| What is UFFI? Urea formaldehyde foam
insulation was injected as a mixture of urea formaldehyde resin, an acidic foaming agent
and a propellant, such as air. It was commonly used in pre-existing houses by injecting
the foam into walls, where it was impractical to provide conventional insulation. The
insulation was approved for use in exterior wood-frame walls only. It has a reasonably
good R-value (thermal resistance).
Some formaldehyde gas was released during the on-site mixing and curing. Formaldehyde
is colorless, but has a very strong odor, which can generally be detected at
concentrations above one part per million. It is this by-product of the curing of the foam
that became a controversial issue.
Formaldehyde is both a naturally occurring chemical, and an industrial chemical. It is
found in dry cleaning chemicals, paper products, no-iron fabrics, diapers, pillow cases,
the glue in particle board and plywood, cosmetics, paints, cigarette smoke, and the
exhaust from automobiles, gas appliances, fireplaces and wood stoves. It occurs naturally
in forests and is a necessary metabolite in our body cells.
Ambient formaldehyde levels in houses are typically .03 to .04 parts
per million (of air). By comparison, typical levels in the smoking section of a cafeteria
are 0.16 ppm. Houses with new carpeting can also reach these levels.
The rate at which formaldehyde gases are released from materials
depends on temperature and humidity. The higher the humidity levels and the temperature,
the more gas is likely to be released.
When was UFFI installed?
The insulation was used in the 1970’s, most extensively from 1975
to 1978, during the period of the Canadian Home Insulation Program (CHIP), when financial
incentives were offered by the government to upgrade home insulation levels. The
insulation was banned in December 1980, in Canada. It is estimated that over 100,000 homes
in Canada were insulated with UFFI.
UFFI was also used in the US during the 70’s, and has been used in
Europe over the last thirty years. It is still used in Europe, where it was never banned
and is considered one of the better retrofit insulations.
In the United States, the Consumer Protection Safety Commission banned
the sale of UFFI in 1982, and shortly thereafter a law prohibiting the sale of urea
formaldehyde was enacted. In April 1983, the US Court of Appeal struck down the law
because there was no substantial evidence clearly linking UFFI to health complaints. UFFI
is not widely used in the USA today.
Who installed it?
UFFI was not a do-it-yourself product. The foam was machine mixed
on-site, and injected into wall cavities where it expanded to fill the cavity. Like many
new and fast growing industries (particularly those supported by government grants),
workmanship and quality control were often less than desirable.
What caused the controversy?
One of the first problem cases involving formaldehyde was in the US.
This involved an extremely air-tight and poorly ventilated mobile home, apparently with a
poorly-mixed half-formed UFFI. This started to raise government suspicions about the
insulation. (In other mobile home studies, elevated levels of formaldehyde were traced to
the panelling or carpets, not UFFI.)
A laboratory study which produced nasal cancer in rats that were
exposed to high levels of formaldehyde, increased concern. Following some press releases
and cautioning by authorities, a number of home owners began to report problems that
included respiratory difficulties, eye irritation, running noses, nosebleeds, headaches
and fatigue. Few issues have stronger impact than a potential health concern, especially
if the suspected cause is new, poorly understood and widely used.
In the case of UFFI, the uneasiness and uncertainty were compounded
because the material was hidden from sight, and the reported symptoms were identical to
those often experienced in our heated, dry indoor air.
Although there were no substantial problems clearly attributable to the
foam, urea formaldehyde foam insulation was banned as a precautionary measure. Research
was initiated to evaluate the problem, and to determine what should be done.
No one knew exactly how many homes had UFFI, and it was often difficult
to find out whether a home had UFFI. The problem was further complicated by the fact that
the foam was often used somewhat inappropriately in walls of solid masonry houses, in
attics, in cavities where freeze-up of pipes had occurred, and even as an acoustical
insulation in party walls in row houses, and in the ceilings between the first and second
floors of houses.
