Formaldehyde Pages5

8/3/2019 Formaldehyde Pages5

1/48

FORMALDEHYDE POISONING!

Why Should You Care?

According to the CDC In view of its widespread use, toxicity and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant

consideration for human health. On 10 June 2011, the US National Toxicology Program has described formaldehyde as

"known to be a human carcinogen". Humans are exposed to formaldehyde in the environment and in the workplace.

Formaldehyde concentrations in the environment generally are reported in parts per billion, but exposure levels are much

higher in the workplace, occurring in the range of parts per million. The primary exposure concern is for the workers in the

industries producing or using formaldehyde.

As far back as 1987, the U.S. EPA classified it as a probable human carcinogen and after more studies the WHO International

Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in 1995, also classified it as a probable human carcinogen. Further information and

evaluation of all known data led the IARC to reclassify formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen ]associated with nasal

sinus cancer and nasopharyngeal cancer. Recent studies have also shown a positive correlation between exposure to

formaldehyde and the development of leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia.

In the residential environment, formaldehyde exposure comes from a number of different routes; formaldehyde can off-gas

from wood products, such as plywood or particle board, but it is produced by paints, varnishes, floor finishes, and cigarette

1


2/48

smoking as well. Formaldehyde is ubiquitous in the environment and has been detected in indoor and outdoor air, soil, food,

treated and bottled drinking water, surface water, and groundwater. The general population can be exposed to formaldehyde

primarily from breathing indoor or outdoor air, from tobacco smoke, from use of cosmetic products containing formaldehyde,

and, to a more limited extent, from ingestion of food and water. For the general population, the major sources of airborne

formaldehyde exposure include combustion sources, offgassing from numerous construction and home-furnishing products,

and offgassing from consumer goods.

Formaldehyde gas is produced from the oxidation or incomplete combustion of organic material. Combustion sources include

automobiles and other internal combustion engines, power plants, incinerators, refineries, forest fires, wood stoves, and

cigarettes. Although daily formaldehyde exposure from residential indoor air in conventional homes has been reported to

range from 0.5 to 2.0 mg, daily exposure in a prefabricated home was as high as 10 mg. Temporary housing provided by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency as shelter for residents of Louisiana and Mississippi displaced by Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita had formaldehyde concentrations ranging from 3 to 590

ppb (0.003 to 0.59ppm) (CDC 2008, 2009). Most of

the housing was at least two years old at the time of sampling, which occurred during the winter months. Formaldehyde levels werehigher in travel trailers than park models or mobile homes. Higher concentrations of formaldehyde than were found by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention have been reported by others There are no federal guidelines for formaldehyde levels in residential

housing for indoor air quality (CDC 2008). Daily exposure to formaldehyde was estimated at up to 2mg from smoking 20 cigarettes

per day, up to 3.5 mg from environmental tobacco smoke in the home, and 2.8 mg from environmental tobacco smoke in the

workplace (WHO 2000).

The general population could also be exposed to formaldehyde by handling consumer products that contain formaldehyde as

antimicrobial agent s (such as laundry detergents, wallpaper adhesive, or sanitizers ) or from its use as a mildewcide for

clothing and linens or in vacation homes (EPA 2008). Although formaldehyde per se is rarely used now in cosmetics, the use offormaldehyde releasers is common. An analysis of data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations Voluntary Cosmetic

Registration Program Database indicated that nearly 20% (6,463 of 33,212) of cosmetic products contained formaldehyde

(including formalin) or any of eight formaldehyde-releasing preservatives. Absorption of formaldehyde from hand cream or

suntan lotion was estimated at up to 0.1 mg for a typical application, assuming 5% absorption through the skin (ATSDR 1999).

Other products that often contain formaldehyde releasers are industrial and household cleaning agents, soaps, shampoos,

paints, lacquers, and cutting fluids (WHO 2002).

2


3/48

Food and water contain measureable concentrations of formaldehyde, but the significance of ingestion as a source of formaldehyde

exposure for the general population is questionable. Formaldehyde in food exists mostly in a bound form and it is considered to be

unstable in aqueous solution . Formaldehyde present in food can occur naturally or through inadvertent contamination; it can also be

added as a preservative, disinfectant, or bacteriostatic agent and can result from cooking or smoking of foods. Generally, higher levels

were reported in fish, seafood, and smoked ham than in other foods. Formaldehyde in treated drinking water occurs primarily

through the oxidation of organic matter during ozonation or chlorination; concentrations of up to 30 g/L were reported

(WHO 2005). Formaldehyde can also be present in the water before treatment; it was found in 16 of 35 influent samples at

concentrations ranging from 1.2 to 13g/L.

In occupational environments, formaldehyde occurs mainly as a gas; however, formaldehyde particulates can be inhaled when

paraformaldehyde or powdered resins are used or when formaldehyde adsorbs to other particles, such as wood dust (IARC

1995). Workers may also be exposed through contact of formalin solutions or liquid resins with the skin or eyes. Occupational

exposure to formaldehyde is highly variable and can occur in numerous industries, including the manufacture of

formaldehyde and formaldehyde-based resins, wood composite and furniture production, plastics production, embalming,foundry operations, fiberglass production, construction, agriculture, firefighting, and histology, pathology, and biology

laboratories, among others. In the late 1980s, OSHA estimated that over 2 million U.S. workers were exposed to formaldehyde,

about 45% of whom worked in the garment industry (USDL 2009).

Children may be more susceptible to the locally-acting irritant properties of formaldehyde.

Proven and Probable Carcinogens

In June 2011, the twelfth edition of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report on Carcinogens (RoC) changed the listing statusof formaldehyde from reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen to known to be a human carcinogen. Formaldehyde is

known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in

humans and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Formaldehyde was first listed in

the Second Annual Report on Carcinogens in 1981 as reasonably anticipated to be a human

carcinogen based on sufficient evidence from studies in experimental animals.

3


4/48

Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between exposure to formaldehyde and cancer in humans. Causality

is indicated by consistent findings ofincreased risks of nasopharyngeal cancer, sinonasal cancer, and lymphohematopoietic

cancer, specifically myeloid leukemia among individuals with higher measures of exposure to formaldehyde (exposure level or

duration). The evidence for nasopharyngeal cancer is somewhat stronger than that for myeloid leukemia. Numerous epidemiological

studies have evaluated the relationship between exposure to formaldehyde and cancer risk, including (1) cohort and nested case-

control studies of industrial workers, (2) cohort and nested case-control studies of professional groups such as pathologists,

funeral directors, or embalmers

, and (3) population-based cohort and case-control studies.

The most informative occupation based studies are the National Cancer Institute (NCI) cohort of over 25,000 men and women who

worked at companies that used or produced formaldehyde. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde has also been evaluated in a

large cohort study: a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cohort study of over 11,000 male and female

garment workers, which evaluated risks of cancer at a few selected tissue sites by time since first exposure (latency), exposure

duration, and year of first exposure. For types of cancer with higher survival rates, such as lymphohematopoietic cancer, studies

reporting mortality are less informative than studies reporting incidence, because mortality studies will miss cases of cancer that donot result in death. Nasopharyngeal cancer is a rare cancer, with an annual incidence of less than 1 per 100,000 in most parts

of the world. The risk of nasopharyngeal cancer (differentiated squamous-cell carcinoma and unspecified subtypes) increased

significantly with increasing cumulative exposure, duration of exposure and probability of exposure (possible, probable, or definite).

