Formaldehyde Emissions from Pressed Wood Products

March 19, 2009 The Hon. Lisa Jackson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel-Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 RE: COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS REGARDING TSCA 6(A) CRITERIA Dear Administrator Jackson: The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) submits these comments in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products, as published in the Federal Register (73 FR at 73627). The EPA has listed statutory criteria that must me met under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Section 6(a) in order to promulgate a rule. After consulting our members who use formaldehyde to manufacture wood pressed products, the NAM concludes that the criteria cannot be met, and that the EPA should refrain from embarking on a formal rulemaking that would mandate the criteria. By way of background, the NAM is the nation's largest industrial trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. The NAM's mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers and improve American living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. economic growth. As a general matter, the NAM is supportive of EPA regulations that are designed to provide real net benefits to environmental quality and the public health, including the health of manufacturing workers and their families. Conversely, the NAM opposes emissions regulations that would impose more compliance costs on the manufacturing sector, especially those that do not demonstrate tangible environmental or health benefits through thorough scientific study. Discussion: The EPA's authority under §6(a) rests on a finding that "there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any combination of such activities, presents, or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment . . ." In evaluating what is unreasonable, EPA is required to consider the costs of any proposed action, including environmental, economic and social impact. A U.S. court of appeals concluded that TSCA requires EPA to balance the benefits of any proposed regulation against any impact, including economic impact, which a proposed regulation might impose on manufacturers and consumers [ 947 F.2d 1201(5th Cir. 1991)]. In practical terms, the statutory mandate means that •EPA must consider the likelihood and extent of human and environmental exposure to formaldehyde from pressed wood products; •And having performed an exposure assessment, the agency must then determine whether such exposure is so substantial and significant that the cost of regulation to manufactures and consumers is outweighed by the benefits of any regulation that EPA might seek to promulgate. In many respects, this is similar to the exposure and risk assessment evaluations that the agency applies to many of its regulatory processes. For formaldehyde, in particular, there is extensive scientific data to inform both evaluations. There are a number of EPA studies that provide a sound foundation for assessing current exposure levels. As described in the testimony of other presenters, average indoor air levels of formaldehyde, based in part on the emissions of formaldehyde from wood products in the home, are less than 0.05 ppm. These levels cannot be characterized as presenting an unreasonable risk of injury. Chronic and acute risks from formaldehyde have also been studied extensively. Again, as other presenters have described, a concentration of 1 ppm appears to be the approximate threshold for complaints of symptoms ranging from none to mild to moderate irritation. Thus, the anticipated exposure levels are n…