association
comes out with a statement saying that the California standard
is way too high and yet in your testimony, you support the bill
and the legislation that sets it at the California standard. As
I understand it, your association doesn't agree with what you
are saying there. Do you want to reconcile that?
Mr. Julia. I am not sure what is inconsistent, Congressman.
Mr. Radanovich. In March 1, 2002, in wood products, there
was a belief that risk assessments upon which formaldehyde is
being considered for regulation by the CARB in California are
outdated and greatly overstate the potential for formaldehyde-
related health problems. This was in a testimony on March 1st
under Wood and Wood Products by Chris Leffle, who is the senior
vice president for Composite Products Association.
Mr. Julia. That is absolutely correct. When this regulation
was introduced at the very end of 2001, it called for a de
facto ban on our products, a de facto deselection of wood
products, which we felt would have been a dramatic overreach
and was initially linked to a very great degree on what we
believe were challengeable health findings. In the 7 years as
that evolved, California through significant evaluation of
economic conditions or economic performance of our industry,
technical capabilities of our industry and a whole lot of
public workshops, I then came to be persuaded that their
regulation should be guided and I would have to therefore
respectfully differ a little bit with the conclusion of my
colleague on the panel here. California's decision, and indeed,
I was in every one of those workshops, has been guided by
technology, not by perceived cancer risk. Certainly they did
that research and we have never said that--we have never
acquiesced and said that we agree with those conclusions but
their conclusions on the levels that they set in California
were based on technological capability. It is, as they have
characterized it, a ``technology-driven regulation'' and we
think that is a very important distinction, one that is
preserved in this legislation so it does not become a battle or
a presumption that somehow current industry practices or
current industry products present a health risk.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Julia.
Mr. Andersen, that is kind of in conflict with what you
were mentioning a little bit earlier, that it is a cancer risk
assessment process and that your statements earlier mentioned
being outdated and----
Mr. Andersen. I think the cancer----
Mr. Radanovich [continuing]. Less scientific. Go ahead and
respond to that.
Mr. Andersen. I think the cancer risk assessment from 1992
fails to take into account a great deal of information about
formaldehyde, its toxicity, its biology and it is outdated in
that context. It is my understanding as I look through this
legislation, and I have only been aware of it for a brief
period of time in background, that the presumed risks from
formaldehyde in the air were linked to this cancer model to
develop emission rates.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Mrs. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Mr. Julia. H.R. 4085 would build upon
the CARB rule by establishing national technology-based limits
founded on the technological feasibility of the standards on
formaldehyde emissions from most composite wood products. Now,
industry has had a longstanding commitment to lowering emission
levels, investing in technology and working collaboratively
with regulatory authorities and public interest groups to set
limits on emissions. Now, despite the strong commitments from
domestic producers to voluntarily comply with the CARB rule,
unacceptable levels of composite wood products are entering the
U.S. markets without meeting our standards.
Mr. Julia, what are your estimates for the kind of economic
productivity that heightening formaldehyde emission standards
for composite wood products would create?
Mr. Julia. Well, when the State of California first
introduced its regulation, I think I was quoted at one of the
first public hearings as saying that this was going to be the
law of unintended consequences, that if in fact it didn't
address trade issues, and indeed care and ensure a level
playing field for domestic production, that we would in fact
have the law of unintended consequences, that in fact domestic
producers would be required to comply with a potentially very
onerous regulation whereas offshore producers would perhaps not
have to comply with it, and indeed more of that product, the
very product that California was concerned about, would enter
the U.S. marketplace.
I think what we have seen is a significant evolution over 7
or 8 years, particularly in the offshore industry, which are
represented by at least one individual here in this room such
that they have come to make, I would say, a significant
commitment among the responsible ones to comply with this
regulation. I can tell you a story, a brief story of one of the
largest home furnishings manufacturers in the world which does
a tremendous amount of sourcing in Asia, and it has reduced
over the past 2 to 3 years its number of suppliers by almost 75
percent. It really becomes a survival of the fittest sort of
the thing where they have taken a look at the ability of their
sources to meet the expectations not only in California but
throughout the United States of the stewardship that is
required in the California rule and would be required here and
they have made the internal decision that for a matter of
public policy, for a matter of corporate policy and for a
matter of liability, they will only be sourcing for companies
who can verify indeed that they produce products to lower
formaldehyde levels.