Studies found the highest risks of nasopharyngeal cancer for individuals with the highest formaldehyde exposure levels (assessed as

cumulative exposure, exposure level, or exposure score). Risks were also significantly elevated for individuals with longer time

since first exposure or who died at an older age risk was increased fourfold for individuals who died after the age of 68 and

were probably exposed to high levels of formaldehyde for at least 20 years before death. Sinonasal cancer is a rare cancer,

with an annual incidence of about 1 per 100,000. Elevated risks were observed for both adenocarcinoma and squamous-cell

carcinoma; however, some studies suggested that adenocarcinoma was more strongly associated with formaldehyde exposure than was

squamous-cell carcinoma. Although co-exposure to wood dust is a potential confounding factor for sinonasal cancer, and specifically

for adenocarcinoma, increased risk of sinonasal cancer associated with formaldehyde exposure has been found among individuals with

little or no exposure to wood dust or after adjustment for wood-dust exposure. Some studies suggested that co-exposure to

formaldehyde and wood dust had an interactive (synergistic) carcinogenic effect. Evidence that demonstrates an association

between formaldehyde exposure and combined lymphohematopoietic cancer is found in the NCI cohort of industrial workers. Risk

was significantly higher for the highest peak-exposure group than the lowest peak-exposure group, and a positive exposure-

4


5/48

response relationship based on peak exposure was found. The risks of Hodgkins lymphoma and multiple myeloma also were

significantly higher among individuals with the highest peak exposure than those with the lowest peak exposure, and a positive

exposure-response relationship was found for Hodgkins lymphoma. . In meta-analyses in 2009, a significant association was

found for multiple myeloma. Increased risks for leukemia (all types combined) were found in all of the professional studies

and some of the industrial cohort studies. A strong association with myeloid cancer was also found and the magnitudes of the

effect estimates were higher for myeloid leukemia than for all leukemia or other subtypes of leukemia. The increased risks

were observed for workers in different industries and occupations (workers at formaldehyde- producing companies, garment

workers, and embalmers). In a NIOSH cohort study of garment workers, elevated risks of death from myeloid leukemia were

found for all workers and for subgroups of workers with the highest exposure or longest latency. An excess risk was found for

chronic (but not acute) myeloid leukemia, based on small numbers of formaldehyde exposed individuals with leukemia. It has

been found that embalmers have longer duration of exposure and higher cumulative exposure and are more likely to be

exposed to peak exposure levels greater than 4ppm than are industrial workers, and that cancer risk is associated with peak

levels of exposure to formaldehyde. Increased risks of head and neck cancers (of the buccal cavity, pharynx, larynx, or combinations

of these sites) were observed in many of the cohort and case control studies, but most were not statistically significant. An excess of

brain cancer mortality was found in all studies of professional groups, but not in the cohort studies of industrial workers. For

leukemia, the mechanisms by which formaldehyde causes toxicity at distal sites are unknown. The formation of methanediol

(discussed above) from formaldehyde helps to explain how a reactive chemical could be distributed and undergo metabolism

throughout the body. Some studies found that formaldehyde-exposed workers had lower counts of white blood cells,

granulocytes, platelets, red blood cells, and lymphocytes than did non-exposed workers. A 2009 review of the Chinese

literature reported that decreased white blood cell counts were observed in most studies of formaldehyde-exposed workers; in

the largest study, exposed workers had higher percentages of blood abnormalities (decreased white blood cell and platelet

counts and abnormal hemoglobin levels).

Sources

Formaldehyde has numerous industrial and commercial uses; it is used in industrial processes primarily as a solution (formalin) or

solid (paraformaldehyde or trioxane). The predominant use (~55% of total consumption) is in the production of industrial resins which

are commonly used in permanent adhesives such as those used in plywood or carpeting. It is used as the wet-strength resin added to

sanitary paper products such facial tissue, table napkins, and roll towels. They are also foamed to make insulation, or cast into molded

5


6/48

products. Production of formaldehyde resins accounts for more than half of formaldehyde consumption. These resins are used to

manufacture numerous commercial products, including adhesives and binders for composite wood products, pulp and paper products,

plastics, and synthetic fibers, and in textile finishing. Another major use (~29%) is as a chemical intermediate to produce other

chemicals. Various agricultural uses (~5%), paraformaldehyde production (~3%), and production of chelating agents (~3%) account

for most of the remaining uses. The remaining 5% of formaldehyde goes toward other uses that may still be important for human

exposure, including its use as a disinfectant or antimicrobial agent in various consumer products, as a medical treatment for

some skin conditions, as a tissue preservative for pathologists and embalmers, and as a biocide and preservative in food and

cosmetic products. Formaldehyde is registered as a materials preservative for use in consumer products such as laundry

detergents, general-purpose cleaners, and wallpaper adhesives. Other formaldehyde derivatives include diisocyanates, an

important component in polyurethane paints and foams, and hexamine, which is used in formaldehyde resins as well as the

explosive RDX. .

Annual production of formaldehyde in the United States increased from about 0.9 million metric tons (1 million tons) in 1960

to 4.5 million metric tons (5 million tons) in 2006. In 2009, formaldehyde was produced by 12 companies and their subsidiariesat 39 U.S. manufacturing plants. Because of transportation and storage issues associated with formaldehyde, it usually is

produced close to the point of consumption. The value of sales of formaldehyde and derivative products was over $145 billion in

2003, about 1.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States and Canada. Including indirect employment, over 4

million work in the formaldehyde industry across approximately 11,900 plants in the U.S. and Canada.

In the agricultural industry, formaldehyde has been used as a fumigant, preventative for mildew in wheat and rot in

oats, a germicide and fungicide for plants, an insecticide, and in the manufacture of slow-release fertilizers.

Occurrence

Formaldehyde is a common building block for the synthesis of more complex compounds and materials. Formaldehyde is a naturally

occurring substance in the environment made of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Natural processes in the upper atmosphere may

contribute up to 90 percent of the total formaldehyde in the environment. When produced in the atmosphere by the action of sunlight

and oxygen on atmospheric methane and other hydrocarbons, it becomes part of smog. Formaldehyde exists at room temperature as

6


7/48

a nearly colorless gas with a pungent, suffocating odor. It is soluble in water, ether, acetone, and benzene. Commercially,

formaldehyde is most often available as 30% to 50% (by weight) aqueous solutions of the hydrated form, which is commonly

referred to as formalin. . Formaldehyde gas is generally stable in the absence of water, but it is flammable and can be ignited

by heat, sparks, or flame. Vapors form explosive mixtures with air. Formaldehyde gas reacts violently with strong oxidizing

agents and with bases and reacts explosively with nitrogen dioxide at around 180C (356F). The textile industry uses formaldehyde-

based resins as finishers to make fabrics crease-resistant. Formaldehyde-based materials are key to the manufacture of

automobiles, and used to make components for the transmission, electrical system, engine block, door panels, axles and brake

shoes. Formaldehyde is used extensively in the woodworking and cabinet-making industries. Urea-formaldehyde is used in the

glues that bond particle board together. The particle board is used underneath wood veneer and plastic laminate. Cabinets,

bank counters, and veneered and laminated woodwork all use particle board containing urea-formaldehyde under the plastic

laminate and wood veneer.

