Formaldehyde rule a threat
By Jeff Linville -- Furniture Today, May 5, 2008
Washington — About 5,000 people have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to crack down on formaldehyde emissions, an issue that would affect many types of furniture.
Last year, the California Air Resources Board approved tighter guidelines on how much formaldehyde can be released by engineered wood products such as particleboard, medium-density fiberboard and plywood used in products like furniture, paneling, flooring and cabinets.
At the time, some manufacturers said they feared that CARB's ruling would lead to a nationwide restriction on the chemical used to glue together wood plies, particles or fibers. The California standards, to be implemented in phases, apply to furniture sold in the state or passing through one of the state's ports.
Manufacturers have to obtain third-party certification, maintain supply-chain records, and label all wood showing it complies with the law.
In a public hearing before CARB a year ago, state regulators and public health groups cited studies linking formaldehyde to throat cancer, workplace asthma and increased cases of asthma and allergies in children exposed at home.
This March, groups including the Sierra Club, Grassroots Environmental Education and United People of the Cherokee Nation filed a petition asking the EPA to adopt the CARB standards nationwide on engineered wood products as well as building materials used in modular and mobile homes.
On April 25, the EPA acknowledged receipt of the petition and said it must either grant or deny the petition by June 21. The agency wants to hear from people in industries that use engineered wood products; comments must be received by May 12 to be considered.
In its guidelines for commenting, the EPA urged: "Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. ... If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate. ... Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives."
Questions the EPA hopes to answer during this process include what percentage of engineered wood products outside of California now conform to CARB's Phase 1 and Phase 2 limits; what percentage is anticipated to conform to the standards in the future; and what low- or no-emissions substitutes are there.
Several domestic producers said last week they were unaware of the petition and would be scrambling to present a solid case by May 12.
Before the CARB regulations passed, one Canadian manufacturer said he might consider not selling to California anymore if the restrictions were too cost-prohibitive. But if the limits cover the entire country, the company can't afford to lose all its U.S. business, he said.
Officials at Harden Mfg., based in Alabama, weren't too concerned with the California situation because most of its business is east of the Rockies. But it's worried about the possibility of such rules spreading to the other 49 states and is preparing how to explain its side to the EPA.
Domestic producers also worry that they may be placed at a disadvantage versus imports. It will be much easier for the government to police a U.S. factory than to check all the containers flowing in from Southeast Asia, some executives noted.
To submit comments, go to www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions.
This case is identified as EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0267.
