Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Institute (an umbrella group of HCHO manufacturers, UF-wood product
manufacturers and users, etc.) to establish a mandatory standard for UFFI
resin formulation and installation. The CPSC reasoned that the product was
inherently dangerous and that application standards would be insufficient
to protect public health. The ban was appealed to the First U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, where it was voided on procedural and technical grounds. The
CPSC elected not to appeal to the Supreme Court. The ban, adverse publicity,
and litigation caused the UFFI industry to collapse.
In response to requests from wood-product and manufactured housing
industries and public interest groups, HUD initiated rule-making that
required product emission standards for particle board and hardwood ply-
wood used in construction of mobile homes. The HUD product standards
prescribe that under standardized large chamber conditions of product load
(load factors similar to those in mobile homes), temperature (78°F, 25°C),
relative humidity (50%), and air exchange rate (0.5 ACH), emissions from
particle board and hardwood plywood paneling shall not cause chamber
concentrations to exceed 0.3 ppmv and 0.2 ppmv, respectively. Under com-
bined loading conditions, it was projected that HCHO concentrations in new
mobile homes would not exceed a target level of 0.4 ppmv, a level that HUD
administrators concluded would provide a reasonable degree of health pro-
tection. These product standards reflected what the wood products industry
was capable of achieving at that time. Minnesota product standards were
similar to HUD standards except that Minnesota standards applied to
medium-density fiber board as well.
The HUD rule, which went into effect in 1985, requires that mobile home
manufacturers prominently display a specifically worded health warning in
the kitchen and owner's manual (
Figure 13.1
)
.
D. Smoking in public places
Significant regulatory efforts have evolved in North America over the last
two decades to limit smoking in public places. These regulatory initiatives
reflected changing attitudes toward smoking and the acceptability of smok-
ing in public places since the issuance of the 1964 Surgeon General's report.
Antismoking efforts were given significant momentum with publication of
the Surgeon General's 1986 report on involuntary smoking and USEPA's
1992 document on respiratory effects of exposure to environmental tobacco
smoke (ETS).
With few exceptions, restrictions on smoking in public places has
resulted from state, local, and private initiatives. Restrictions on smoking in
commercial aircraft was, of course, a federal action.
Regulation of smoking in public places by state and local governments
evolved from permitting a no-smoking section to requiring that nonsmok-
ing was the assumed case. Legislative language made it clear that its intent
was to safeguard health and contribute to the general comfort of building
occupants.