Formaldehyde is also formed in the early stages of decomposition of plant residues in soil. Formaldehyde can be produced secondarily

in air via photochemical reactions involving virtually all classes of hydrocarbon pollutants; in some instances, secondary productionmay exceed direct air emissions. Formaldehyde concentrations in outdoor air generally range from 0 to 100 ppb (0 to 0.1 ppm) and

usually are less than 10 ppb (0.01 ppm); daily exposure from outdoor air has been estimated at 0.1 mg or less. Formaldehyde levels

can be higher in indoor air than in outdoor air. Important determinants of indoor air levels include the sources of the

formaldehyde, the age of the source materials, temperature, humidity, and ventilation rates.

In the past, the highest continuous exposure levels were measured during the varnishing of furniture and wooden floors, during

the finishing of textiles, in the garment industry, during the treatment of furs, and in certain jobs in manufactured board mills

and foundries.Short-term exposure to high levels of formaldehyde has been reported for embalmers, pathologists, and paper

workers. Lower levels of exposure have usually been reported for the manufacture of synthetic vitreous fibers, abrasives, and rubber,and in formaldehyde production (IARC 2006). It has been suggested that because formaldehyde is ubiquitous, occupational exposure

occurs in all workplaces (WHO 2002). Daily formaldehyde intake from occupational exposure has been estimated at up to 8 mg

(WHO 2000). In the United States, high exposure levels were reported for formaldehyde-based resin production (mean

concentrations of up to 14.2 ppm), plastic product production (up to 38.2 ppm), embalming (up to 2.6 ppm) biology teaching

laboratories (up to 8.3 ppm) (EPA 1981), and pathology autopsy laboratories (up to 4.35 ppm). Using formaldehyde exposure data

from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) air sampling data base for various U.S. industries from 1979 to

2001, found the highest estimated relative indices of exposure based on time-weighted-average exposure data for the reconstituted

7


8/48

wood products and lumber and wood products industries. The highest estimated relative indices of exposure based on short-

term exposure data (aggregated short-term, peak, and ceiling exposure levels) were for the reconstituted wood products industry

and funeral services and crematories.

Formaldehyde has been found as a contaminant in several bath products, at levels from 54610 ppm: it is thought to arisefrom the breakdown of preservatives in the products. Small amounts of formaldehyde are produced in case of incomplete

combustion of methane gas. Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines (vaccines that use an

inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity). It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the

vaccine during production.Urinary tract infections are also often treated using a derivative of formaldehyde (methenamine), a

method often chosen because it prevents overuse of antibiotics and the resultant development of bacterial resistance to them. In an

acid environment methenamine is converted in the kidneys to formaldehyde, which then has an antibacterial effect in the urinary tract.

This is not safe for long term use due to the carcinogenic effect of formaldehyde. Some topical creams, cosmetics and personal

hygiene products also contain derivatives of formaldehyde as the active ingredients that prevent the growth of potentially

harmful bacteria. An aqueous solution of formaldehyde can be useful as a disinfectant as it kills most bacteria and fungi (includingtheir spores). Formaldehyde solutions are applied topically in medicine to dry the skin, such as in the treatment of warts. Many

aquarists use formaldehyde as a treatment for the parasites.

8


9/48

Pollution History

In the early 1900s, formaldehyde was frequently added by US milk plants to milk bottles as a method of pasteurization due tothe lack of knowledge regarding formaldehyde's toxicity.

FEMA trailer incidents after Hurricane Katrina & Rita

In the U.S. the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided travel trailers

and mobile homes starting in 2006 for habitation by residents of the U.S. gulf coast

displaced by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Some of the people who moved intothe trailers complained of breathing difficulties, nosebleeds, and persistent headaches.

Formaldehyde-catalyzed resins were used in the production of these homes. The United States

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) performed indoor air quality testing for

formaldehyde in some of the units. On February 14, 2008 the CDC announced that

potentially hazardous levels of formaldehyde were found in many of the travel trailers

and mobile homes provided by the agency. The CDC's preliminary evaluation of a

scientifically established random sample of 519 travel trailers and mobile homes tested between Dec. 21, 2007 and Jan. 23, 2008 ( 2+

years after manufacture) showed average levels of formaldehyde in all units of about 77 parts per billion (ppb). Long-term

exposure to levels in this range can be linked to an increased risk of cancer and, at levels above this range, there can also be a

risk of respiratory illness. These levels are higher than expected in indoor air, where levels are commonly in the range of 10-20 ppb,

and are higher than the Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry (ATSDR, division of the CDC) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) of 8

ppb. Levels measured ranged from 3 ppb to 590 ppb. FEMA, which requested the testing by the CDC, said it would work

aggressively to relocate all residents of the temporary housing as soon as possible. Lawsuits are being filed against FEMA as a result

of the exposures.

9


10/48

While the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows no more than 16 ppb formaldehyde in the air in new

buildings constructed for that agency, an EPA study found an average new home measured 0.076 ppm (76 ppb) when brand new and

0.045 ppm (45ppb) after 30 days. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also announced limits on the

formaldehyde levels in trailers purchased by that agency. The EPA recommends the use of exterior-grade pressed-wood

products with phenol instead of urea resin to limit formaldehyde exposure, since pressed-wood products containing formaldehyderesins are often a significant source of formaldehyde in homes.

Formaldehyde levels in building environments are affected by a number of factors. These include the potency of formaldehyde-

emitting products present, the ratio of the surface area of emitting materials to volume of space, environmental factors, product age,

interactions with other materials, and ventilation condition. Formaldehyde emits from a variety of construction materials, furnishings,

and consumer products. The three products that emit the highest concentrations are medium density fiberboard, hardwood

plywood, and particle board. Environmental factors such as temperature and relative humidity can elevate levels because

formaldehyde has a high vapor pressure. Formaldehyde levels from building materials are the highest when a building first opens

because materials would have less time to off-gas. Formaldehyde levels decrease over time as the sources suppress.

Iowa Floods of 2008

Also in the U.S., problems arose in trailers again provided by FEMA to residents displaced by the Iowa floods of 2008. Several

months after moving to the trailers, occupants reported violent coughing, headaches, as well as asthma, bronchitis, and other

problems. Tests showed that in some trailers, levels of formaldehyde exceeded the limits recommended by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and American Lung Association. The associated publicity has resulted in additional testing to

begin in November.

Sichuan Earthquake of 2008

After an earthquake hit Sichuan, China, a large number ofsurvivors were housed in trailers made with medium-density

fiberboard that emitted up to 5 times China's maximum allowable formaldehyde levels. In April, 2009, there were 100

miscarriages recorded in this community, which may have been linked to exposure to high levels of formaldehyde found in the

trailers used for housing after the disaster.

Contaminant in food

10


11/48

Scandals have broken in both the 2005 Indonesia food scare and 2007 Vietnam food scare regarding the addition of

formaldehyde to foods to extend shelf life. After a four-year absence, in 2011 Indonesian authorities have again found some foods

with formaldehyde being sold in markets in a number of regions across the country. Besides using formaldehyde, they also use borax,

but not combined together. In August 2011, at least at 2 Carrefour supermarkets, the Central Jakarta Livestock and Fishery Sub-

Department found a sweet glutinous rice drink (cendol) contained 10 parts per million of formaldehyde. Foods known to becontaminated include noodles, salted fish, tofu, and rumors of chicken and beer. In some places, such as China, formaldehyde is

still used illegally as a preservative in foods, which exposes people to formaldehyde ingestion.

In humans, the ingestion of formaldehyde has been shown to cause vomiting, abdominal pain, dizziness, and in extreme cases

can cause death; in addition, there is limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect.

Thailand,

Formaldehyde has been exposed in truckloads of rotten chickens in a food scare; some 11 slaughterhouses were implicated in 2011in "a large network" run by a gang.

