WoodDigest.com |

The California Air Regulatory Board (CARB) voted 8-0 on April 26 to put in place the country’s tightest formaldehyde emissions limits from composite wood products. Implementation dates for the new ATCM (Air Toxics Control Measure) range from 2009 to 2012, depending on the board product. (See related story) The ATCM specifies a two-phase schedule (P1 and P2), with emissions ceilings and compliance dates for particleboard (PB), MDF, thin MDF and hardwood plywood (veneer-core and composite-core) (HWPW-VC, HWPW-CC). The regulation targets urea formaldehyde (UF), the most used resin for these products. It exempts structural engineered wood products made with lower-emitting adhesives such as phenol formaldehyde. Exempt products include PS 1 plywood, PS 2 structural panels, and ASTM D5055 I-joists. CARB studies estimate that composite wood products account for 5 percent of formaldehyde emissions. They are the most significant source on a daily basis, the agency says. In setting the limits, CARB technical manager Jim Aguila says, "We feel very adamant that we need to stay on the lowest levels possible." In the absence of federal regulation aside from the 1985 HUD (Housing and Urban Development) manufactured home limits, the measure represents a de facto national standard. It also imposes a heavy paperwork burden and the need to be able to show a paper trail, says Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) executive vice president Dick Titus. Aside from the impact on some 1,200 small cabinet shops operating in California, cabinetmakers in the rest of the country "will have to maintain records to show they are purchasing compliant material," Titus says. "The burden is especially hard on small manufacturers." Costs are a concern for the American Home Furnishings Alliance, says Bill Perdue, AHFA vice president for environment, safety and health. The potential impact is "tremendous" Perdue says. "All furniture has some board content." Industry feels that CARB is underestimating the cost impact. Manufacturers don’t want costs forcing them to produce one product for California and one for the rest of the country, says Business& Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association (BIFMA International) executive director Tom Reardon. "If the cost differential is minimal, they won’t have to maintain separate inventory and tracking systems." The final regulation is expected to become part of California law by the start of 2008.

Industry Concerns
Costs, compliance, testing and certification requirements — and the over-arching question of enforcement — are industry concerns as the regulation heads for implementation. The ability to accurately and adequately inspect imported board and finished product is another concern. "I don’t want you on my back" a CARB commissioner joked to the agency’s enforcement director after the staff presentation of the regulation’s inspection program. CARB commissioners directed staff to report back to them next year on the workability of the enforcement measures. CARB technical and enforcement staffers emphasize their long experience with consumer products. At the same time, the new regulation’s requirement of third-party certification is something new in the agency’s regulatory approach. "It adds another level of assurance," Aguila says. "Enforcement is not an afterthought. We try to ensure a level playing field," says CARB enforcement section manager R.C. Smith. Most structural engineered wood products use low-emitting resins and are exempt from the ATCM. But, says Jack Merry, communications director of APA — The Engineered Wood Association, APA "continues to have concerns about CARB’s ability to enforce its emissions limits equally among manufacturers around the world, including and especially hardwood plywood imported from China." "There can be adequate policing of imports," says Alex Wilson, president of Building Green, noting the long-standing concerns with formaldehyde as a carcinogen. "It’s in the interest of U.S. companies to make sure inspections take place," he says.

Testing Concerns
Trade groups and manufacturers emphasize the potential for testing inaccuracies at the low P2 emissions ceilings. In agreement on P1 limits, industry and CARB are just 0.01 ppm apart for P2 particleboard limits and 0.02 ppm apart for MDF. CARB surprised HPVA and its members, Altman says, a few days before the hearing by shifting P2 compliance for HWPW-VC up one year, to 2010 from 2011. The decision was based on talks with overseas and domestic board and resin companies indicating availability of UF alternatives for veneer-core plywood. The 0.01 and 0.02 ppm differences between industry and CARB numbers may look small, but CARB’s numbers are ceilings, and "0.01 is significant at that level," says Altman. "There’s variability in the testing and there’s a lot of variability in products and materials." "We need assurance that CARB understands all these panel products are unique and have different production needs," says Curt Alt, marketing and communications vice president at the Composite Panel Association (CPA). To meet the 0.09 ppm P2 level for particleboard, says Alt, manufacturers would have to aim for a 0.05 ceiling to be sure of being in compliance. In working with CARB, industry asked for 0.1. "Then you’re manufacturing at 0.08 to 0.09, and that is technologically feasible," says Alt. The emission caps will be telegraphed all along the enforcement chain of custody, from the board manufacturer to finished goods and from distribution to the retail level. Many in the industry feel that CARB didn’t fully consider the complexity of the finished products in writing the regulation. That could leave room for non-compliant products, domestic or imported, to slip through. "We believe that testing downstream consumer products will be problematic. They have to take it apart and return it to its raw form without modifying the properties," Alt says. "The complexity of design and diverse mix of component parts does not lend itself to finished product testing," Perdue said in his April 26 CARB testimony. CARB staff is now developing language to address modifications made to the rule as a result of the hearing and the preceding talks between industry and the agency. The agency expects to set a mid-summer 15-day public comment period to address these changes. Modifications included clarifications on third-party certifications, and the definition of architectural plywood. A new option was also added for reduced inspections of products that incorporate a chemical that binds to UF and cuts emissions.

