David M. Walsh – Law ´obsolete´

A bill that would repeal a law requiring home sellers to disclose whether urea formaldehyde foam insulation was ever used in their homes is getting mixed – and often ambivalent – reactions from public health officials.

While the Massachusetts Association of Realtors supports the bill – saying UFFI is no longer a public health threat because it is banned in the Bay State and testing doesn’t reveal a danger – some environmental leaders argue there is no recent research to back that claim.

Other industrial hygienists agree with MAR leaders that perhaps it’s time to do away with the law, because the insulation hasn’t been used in more than two decades and its harmful effects have probably diminished with time.

“Maybe this problem has slowly gone away,” said Jack Price, an industrial hygienist and director of environmental health and safety at Northeastern University.

Robert Clifford, a lawyer and industrial hygienist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the disclosure law was put in place after it was discovered that improperly installed UFFI led to high formaldehyde emissions. Formaldehyde has been known to cause wheezing, eye, throat and nose irritation, and has also been linked to cancer.

“Any formaldehyde emissions have long since ceased,” Clifford said.

MAR leaders contend that government research and testing by the state Department of Public Health have not found a high level of formaldehyde vapors from UFFI existing in homes today. Having a law that requires UFFI disclosure unnecessarily burdens the home seller, they say.

“We fully support the prohibition against the use of UFFI as an insulating material in homes and respect current laws mandating the disclosure of material defects in the sale of all property,” MAR President David M. Walsh said in a statement prepared for the association’s recent Legislative Day at Beacon Hill.

“However, there are no studies or scientific data available to suggest that this product remains a public health threat,” Walsh said.”The need to require disclosure of UFFI has simply dissipated with time, and rather than adding to the confusion and costs that buyers and sellers face in the property transaction, we believe it’s time to repeal this obsolete statute.”

Howard Wensley, director of the Department of Public Health’s Division of Community Sanitation, said the department has not done any recent research but offers free testing for formaldehyde levels in homes containing UFFI. Of the homes tested over the last several years, none have contained elevated levels of formaldehyde, he said.

“But I would not call that research,” said Wensley, emphasizing that DPH does not have an official opinion of the proposed bill, sponsored by Sen. Edward J. Clancy Jr., D-Lynn.

UFFI frequently was installed in homes in the 1970s to improve insulation. Use of UFFI in schools and homes was banned in 1982 by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission after it was discovered that formaldehyde emissions from the insulation were linked to cancer in mice and rats. The ban was later overturned by an appeals court.

In Massachusetts, however, the sale of UFFI was banned in 1979 and in 1986 a disclosure law was passed to protect consumers. According to MAR, Massachusetts is the only state with a UFFI disclosure law on its books.

No Studies
Thad Godish, a Ball State University professor in the department of natural resources and environmental management and expert on indoor air quality issues, said the amount of formaldehyde being emitted from UFFI decreases during the first couple of years after it has been installed.

“My own feeling is that a house with UFFI today probably has similar concentrations [of formaldehyde] as a non-UFFI house,” said Godish, who tested homes with UFFI in the 1980s.

The presence of formaldehyde in homes may not be caused from UFFI alone because formaldehyde, a colorless, pungent-smelling gas, is used in building materials and household products like plywood, particleboard, cosmetics and cleaners.

When Godish tested homes about 20 years ago, he found that formaldehyde levels approached the same kind of levels as those in houses without UFFI.

However, Godish pointed out that there is no formal research or studies that back up his opinion.

“There haven’t been any studies on UFFI in 15 years,” Godish said.

The Joint Committee on Health Care recently conducted a hearing on the bill and no opposing testimony or statements were presented at the hearing. The committee is expected to discuss the bill in executive session over the next few weeks.

Some studies have found that formaldehyde emissions may increase with heat and humidity. Formaldehyde levels, therefore, can vary on a daily and seasonal basis.

UFFI was a much bigger concern for homeowners in the 1970s and 1980s, but since it was banned it has not been at the center of any major controversy, public health leaders said.

“This has fallen from the mindset of a lot of people,” said DPH’s Wensley.