11


12/48

Symptoms

Acute

Most formaldehyde exposures occur by inhalation or by skin/eye contact. Formaldehyde vapor is readily absorbed from the lungs. Incases of acute exposure, formaldehyde will most likely be detected by smell; however, persons who are sensitized to formaldehyde

may experience headaches and minor eye and airway irritation at levels below the odor threshold (odor threshold is 0.5 to 1.0 ppm;

OSHA PEL is 0.75 ppm).

For sensitized persons, odor is not an adequate indicator of formaldehyde's presence and may not provide reliable warning of

hazardous concentrations. Odor adaptation can occur. Low-dose acute exposure can result in headache, rhinitis , and dyspnea; higher

doses may cause severe mucous membrane irritation, burning, and lacrimation, and lower respiratory effects such as bronchitis,

pulmonary edema, or pneumonia. Sensitive individuals may experience asthma and dermatitis, even at very low doses. Formaldehyde

vapors are slightly heavier than air and can result in asphyxiation in poorly ventilated, enclosed, or low-lying areas.

Children exposed to the same levels of formaldehyde as adults may receive larger doses because they have greater lung surface area:

body weight ratios and increased minute volumes:weight ratios. In addition, they may be exposed to higher levels than adults in the

same location because of their short stature and the higher levels of formaldehyde found nearer to the ground.

Humans metabolize formaldehyde quickly, so it does not accumulate, and is converted to formic acid in the body. Formaldehyde is

highly toxic to all animals, regardless of method of intake. Ingestion of as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37%

formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult. Water solution of formaldehyde is very corrosive and its ingestion can

cause severe injury to upper gastrointestinal tract.

Results from human and animal studies indicate that the critical target organs to airborne formaldehyde are the nose and the eyes, with

the lungs being a secondary target at high exposure levels. Because formaldehyde resins are used in many construction materials it is

one of the more common indoor air pollutants. At concentrations above 0.1 ppm in air formaldehyde can irritate the eyes and mucous

membranes, resulting in watery eyes. Formaldehyde inhaled at this concentration may cause headaches, a burning sensation in the

throat, and difficulty breathing, as well as triggering or aggravating asthma symptoms. A 1988 Canadian study of houses with urea-

formaldehyde foam insulation found that formaldehyde levels as low as 0.046 ppm (46 ppb) were positively correlated with eye

and nasal irritation. Controlled exposure human studies have found that short-term inhalation exposures to concentrations

12


13/48

ranging from 0.4 to 3 ppm can produce symptoms of mild to moderate irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. The odor

threshold for formaldehyde in humans has been reported to be 1 ppm, but others have noted that it may range as low as 0.05

ppm (50 ppb) ( For most people, irritation from formaldehyde is temporary and reversible, though formaldehyde can cause allergies

and is part of the standard patch test series. People with formaldehyde allergy are advised to avoid formaldehyde releasers as well

(e.g., Quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea, and diazolidinyl urea). People who suffer allergic reactions to formaldehyde tend todisplaylesions on the skin in the areas that have had direct contact with the substance, such as the neck or thighs (often due to

formaldehyde released from permanent press finished clothing) or dermatitis on the face (typically from cosmetics).

Formaldehyde has been banned in cosmetics in both Sweden and Japan. The eyes are most sensitive to formaldehyde exposure. The

maximum concentration value at the workplace is 0.3 ppm.

Chronic

The major concerns of repeated formaldehyde exposure are sensitization and cancer. In sensitized persons, formaldehyde can

cause asthma and contact dermatitis. In persons who are not sensitized, prolonged inhalation of formaldehyde at low levels isunlikely to result in chronic pulmonary injury. Adverse effects on the central nervous system such as increased prevalence of

headache, depression, mood changes, insomnia, irritability, attention deficit, and impairment of dexterity, memory, and

equilibrium have been reported to result from long-term exposure. Chronic exposure may be more serious for children

because of their potential longer latency period.

Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between exposure to formaldehyde and cancer in humans. Causality

is indicated by consistent findings ofincreased risks of nasopharyngeal cancer, sinonasal cancer, and lymphohematopoietic

cancer, specifically myeloid leukemia among individuals with higher measures of exposure to formaldehyde (exposure level or

duration). The evidence for nasopharyngeal cancer is somewhat stronger than that for myeloid leukemia. Numerous epidemiologicalstudies have evaluated the relationship between exposure to formaldehyde and cancer risk, including (1) cohort and nested case-

control studies of industrial workers, (2) cohort and nested case-control studies of professional groups such as pathologists,

funeral directors, or embalmers, and (3) population-based cohort and case-control studies.

The most informative occupation based studies are the National Cancer Institute (NCI) cohort of over 25,000 men and women who

worked at companies that used or produced formaldehyde. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde has also been evaluated in a

large cohort study: a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cohort study of over 11,000 male and female

13


14/48

garment workers, which evaluated risks of cancer at a few selected tissue sites by time since first exposure (latency), exposure

duration, and year of first exposure. For types of cancer with higher survival rates, such as lymphohematopoietic cancer, studies

reporting mortality are less informative than studies reporting incidence, because mortality studies will miss cases of cancer that do

not result in death. Nasopharyngeal cancer is a rare cancer, with an annual incidence of less than 1 per 100,000 in most parts

of the world. The risk of nasopharyngeal cancer (differentiated squamous-cell carcinoma and unspecified subtypes) increasedsignificantly with increasing cumulative exposure, duration of exposure and probability of exposure (possible, probable, or definite).

Studies found the highest risks of nasopharyngeal cancer for individuals with the highest formaldehyde exposure levels (assessed as

cumulative exposure, exposure level, or exposure score). Risks were also significantly elevated for individuals with longer time

since first exposure or who died at an older age risk was increased fourfold for individuals who died after the age of 68 and

were probably exposed to high levels of formaldehyde for at least 20 years before death. Sinonasal cancer is a rare cancer,

with an annual incidence of about 1 per 100,000. Elevated risks were observed for both adenocarcinoma and squamous-cell

carcinoma; however, some studies suggested that adenocarcinoma was more strongly associated with formaldehyde exposure than was

squamous-cell carcinoma. Although co-exposure to wood dust is a potential confounding factor for sinonasal cancer, and specifically

for adenocarcinoma, increased risk of sinonasal cancer associated with formaldehyde exposure has been found among individuals with

little or no exposure to wood dust or after adjustment for wood-dust exposure. Some studies suggested that co-exposure to

formaldehyde and wood dust had an interactive (synergistic) carcinogenic effect. Evidence that demonstrates an association

between formaldehyde exposure and combined lymphohematopoietic cancer is found in the NCI cohort of industrial workers. Risk

was significantly higher for the highest peak-exposure group than the lowest peak-exposure group, and a positive exposure-

response relationship based on peak exposure was found. The risks of Hodgkins lymphoma and multiple myeloma also were

significantly higher among individuals with the highest peak exposure than those with the lowest peak exposure, and a positive

exposure-response relationship was found for Hodgkins lymphoma. . In meta-analyses in 2009, a significant association was

found for multiple myeloma. Increased risks for leukemia (all types combined) were found in all of the professional studies

and some of the industrial cohort studies. A strong association with myeloid cancer was also found and the magnitudes of the

effect estimates were higher for myeloid leukemia than for all leukemia or other subtypes of leukemia. The increased risks

were observed for workers in different industries and occupations (workers at formaldehyde- producing companies, garment

workers, and embalmers). In a NIOSH cohort study of garment workers, elevated risks of death from myeloid leukemia were

found for all workers and for subgroups of workers with the highest exposure or longest latency. An excess risk was found for

chronic (but not acute) myeloid leukemia, based on small numbers of formaldehyde exposed individuals with leukemia. It has

been found that embalmers have longer duration of exposure and higher cumulative exposure and are more likely to be