And if I may, just in closing, return to the testing and
certification part of this legislation. That is indeed the key
because on all these issues, if you get to what level is the
right level, what level is the lowest level, how do we enforce
against imports, how do we enforce against domestic products,
the secret to all of that, I believe, is to have third-party
testing and certification whereby nobody is going to try to
test every single table, every single chair, every single
nightstand. That is physically impossible to do. Nobody is
going to go into every store, nobody is going to go into every
furniture mill whether for the federal government or the state
of California or anybody else. That would be prohibitive. But
you can verify all that through third-party testing and
certification and create a chain of custody and a label where
you can track every product all the way up to the testing
agency that actually performed the initial testing.
Mrs. Matsui. Mr. Julia, I take it you have no concerns
about the implementation of the CARB rule nationwide at all?
Mr. Julia. Concerns?
Mrs. Matsui. Yes. No concerns about this implementation of
the CARB rule nationwide?
Mr. Julia. Well, I do have concerns. I think quite frankly
there are 49 States in which you cannot enforce the CARB rule.
The CARB rule--you know, I draw my analogy, the earlier
comments today about carbon monoxide. Like Congressman Gingrey,
I have a personal experience where my daughter was exposed to
carbon monoxide poisoning at Virginia Tech 2\1/2\ years ago and
nearly died, and I understand that in the State of Virginia we
have no regulation of carbon monoxide. I understand that in the
State of Maryland there is a very significant regulation on
carbon monoxide detectors. The ability to simply say that
because you have a rule in California which industry is
embracing that that somehow solves the problem, I would submit
to you, Congresswoman, that it does not solve the problem
because you don't have a patchwork of different States doing
things. In fact, you have nobody else doing anything. There is
not a single State that is able to enforce that rule.
Mrs. Matsui. That is why we are here today in actuality. So
I don't have much time so I would yield back until--unless we
have further time later on?
Mr. Rush. The Chair will consider that.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr.
Scalise, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few questions,
first for Mr. Julia.
You had stated that if Congress directs the EPA to
establish a federal standard based on California's parameters,
this will only help ensure that other States are not tempted to
initiate a rule of their own, and so I guess what I want to
know is, do you know where specifically in the bill are other
States prevented from passing different laws and regulations?
Mr. Julia. Congressman, they are not. There is nothing in
this bill that calls for federal preemption, and obviously that
has been an issue of concern to a lot of folks. We would say
perhaps in a typical situation, federal preemption is something
we would support. This is a unique circumstance in which you
have a State regulation where there has never been a federal
regulation, there has never been any other State regulation,
there is no other State that we are aware of thinking about a
regulation, that California spent an awful lot of time working
on and indeed a regulation they thought they would take a year
or two to do. It took them 7 years to do, largely because they
had a lot of input from stakeholders.
Mr. Scalise. And it hasn't been fully implemented.
Mr. Julia. It is in the process of being implemented. By
the time this federal schedule kicks in, it will be fully
implemented other than the sell-through periods of it.
We believe that because of the unique situation here and
because of the difficulty of reaching accommodation within the
Congress on this issue of preemption or not preemption, if you
take a look at the particular facts and circumstances that
really make this situation unique, you have a rule that the
regulatory community, you have a rule that all of the industry
stakeholders throughout the supply chain have embraced, that
the environmental community, health care and labor community
have embraced. We would argue that, you know, there is--I would
pose the question, the rhetorical question, where else would
California or any other State go at this point if the federal
government stepped in and said we are going to take that model,
we are going to make it apply to the entire United States.
Essentially I would say problem solved. There is really no
other place for a State agency, California included, to go at
that point in terms of regulating our products, and that is
certainly our hope and intention.
Mr. Scalise. Mr. Counts, you had stated that ``We believe
that a national approach is crucial in order to avoid
conflicting State standards and allow for the harmonized
distribution of products and supplies.'' Yet of course, this
legislation doesn't do anything to stop other States from
enacting different or conflicting regulations. Would you be
concerned if other States enacted different laws or
regulations?