The fear of cancer and other health problems were only the beginning of
the story. These fears caused a reduction in the value of real estate. The costly
"remedial" measures and the long term stigma attached to UFFI houses became a
marketplace reality because of perceived health problems.
The federal government set guidelines for reducing formaldehyde levels
in houses, and removal techniques were specified. The initial threshold level set for
formaldehyde gas was 1.0 ppm. As the testing methods improved, the level was brought down
to 0.5 ppm and eventually 0.1 ppm. The threshold became very conservative, indeed.
A court case which eventually set records was initiated in Quebec, in
which the claimants accused the federal government, manufacturers and others of bringing a
dangerous material to the market.
An interesting twist
Those charged with the task of designing and refining remedial measures
set out to find the worst cases to test their theories, but they encountered an unexpected
problem. They couldn’t find any UFFI insulated houses with formaldehyde levels
above 0.1 ppm, let alone 0.5 ppm or 1.0 ppm. Even in the few houses that tested at
levels approaching 0.1 ppm, these were rarely duplicated in subsequent testing.
It became known that levels of formaldehyde decrease rapidly after the
foam has been installed. Within several days of the application, formaldehyde levels
typically return to ambient house levels.
As the body of information grew, it became clear that finding a single
house that exceeded this very conservative threshold level was going to be a challenge. In
fact, in reviewing several thousand files, not one house was found with levels of
formaldehyde which remained above 0.1 ppm! The highest levels were found in homes with
brand new carpeting which were tested on a hot summer day. The same houses tested two
weeks later showed levels typical of any house, with or without UFFI.
The presence of UFFI does not affect the amount of formaldehyde in the
indoor air. Indeed, while not statistically significant, the homes tested were found, on
average, to have formaldehyde levels below that of homes of similar ages without
UFFI.
In a study in Britain, people who worked in environments with high
formaldehyde levels, such as morticians and laboratory technicians, were studied for
possible health effects. These subjects were found to have a lesss than average number of
respiratory diseases, and actually lived slightly longer than average, on the whole.
(Again, while this may not be statistically significant, it suggests that low levels of
formaldehyde are not harmful.)
A number of studies have been done examining the health effects of
UFFI. Studies using random samples of UFFI and non-UFFI homes done before the ban
showed no impact of UFFI on health. However, studies done after the ban showed increased
reporting of symptoms, even for such things as constipation and deafness, which have no
biological basis!
When no correlation could be found between formaldehyde gas and health
problems, other possible problems related to UFFI were investigated. Mould and fungi, dust
mites, and un-named "UFFI gases" were all investigated as possibilities. None
were linked to UFFI. There was no damage to house framing or materials caused by UFFI.
Conclusions
UFFI is one of the most thoroughly investigated, and most innocuous
building products we have used. After the longest and most expensive civil case ever held
in Canada (eight years) was concluded in the Quebec Superior Court, not only was no basis
for a settlement found, but the plaintiffs were obliged to pay for most of the costs.
The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that urea formaldehyde foam
insulation has not been shown to be a health hazard.
It is not the purpose of this newsletter to determine why or how all of
the controversy arose without any proof. Suffice to say that people with the best
intentions were working in the public interest, and perhaps erred on the side of caution.
In retrospect, although the results were unfortunate, we would hate to think that people
responsible for the health of consumers would err on the other side.
We believe that those who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in
their homes should enjoy their houses, and sleep well at night. It is the sincere hope of
the authors that the market place will respond appropriately. The owners of properties
with this type of insulation should not be penalized financially, and no stigma should be
attached to these homes. We would futher urge real estate associations and boards accross
Canada to consider dropping the UFFI clause from purchase contracts. Similarly, we would
ask mortgage lenders to not penalize those who have UFFI in their homes. UFFI is simply
not the problem it was once feared to be.
Still concerned?
While we do not believe UFFI to be a problem, other household materials
and products can produce formaldehyde, and other air pollutants for that matter. If you
suspect your indoor air quality to be poor, there are Environmental Consultants listed in
the Yellow Pages of your phone book. |
All
Around The
House™