14


15/48

exposed to peak exposure levels greater than 4ppm than are industrial workers, and that cancer risk is associated with peak

levels of exposure to formaldehyde. Increased risks of head and neck cancers (of the buccal cavity, pharynx, larynx, or combinations

of these sites) were observed in many of the cohort and case control studies, but most were not statistically significant. An excess of

brain cancer mortality was found in all studies of professional groups, but not in the cohort studies of industrial workers. For

leukemia, the mechanisms by which formaldehyde causes toxicity at distal sites are unknown. The formation of methanediol(discussed above) from formaldehyde helps to explain how a reactive chemical could be distributed and undergo metabolism

throughout the body. Some studies found that formaldehyde-exposed workers had lower counts of white blood cells,

granulocytes, platelets, red blood cells, and lymphocytes than did non-exposed workers. A 2009 review of the Chinese

literature reported that decreased white blood cell counts were observed in most studies of formaldehyde-exposed workers; in

the largest study, exposed workers had higher percentages of blood abnormalities (decreased white blood cell and platelet

counts and abnormal hemoglobin levels).

Although many studies have failed to show a relationship between formaldehyde and asthma, a recent review of studies has shown a

strong association between exposure to formaldehyde and the development of childhood asthma. Chronic exposure at higherlevels, starting at around 1.9 ppm, has been shown to result in significant damage to pulmonary function, resulting in reduced

maximum mid-expiratory flow and forced vital capacity. There is also research that supports the theory that formaldehyde exposure

contributes to reproductive problems in women. A study on Finnish women working in laboratories at least 3 days a week

found a significant correlation between spontaneous abortion and formaldehyde exposure, and a study of Chinese women found

abnormal menstrual cycles in 70% of the women occupationally exposed to formaldehyde compared to only 17% in the control

group. There have been no studies done on the effect of formaldehyde exposure on reproduction in men.

Diagnosis and Testing

Testing for formaldehyde is by blood and/or urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Other methods include infrared

detection, gas detector tubes, etc., of which HPLC is the most sensitive.

Attempts have been made to determine if formaldehyde could be used as a potential biomarker of short-term exposure; however, no

significant difference between pre- and post-exposure blood concentrations of formaldehyde could be demonstrated at the

concentration tested. Monitoring blood or urine formate levels has also been considered. Mean post exposure urine formate

concentrations were not significantly elevated after exposure. Based on the available data, it appears that the detection of the intact

15


16/48

formaldehyde molecule in the blood and tissues, as well as blood and urine formate, are unreliable and poor indicators of

formaldehyde exposure in humans and laboratory animals.

Treatments

Absorption of large amounts of formaldehyde via any route can cause severe systemic toxicity, leading to metabolic acidosis,

tissue and organ damage, and coma.

There is no antidote for formaldehyde. Treatment consists of supportive measures including decontamination (flushing of skin andeyes with water, gastric lavage, and administration of activated charcoal), administration of supplemental oxygen, intravenoussodium bicarbonate and/or isotonic fluid, and hemodialysis.

Persons exposed only to formaldehyde vapor do not pose substantial risks of secondary contamination. Persons whose clothing or skinis contaminated with a solution of formaldehyde can cause secondary contamination by direct contact or through off-gassing

vapor.

Due to formaldehydes high water solubility and reactivity and the rapidity of cellular metabolism of formaldehyde to formate and

CO2, toxic effects from formaldehyde are expected to be principally caused by formaldehyde itself (not metabolites) and to be

restricted to portal-of-entry tissues, except at high exposure levels that exceed metabolic capacities of these tissues. Thus, following

acute exposures to formaldehyde, treatments that dilute or remove non- absorbed or non-reacted formaldehyde from the site of

exposure or that present alternative substrates for reaction (e.g., washing of the skin or eyes or dilution of ingested

formaldehyde with milk or water) may prevent the occurrence of toxic effects if applied in a timely manner. There are no

established treatment protocols to repair tissue damage that may have been caused by formaldehyde at portals-of-entry or to

enhance natural repair mechanisms.

16


17/48

Risks

Analysis showed that those who had performed the most embalming and those with the highest estimated formaldehyde

exposure had the greatest risk of myeloid leukemia. There was no association with other cancers of the hematopoieticand lymphatic systems or with brain cancer.

NCI investigators have concluded that exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in

humans. Data from extended follow-up of the NCI cohort found that the excess of nasopharyngeal cancer observed in the

earlier report persisted.

Earlier analysis of the NCI cohort found increased lung cancer deaths among industrial workers compared with the general

U.S. population. However, the rate of lung cancer deaths did not increase with higher levels of formaldehyde exposure.

This observation led the researchers to conclude that factors other than formaldehyde exposure might have caused the

increased deaths. The most recent data on lung cancer from the cohort study did not find any relationship betweenformaldehyde exposure and lung cancer mortality.

The results of some workers studies showed an increased risk of death due to leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, among

workers exposed to formaldehyde. This risk was associated with increasing peak and average levels of exposure, as well

as with the duration of exposure, but it was not associated with cumulative exposure. An additional 10 years of data on

the same workers were used in a follow-up study published in 2009. This analysis continued to show a possible link

between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems, particularly myeloid leukemia.

As in the initial study, the risk was highest earlier in the follow-up period. Risks declined steadily over time, such that the

cumulative excess risk of myeloid leukemia was no longer statistically significant at the end of the follow-up period. The

researchers noted that similar patterns of risks over time had been seen for other agents known to cause leukemia.

Appearance

Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is used in building materials and to produce many

household products. Formaldehyde is normally present in both indoor and outdoor air at low levels, usually less than

0.03 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air (ppm). Materials containing formaldehyde can release formaldehyde

gas or vapor into the air. One source of formaldehyde exposure in the air is automobile tailpipe emissions.

17


18/48

During the 1970s, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) was used in many homes. However, few homes are now

insulated with UFFI. Homes in which UFFI was installed many years ago are not likely to have high formaldehyde levels

now. Pressed-wood products containing formaldehyde resins are often a significant source of formaldehyde in homes.

Other potential indoor sources of formaldehyde include cigarette smoke and the use of unvented fuel-burning

appliances, such as gas stoves, wood-burning stoves, and kerosene heaters.

Regulation

In the United States, a bill was passed in congress on July 7, 2010 regarding the use of formaldehyde in hardwood plywood, particle

board, and medium density fiberboard. The bill limited the allowable amount of formaldehyde emissions from these wood products

to .09 ppm, a standard which companies will have to meet by January, 2013.

OSHA estimated that about 1.9 million workers were exposed to formaldehyde at concentrations between 0.1 and 0.5 ppm,

123,000 at 0.5 to 0.75 ppm, and 84,000 at 0.75 to 1ppm

OSHA PEL (permissible exposure limit) = 0.75 ppm (averaged over an 8-hour workshift)

OSHA STEL (short-term exposure limit) = 2 ppm (15 minute exposure)

NIOSH IDLH (immediately dangerous to life or health) = 20 ppm

AIHA ERPG-2 (emergency response planning guideline) (the maximum airborne concentration below which it is

believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing

irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take protective

action) = 10 ppm

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) All plywood and particleboard materials bonded with a resin system

or coated with a surface finish containing formaldehyde shall not exceed the following emission levels when installed in

manufactured homes: 0.2 ppm for plywood and 0.3 ppm for particleboard. Manufactured homes must prominently display a

notice which provides information on formaldehyde sources, levels, health effects, and remedial actions to reduce indoor

levels.