Mr. Counts. It is certainly a concern. Any time you have to
create different products for your supply chain in different
States, it would be very cost prohibitive. It is our thought
that this is the most stringent standard in the world and there
is no incentive for other States to follow and develop their
own formaldehyde standard if we have a national standard that
is in place.
Mr. Scalise. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to announce that we will have
additional questions of the witnesses. The Chair recognizes
himself for up to 3 minutes and the Chair will allow 3 minutes
for each member to ask additional questions.
I want to clarify something for the record. In your written
statement, Mr. Julia characterized the legislation as not
giving EPA the ability to establish emissions limits that are
different from those set by California. Mr. Jones, doesn't the
legislation permit EPA to set formaldehyde standards at a given
level after the initial rulemaking required by the bill?
Mr. Jones. Chairman Rush, the bill initially requires the
agency to set formaldehyde standards that are the functional
equivalent of the CARB standard. That is what the provision
itself does. That wouldn't take away EPA's existing authorities
under TSCA section 6 to regulate formaldehyde if it could make
the findings required under section 6. So that authority would
remain intact despite implementation of the bill that is before
the Congress right now.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes the ranking member for 3
minutes.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Julia, I recognize the national standard sounds good. I
recognize your industry's concern about the bad players on
composite wood. But does the industry also have a concern about
a standard that is set unnecessarily low as it relates to the
cost of the product that you are trying to produce?
Mr. Julia. We absolutely would have such a concern, and at
very many of the workshops in California this is exactly the
argument that we made because if you look at the record, the
initial proposals coming out of California were indeed very
different than what ended up being the California rule and we
felt that over a period of years and education and working
cooperatively with the staff of the California Air Resources
Board, they came to appreciate the technological capability of
the industry, the curve that we have been on of lowering,
lowering, lowering our emission levels. We have never said
either prior to the California rule or since then that anything
that we make is in any way, shape or form dangerous to public
health. We have never addressed in those hearings that issue of
the perceived risk.
We believe it is a legitimate inquiry but we don't think it
bears on the issue here in that the levels that we are talking
about in this legislation are so low we don't believe that they
rise to the occasion of asking the health concerns and the
exposure concerns that some parties would like to bring to the
table.
Mr. Radanovich. Yet Mr. Andersen, your conviction is pretty
firm that the standard could be 10 times higher and not pose a
risk.
Mr. Andersen. I believe that, but there is another
significant concern I have, this idea that we are going to be
conservative based on cancer and then talk about numbers of
cancers people will have. I think this is a disservice to
public health. It is a disservice to my neighbors, who only
hear that this can cause cancer when it is not a significant
carcinogen. It needs to be regulated based on the right
reasons, and these regulations and assessments need to take in
the body of information. I guess you are hearing a purist here
that we have to do this for the right reason, and we shouldn't
be scaring people. Right now we scare people with these
conservative estimates that say you are going to have cancer.
One in a million will have cancer. All people hear is, you will
have cancer. And especially for things that aren't legitimate
carcinogens at realistic human exposure levels. This is
terrible public health policy. That is my professional
judgment.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Andersen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Mrs. Matsui is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Mr. Counts. You know, we understand
that this has been a long process and I think it has been
addressed before--at the beginning of the process there was
wide disagreement but through the process, I guess took about 7
years or so, there became a cooperative effort here between
industry, the regulatory authorities and the public interest
groups. And I think that is something that you have to look at,
the fact that this wasn't done overnight and it really took
people working together. But after years of review and
rulemaking, CARB finalized the rules establishing these
standards, the first phase of which went into effect on January
1, 2009. Now, we know H.R. 4085 will apply these standards
nationwide. Now, Mr. Counts, do you believe that manufacturers
of composite wood products outside the United States will be
able to comply with this proposed standard?
Mr. Counts. I am confident that if they are given the
appropriate compliance times and sell-through provisions that
they will be able to comply. They have had to comply with
stringent European and Japanese standards for several years
now. The biggest hurdle with California was a brand-new testing
requirement that international labs were not familiar with, but
they are getting up to speed on that and compliance is coming
along very aggressively. So I am confident that on a national
basis, given the proper timeline, they can comply.