Driving Technology
CARB commissioners and technical and enforcement staff are aware that the ATCM is "technology-driving." Expectations are that P1 numbers and ongoing R&D will result in economically and technically viable alternatives by the P2 deadlines. Green building programs have been another driver. Resin manufacturers are addressing the problem, and there are a growing number of UF alternatives, says Building Green’s Wilson. CARB’s experience supports the point that "once a standard is set, industry can come up with a solution," Aguila says. "We know it’s tech-forcing and we know there’s a cost. We know there will be disadvantages if people are allowed to cheat." Columbia Forest Products has converted its seven North American plywood operations to its soy-based non-formaldehyde PureBond product. The company strongly supports the new ATCM and testified in its favor. Executive vice president Ed Woods told CARB in his April 26 testimony that the company has offered to license the technology to other plywood manufacturers. It has also started selling veneer core blanks to competing stock panel makers. Most of Columbia’s volume is in veneer-core plywood, and the resins that work for plywood don’t work for particleboard and MDF at this point. Roseburg Forest Products (PB) and Sierra Pine (MDF) are making no-formaldehyde-added product, but both specify that they are addressing small, higher-end niche markets. Both companies asked CARB to reconsider parts of the regulation and called for modifications along the lines of those sought by industry trade groups. Most of the low-emitting products now available have been on the market for two-plus years. Columbia absorbed the capital costs of the changeover. "We decided not to pass the costs along to our customers because the adhesive is cost-neutral," with UF, says public relations manager John McIsaac. "Columbia is very far along in the development of its alternate soy technology," Alt says. "But the technologies that work in hardwood plywood are not at this point feasible in particleboard and MDF." Roseburg’s no-UF-added SkyBlend PB is phenol formaldehyde-based. It accounts for no more than 2 percent of the company’s total volume and costs about 60 percent more than standard product. Plant and material changes are significant. "The resin costs more and the process runs more slowly. That doesn’t do much for productivity," says Darrell Keeling, Roseburg vice president for composite panels. "We worked with the resin companies to formulate the resin system. Phenolics have been used in the past, but only in plywood,"Keeling says. Roseburg is comfortable with P1. "But the ability to supply our company and the industry with alternative resin systems and the cost of those systems will be a continuing concern going into Phase 2. In our case, there are no readily available cost-effective replacements for UF," Keeling says. With its plant located just miles from Sacramento, SierraPine has hosted CARB visits on the ATCM. "I’m fully confident that four and five years from now, there will be an ample supply of CARB-compliant material available to our customers," says SierraPine president Wade Gregory. "I can’t speak for what the cost will be." SierraPine’s no-added formaldehyde MDF products, Arreis, Medite II and Medex, are made using MDI (methylene diphenyl isocyanate). "You have to make significant adjustments to plant processes to run no-added technologies," Gregory says. "The products available cost more and we sell them at a premium price. They are a small niche portion of our business." In his CARB statement, Gregory said, "Simply put, soy adhesive technology is incompatible with MDF and is commercially unproven for particleboard." "I’d like to think the technology will respond, and that’s CARB’s bet," Roseburg’s Keeling says. "We know [alternate] resins exist already in other parts of the world. We know enough about these resins to know they have applicability here," Aguila says. "We anticipate that the modified, optimized resins will be available by the time Phase 2 limits go into effect and will be commercially available by Phase 2 compliance dates." On the cost issue, Aguila says, "we know enough about the business to know what the cost structure is and we know what part of the industry it affects. We stand by those numbers."