18


19/48

Department of Transportation (DOT) Formaldehyde, formalin, and paraformaldehyde are considered hazardous materials,

and special requirements have been set for marking, labeling, and transporting these materials . Identified as one of 33

hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to public health in urban areas.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) While this section accurately identifies OSHAs legally enforceable PELsfor this substance in 2010, specific PELs may not reflect the more current studies and may not adequately protect workers .

Several European countries restrict the use of formaldehyde, including the import of formaldehyde-treated products and

embalming. Starting September 2007, the European Union banned the use of formaldehyde due to its carcinogenic properties as a

biocide (including embalming) under the Biocidal Products Directive.

19


20/48

Map Distribution

As Shown below, Formaldehyde is released from more than 550 Toxic Release Inventory Sites in the lower 48 states.

US Map Showing Location of Formaldehyde Toxic Release Inventory Sites

20


21/48


22/48

McFarland, Kern County

In 1995, residents of McFarland, California and the

community organization Healing Our Mother Earth

(HOME) petitioned the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR) to address health concerns

about potential environmental contamination in their

community. McFarland is an agricultural community

located 25 miles north of Bakersfield in California's

Central Valley. The town then had a population of

approximately 7,970 and is surrounded by crop land,

pastures, and orchards. Many residents are agriculturalworkers. The community is concerned about exposures

to hazardous substances (for example, pesticides and

toxic wastes) in soil and drinking water, and about the incidence of childhood cancer. Community health concerns were

reported as an increase in the number of childhood cancer cases, the incidence of adult cancers, and low birth weights.

22


23/48

Aerial View of McFarland Schools in Proximity to Agricultural Fields

The California Department of Health Services (CDHS), the Kern County Environmental Health Services (KCEHSD) and the EPA

investigated a potential childhood cancer cluster identified from 1984 through 1991. The epidemiological study concluded that

23


24/48

McFarland, Fowler, and Rosamond had unusually higher rates of cancer. However, unusually low rates were found for other

communities (Visalia, Sanger, and the Mendota area). The study concluded that the overall distribution of the various types of

childhood cancers identified was the expected value. Twenty-one children (less than 15 years old) have been diagnosed with

cancer between 1975 and 1995. During this investigation, the CDHS screened 1,700 children, analyzing blood and urine levels to

identify any abnormalities. Some children were found to be anemic. CDHS concluded that while the cancer cluster was real, nocausal association could be made between the health data and levels of toxic compounds identified by previous environmental

sampling data. DHS confirmed that McFarland has suffered from a childhood cancer rate three to four times higher than normal.

Prior to 1990, there was significant under reporting of the amount of restricted pesticide use, which may have included known cancer

causing compounds. This under reporting has stymied efforts to pinpoint environmental causes of this disease cluster.

According to historical records, the McFarland area was the site of a U. S. Army Air Force basic pilot training airfield during World

War II, and had extensive agricultural activity, including crop production, chemical application, storage and shipment of agricultural

products]. The 2001 public health assessment evaluated contaminant levels in soil and municipal drinking water, but air data were

unavailable at the time.

24


25/48

According to the ATSDR Health Consultation, formaldehyde consistently exceeded the comparison value for cancer health

effects, but did not exceed the ATSDR comparison value for chronic non-cancer health effects (10 g/m3). The mean for

formaldehyde for all sampling was 6.8 g/m3 , which exceeds an ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline (CREG) of 0.08 g/m3 .

ATSDRs CREG is based on continuous lifetime exposure at 1E-06 increased cancer risk (or an increase in risk for 1 individual in a

25


26/48

population of 1,000,000) above background and identifies a level where health effects would not be expected. The site-specific cancer

risk estimate is 4E-05 (an increase in the risk to 4 individuals in a population of 100,000) for a 30 year continuous exposure, which

represents a low increase in risk for cancer health effects. This level of risk would not pose a public health concern as such due to the

conservative nature of the risk assessment, but identifies the contaminant for inclusion in further evaluations such as mixtures

assessment.

For perspective, a study of volatile organic compounds reported nationwide annual formaldehyde levels in air to average 10 g/m3

outdoors (median 5 g/m3 ) with median daily concentrations ranging from 3.3 g/m3 (rural) to 8.0 g/m3 (urban). Indoor

formaldehyde concentrations averaged 61 g/m3 (median, 52 g/m3 ). Therefore , average concentrations at McFarland are not

inconsistent with nationwide averages. However, there is uncertainty in the scientific literature concerning formaldehyde and its

mode(s) of action for developing cancer.

A review of current environmental data did not identify levels of contaminants in drinking water or soil at levels of health concerns for

cancer or non-cancer (low birth weight, miscarriages, or developmental) effects. Some metals (arsenic, vanadium), pesticides

(fusilade, bromodichloroethane, bromoform) and radon were detected at concentrations below levels of health concern in the

municipal water system. Soil samples were obtained from various private, public, and industrial areas throughout the McFarland area.

Metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium) detected in residential and public area (parks and schools), and industrial areas

(arsenic and mercury) were below health effects levels. Therefore, no adverse health effects would be expected.

ATSDR ultimately concluded that exposure to the reported individual contaminant levels would not be expected to result in

adverse health effects

26


27/48

Richmond Field Station - Berkeley

The Environmental Health Investigations Branch (EHIB), within the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) (formerly theCalifornia Department of Health Services), under cooperative agreement with the federal Agency for Toxic Substance and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), conducted a public health assessment (PHA) of the Richmond Field Station (RFS),operated by the University ofCalifornia (UC) in Richmond, California. The PHA will included a review of existing environmental data to evaluate the potentialhealth impact from exposures to site-related contaminants, a collection of exposure and health concerns, and a response to theseconcerns based on review of the data. The PHA is an evaluation of the site to help determine what follow-up activities are needed:additional site characterization, health education, health study, or specific measures to reduce or eliminate exposure. Specifically, theyaddressed the following exposure pathways (situations): contamination in the RFS marsh; metal contamination in on-site soils;airborne contaminants generated/released during remedial activities conducted in September 2002 and September 2003; andcontaminants in indoor air. CDPH will be releasing a,PHA for the adjacent Zeneca siteits current owners are Cherokee SimeonVenturesthat contains exposure information that may be applicable to RFS workers.

In 1950, UC Berkeley purchased the land known as RFS. The property is located along the Richmond shoreline and consists oftidal mudflats, marsh, grasslands, and the upland areas where most of the facilities/buildings are located. RFS is currently usedas a research and teaching facility. The U.S. EPAs Regional Laboratory is also located at RFS.

Between 1870 and 1950, much of RFS property belonged to the California Cap Company, an explosives manufacturer. TheCalifornia Cap Company manufactured mercury fulminate on-site for the production of blasting caps. Operations at theCalifornia Cap Company resulted in mercury contamination to the soil and marsh sediments.