Mrs. Matsui. Does AHFA anticipate any issues maintaining
adequate supply levels once the regulation is promulgated?
Mr. Counts. Well, the United States is the largest market
for home furnishings in the world, and this is the most
stringent standard in the world, so as we get to phase II of
the California levels on a national basis, there is going to be
some trial and error from our panel suppliers to make sure that
they are complying. Unless the economy improves greatly, there
is going to be a lot of inventory out there that is not
compliant. We have to make sure we have adequate time to sell
through all that product and work through the kinks but
hopefully that will not be a major issue.
Mrs. Matsui. And what steps has industry generally and AFHA
taken to reduce formaldehyde emissions over the years?
Mr. Counts. Well, we have several members that distribute
nationally and they are embracing the California standard on a
national level. We have some members that do not sell in
California and they are finding it harder and harder to find
panel that would not be compliant with California. So we are
instructing them that the national standard is very likely and
they need to move forward in that direction, and we are
providing education and tools to make that happen.
Mrs. Matsui. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Scalise.
Mr. Scalise. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
A couple of questions for Mr. Jones. Some of the panelists
lament the perceived length of a section 6A rulemaking process.
If in attempting to apply the CARB standard, if EPA used the
quality control order provisions in section 6B instead, are
there such concerns?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Scalise. Section 6B under TSCA
allows the agency to do facility-by-facility regulation. For
some industries where there may be two facilities, it might be
more expeditious to go in that manner. In the case of
formaldehyde in pressed wood, I believe there are hundreds of
facilities and so it may actually be longer using 6B going
facility by facility than just having a national standard under
6A.
Mr. Scalise. It seems to me that the major issue is
imports. What can EPA do under all the existing legal
authorities to address the issue of wood products with higher
formaldehyde levels that are coming into our country from other
nations?
Mr. Jones. So if there were a federal regulation either
because we acted under 6A or this bill became law, it would
apply to imports.
Mr. Scalise. But what can you do under your current legal
authority? Are there more things you can be doing right now to
address those imports that are coming in from other countries
that have higher levels of formaldehyde?
Mr. Jones. We would have to have a regulation in place,
either one that we initiated or that was initiated because this
bill became law before we could do anything related to imports,
and right now there is not a federal regulation----
Mr. Scalise. Clean Air doesn't give any kind of ability to
you?
Mr. Jones. I don't believe that a hazardous air pollutant
regulation would have any ability to influence imports, but
that is something we can confirm.
Mr. Scalise. All right. Thanks. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair will recognize himself for just a
couple more questions. Any other member who has additional
questions, you will be recognized.
Mr. Jones, if EPA were to set different standards in the
future, they would have to be issued under TSCA. Is that
correct?
Mr. Jones. That is correct, Chairman Rush.
Mr. Rush. But EPA has found it exceptionally difficult, if
not impossible, to use that statute to regulate chemicals like
formaldehyde. Would you agree that the inherent limitations of
TSCA raise serious legal obstacles for EPA on this or any other
issue?
Mr. Jones. I would agree with that. The agency is pursuing
a formaldehyde assessment that may well lead to a regulation
but it is going to be very difficult and tricky for us to get
over the hurdle of least burdensome, the potential permutations
that you need to analyze before you could be affirmative in
your determination that you picked the least burdensome. It has
proven to be very difficult for the agency. And so we are
probably 3 to 4 years away from having a formaldehyde
regulation in place but we are going to try to work with the
existing statute to see what we can do.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Ryan, do you have any comments on this issue
that I raise?
Mr. Ryan. I would just endorse Mr. Jones' comments in terms
of TSCA authority and the clumsiness of TSCA in getting to an
early solution to the public health opportunity at hand.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
The Chair thanks the witnesses, all of you. You have been
very sacrificial in terms of your time and we really appreciate
it. The Chair wants to thank the members who were present and
those who have remained present. The Chair wants to note that
we will have hearings of this type in the future, and now the
Chair announces that the committee is hereby adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6018A.059