CPSC Asks For Rehearing In UFFI Case

The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission today filed a petition for rehearing of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning the Commission 's ban of Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI). The Commission cited several significant factual and legal errors by the Court in its April 7 ruling that it believes require the Court to reverse its earlier decision and to reaffirm the Commission's ban of UFFI when used in schools and homes.

The ban by the Commission followed a series of regional hearings, several days of public hearings in Washington and several years of staff investigation. Extensive testimony was received from industry, scientific, academic and government witnesses, as well as numerous victims.

UFFI is an insulating material that is manufactured on site and pumped into the walls of homes and buildings. The Commission and several state public health agencies received complaints of acute symptoms believed to be caused by the formaldehyde off-gassing.

Formaldehyde contained in UFFI has been shown in a Chemical Industry Institute of Technology study and in a study by New York University to cause cancer in laboratory animals. A panel of leading federal scientists has said that the gas should therefore be presumed to be capable of causing cancer in humans.

The government of Canada and the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut have banned installation of UFFI.

The Court recognized that "UFFI is not completely innocent," and also agreed that "taken as a whole, the complaints (received by the Commission) do identify a real problem." However, the Court found that "the failure to quantify the risk at the exposure levels actually associated with UFFI is the finding's (of the Commission) Achilles heel."

In its petition for rehearing, the Commission argued that the Chemical Industry Institute of Technology study, on which it relied, used a protocol that exceeded the guidelines set by the National Cancer Institute, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Environmental Protection Agency for identifying and classifying human carcinogens. The Chemical Industry Institute of Technology study was properly conducted and its findings were closely corroborated by a New York University animal study. The Commission also showed how the Court erred in not accepting its data on the amount of formaldehyde people would be exposed to in homes from the installation of UFFI. The Commission, in addition, argued that the Court incorrectly required precise estimates of cancer and incorrectly found that the Commission proceeded under the wrong statute.

Now that the petition has been filed, the Court's order overturning the UFFI ban will be stayed automatically pending the Court's decision on the petition. Until that time it remains illegal under the ban to install UFFI in homes and schools.