From 1897 to 1985, the adjacent property directly east was owned and operated by Stauffer Chemical Company. This property is nowreferred to as Zeneca/Campus Bay. At various times, Stauffer produced/manufactured sulfuric acid, superphosphate fertilizer,pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals. The production of sulfuric acid generated pyrite cinder wastes that were deposited on RFSand the Zeneca property. The pyrite cinders are a source of low pH conditions and metals including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,mercury, selenium, and zinc. Naturally occurring radionuclides associated with the production of superphosphate fertilizer may alsobe elevated in soil, sediment, and groundwater on the RFS site. Other historic activities conducted on the Zeneca property involvingradionuclides may also be present in soil, sediment, and groundwater. Zeneca is currently undergoing investigation and clean-upactivities.

27


28/48

In 1999, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Region, identified contamination(metals and low pH conditions) in sediments from the Western Stege Marsh. As a result, RWQCB requested that UC investigate theextent of contamination in the marsh and the southern portion of the upland area. Elevated concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) were also found in the sediment in and adjacent to Meeker Slough located along the western boundary of Western StegeMarsh. The source of PCB contamination is still under investigation.

Since 1999, investigations and clean-up activities have been underway at RFS (1). Clean-up activities include restoring the nativemarsh and creating additional marsh habitat. Three phases of excavation and removal of contaminated material from RFS haveoccurred.

Phase 1. From August 2002 to January 2003, 28,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil (pyrite cinder waste and mercury) and marshsediment were removed from an area bordered by Zeneca to the east and East Bay Regional Park Bay Trail to the south.

Phase 2. From August 2003 to March 2004, 31,000 cubic yards of contaminated material (pyrite cinder waste and mercury-contaminated sediment) were removed. PCBs were also removed from an area at the outfall of a storm drain in Meeker Slough

Phase 3. From August 2004 to November 2004, 3,300 cubic yards of soil contaminated with metals and PCBs were removed from theupland areas.

In April 2005, due to ongoing community concerns about RFS, the Contra Costa County Health Services Department and theCalifornia Environmental Protection Agencys Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) requested assistance from CDPH toevaluate the potential health impact posed by the facility. Since that time, CDPH has been conducting PHA activities at RFS. In May2005, DTSC formally became the lead regulatory agency overseeing environmental investigations and cleanup at the site.

In April 2007, under order from DTSC, the UC released a Draft Current Conditions Report, which provides a summary of pastactivities/site uses, and the current conditions at the site based on past analytical data (2). In the report a number of areas and/or past

activities at RFS are described that may have resulted in contamination to the environment. For example, prior to the 1980s, solventsand other laboratory chemicals were disposed of down drains, leading to the sanitary sewer (2). It is common for old sewer lines

made of clay pipe to be compromised and leak. There has been no investigation of soil, soil gas, or groundwater along these sewerlines. Drum storage areas and above ground storage tanks containing various petroleum products, hydraulic fluids, and chemicalwastes, have also been identified. Areas where polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing equipment (transformers, switches, andcapacitors) was stored has also been identified. The report identifies a number of other areas where data gaps exist, such as the Bulbarea where miscellaneous site debris and drums may have been buried; groundwater quality in the western portion of the Transitionarea; and the effectiveness of the Biologically Active Permeable Barrier (BAPB), which was installed to treat subsurface

28


29/48

contamination (dissolved metals in groundwater) that might be migrating into the marsh . All the above mentioned examples representgaps in fully understanding the environmental conditions at RFS.

In August 2007, a public comment draft of the PHA was released to the public and other stakeholders for review and comment. Thecomments and CDPH responses included the following statements:

It is possible that workers in Building 163 could have experienced irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat based on September21, 2005, when formaldehyde was measured at levels exceeding health-based standards

29


30/48

Missouri

Kansas City- Bannister Plant

The Bannister Plant is a 310-acre federal complex which consists of 10 buildings occupied primarily by the General

Services Administration and the Department of Energy. The Kansas City Plant produces and assembles 85% of thenon-nuclear components of the United States nuclear bomb arsenal. A Department of Defense landfill wasestablished in 1942 on a portion of the area, as a disposal site for the Bannister Federal Complex. From 1942 to

1964, when the landfill was closed, several government contractors, including Pratt and Whitney and Westinghouse,disposed waste into the landfill. Disposal activities at the landfill resulted in contamination to soil and groundwater bysolvents, metals and, petroleum contaminants. As of fiscal year 2007, the Kansas City Plant had 2,711 employees.Gross operating cost for KCP in FY07 was $501 million. GSA still employs nearly 800 people in the western portion ofthe complex, which serves as the headquarters to GSA's Heartland Region

According to a report by NBC News a 2011 CDC investigation at the Bannister Federal Complex identified 'no cancer

cluster' in General Services Administration controlled space. The NIOSH report identified beryllium, uranium, volatile

organic compounds, formaldehyde, chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCBS's and radiation as concerns they reviewed. GSA

officials said the report did not take into account recent preliminary testing results that could show a presence of

uranium and/or beryllium contamination in office space at the complex. Officials said they are awaiting a quality

analysis to determine whether the results were accurate or false positives. Many former workers and family members

were disturbed by the report's release without more detailed testing and medical evaluations.

30


31/48

The CDC documented at least 25 cases of pancreatic cancer among workers at the Bannister Federal Complex (which

includes GSA side workers and bomb plant workers. The report said no occupational causes of pancreatic cancer are

proven. The report also ruled out clusters in the reported cases of breast cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, and

lung cancer.

CDC officials say they only had jurisdiction on the GSA side of the complex and weren't allowed full access to the

Department of Energy controlled plant where the non-nuclear parts are made for nuclear weapons. In 2008, the

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) estimated the need for a $287 million clean-up, but no funds were

allocated for that part of the complex.

Some exposed workers noted that on the Honeywell operated side of the complex, the government has paid out nearly

$30 million to workers for similar illnesses believed linked to toxins there.Government officials indicate the

plant on the east side has had multiple contamination incidents involving beryllium, PCBs, jet fuel, solvents and

other toxins.Over the past decade, the federal government has acknowledged and has documented 1418 claims of

illnesses on Bannister Federal Complex's east side at the Kansas City Plant which are officially classified as

"toxic substance exposure,"

The NIOSH and EPA inquiry followed an NBC Action News investigation that has identified hundreds of sick workers

who suspect their illnesses are linked to toxins at the plant. According to Department of Labor data, in Kansas City

alone, the government has paid workers more than $28 million in compensation for illnesses related to beryllium or

other toxins used in the making of non-nuclear parts for nuclear bombs at the Bannister Federal Complex.

In Sept 2011 NNSA and GSA jointly announced they will formally apply for modifications to a Missouri Hazardous

Waste Management Facility Part I permit and an EPA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Part II permit. Thesemodifications will enable the development of a single set of cleanup goals and will defer moving forward with actions

to place the complex on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).

31


32/48

Texas

32


33/48

Kelly AFB

Kelly AFB formerly occupied approximately 4,000 acres on the

Southwest side of San Antonio. The base, originally founded in

1916, became the first Air Force base in the country in 1940 and

over the years became the longest continually operated Air Force

Base until it closed on July 13, 2001. During the Korean and

Vietnam wars it became a major hub for Air Force maintenance

work and storage. It employed, at its peak, some 25,000 civilian

workers while handling 50 percent of the Air Forces engine

maintenance.

Because of past waste management practices at Kelly AFB, some

areas of the Base are known or suspected to be impacted by

various hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, orwastes, including metals, VOCs, and SVOCs. The San Antonio

Examiner reported that at its peak the AFB was generating more

than 250,000 tons of toxic waste per year in close proximity to

the neighboring Hispanic communities.

The site complex included landfills, spill sites, former fire training

areas, low-level radioactive waste sites, underground storage tanks,

aircraft maintenance areas, sludge lagoons, sludge-spreading beds,

and range sites (which is a small arms range). There were also 334 sitesthat required some type of investigation, these included: container

storage areas, wash racks, drains, oil/water separators, silver recovery units

and spill sites. There were approximately 360 sites that had underground

storage tanks, aboveground storage tanks or tanks that had previously

been removed.

33


34/48

In the 2007 ATSDR East Kelly AFB Public Health Assessment, the location of maximum formaldehyde levels are not shown but arelocated at the same locations as benzene and 1,3-butadiene maximums. All estimated off-base contaminant levels were below levelswhere health effects have been reported in the scientific literature. Community exposures of modeled annual average concentrationswere below levels of concern for acute and chronic

34


35/48

non-cancer health effects, except for potentially irritating or exacerbating respiratory effects from exposure to formaldehyde. Theseeffects are likely short-term and possibly periodic depending on the changing level of aircraft operations. Benzene, 1,3-butadiene,and formaldehyde were the only chemicals of concern for an estimated increase in cancer risk.

35


36/48

Exposure to worst-case conditions during the period of elevated aircraft operations resulted in an increase in

the risk for developing cancer for that period of time. Continuous exposure is averaged over a year because data is not available tomore discretely define the exposure. It is possible that exposures occurred to higher levels for shorter periods of time, much likean occupational exposure. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposurelevels (PELs) are presented for perspective, which describe levels at which workers may be exposed for 8 hours per day for 5 days perweek.

36


37/48

According to the ATSDR, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde were the chemicals generating the highest cancer risk.These levels of chemicals are below levels where health effects have been reported in workers.

To date the Air Force has so far spent $320.4 million on environmental investigation and cleaning up the mess, building water

treatment plants, installing barriers and filters, and hauling away contaminated soil. That price tag could reportedly rise to $465million by 2024.

37
http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fmilitary&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Air+Force%22http://www.mysanantonio.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fmilitary&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Air+Force%22


38/48

Source: ATSDR PHA 1999

Maps of Cancer Index (by Zip Code) Around Kelly AFB

38


39/48


40/48

Louisiana

40


41/48

Luling LA Monsanto

In 1954, the Monsanto Chemical Company developed a petrochemical facility on a

vast tract of land that sits upon the Mississippi River s natural levee in Luling,

Louisiana. This development spurred rapid population growth, but because Monsanto

consumed the last remaining parcel of high ground in Luling, the city was forced to

accommodate this influx by developing residential subdivisions in flood prone areas.

The Monsanto Luling Facility is located in Luling, Louisiana adjacent to the

Mississippi River approximately 15 miles upriver from New Orleans. The entire site

encompasses approximately 1,600 acres with about 400 acres dedicated to the

manufacturing of Roundup herbicide, Acetaminophen analgesic, and ACL water

treatment chemical

Luling LA Index Map

41


42/48

Formaldehyde Emissions from Monsanto Luling Plant in 2010

Historical Emissions of Monsanto Luling Plant (1993-2009)

42


43/48

Historical Emissions of Monsanto Luling Plant (1993-2009) cont.

In 1983 the disposal wells used for deep well injection of the plants toxic wastes had a 10 billion gallon capacity. Over 6 millionpounds of formaldehyde per year were injected into a disposal well in 2009 and 2010 this was down from the peak of more than 9

million pounds per year between 2006 and 2008.

43


44/48

Source: Scorecard

2002

Ranking of Monsanto Luling Emissions Relative to Other US Facilities

This plant has the largest emissions of formaldehyde in the country and according to Scorecard.com some of the dirtiest emissions

overall in 2002. They also showed the plant had elevated cancer and noncancer risk scores as well as air releases of recognized

carcinogens and developmental toxicants.

44


45/48

Top Ten Toxic Emissions from Monsanto Louisiana in 2008

The air emissions at the Monsanto Luling plant have contributed to the overall air emissions of St Charles Parish

(including over 45% formaldehyde emissions. This has led to an elevated cancer risk in the Parish equivalent to 44 in

a million people in 2005.

45


46/48

Source: LA Dept. of Env. Quality

Recently, Monsanto completed a major plant expansion at the Luling plant. The nearly $200 million expansion will increase the

amount of herbicide Monsanto can produce by up to 20 percent. According to a news release from the Louisiana Governor's Office,

Monsanto's expansion created 26 new jobs, represents $196 million in capital investment, and will generate 166 indirect jobs.

Then, millions of gallons of generic glyphosate-based herbicide entered the U.S. market from China. Monsanto lowered its forecast

range for gross profit for the Roundup business to $250 million to $300 million a year. Only a year ago, the company recorded $1.8billion in gross profits from the sale of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides. The company said Tuesday's cost cuts will

include closing some small offices and manufacturing operations and writing down the value of assets.

In 2011, Monsanto acknowledged that Roundup's best years have come to an end. It announced 900 layoffs, mostly of people involved

with Roundup, and said it would carve out its herbicide franchise into a stand-alone division.

46


47/48

Things to Avoid!

Formaldehyde is usually found in the air, and levels are usually higher indoors than outdoors. Opening

windows and using fans to bring fresh air indoors are the easiest ways to lower levels in the house. Not

smoking and not using unvented heaters indoors can lower the formaldehyde levels. Removingformaldehyde sources in the home can reduce exposure. Formaldehyde is given off from a number of

products used in the home. Providing fresh air, sealing unfinished manufactured wood surfaces, and

washing new permanent press clothing before wearing can help lower exposure.

The EPA recommends the use of exterior-grade pressed-wood products to limit formaldehyde exposure

in the home. These products emit less formaldehyde because they contain phenol resins, not urea resins.

(Pressed-wood products include plywood, paneling, particleboard, and fiberboard and are not the same as

pressure-treated wood products, which contain chemical preservatives and are intended for outdoor use.)

Before purchasing pressed-wood products, including building materials, cabinetry, and furniture, buyersshould ask about the formaldehyde content of these products. Formaldehyde levels in homes can also be

reduced by ensuring adequate ventilation, moderate temperatures, and reduced humidity levels through

the use of air conditioners and dehumidifiers.

47


48/48

For More Information

see websites.

www.wereyoupoisoned.com

http://wereyoupoisoned.yolasite.com

International Agency for Research on Cancer (June 2004).IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to HumansVolume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from:http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol88/index.php.

National Toxicology Program (June 2011).Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition.

Department of Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12.

EPA

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html

NBC News on Bannister Complex, Kansas City MO

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/cdc's-niosh-report-says-'no-cancer-cluster'-on-gsa-side-bannister-federal-complex

48
http://www.wereyoupoisoned.com/http://wereyoupoisoned.yolasite.com/http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol88/index.phphttp://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.htmlhttp://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/cdc's-niosh-report-says-'no-cancer-cluster'-on-gsa-side-bannister-federal-complexhttp://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/cdc's-niosh-report-says-'no-cancer-cluster'-on-gsa-side-bannister-federal-complexhttp://www.wereyoupoisoned.com/http://wereyoupoisoned.yolasite.com/http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol88/index.phphttp://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.htmlhttp://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/cdc's-niosh-report-says-'no-cancer-cluster'-on-gsa-side-bannister-federal-complexhttp://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/cdc's-niosh-report-says-'no-cancer-cluster'-on-gsa-side-bannister-federal-complex

Formaldehyde Pages5

Documents

Transcript of Formaldehyde Pages5