First Name | Eddie |
---|---|
Last Name | Pitts |
Email Address | eddiepitts@bernhardt.com |
Affiliation | |
Subject | draft of formaldehyde ruling ATCM |
Comment | I believe that human life is a sacred gift and that every precaution should be made to keep from negatively impacting the quality of this gift. However, we also have the individual right to balance our quality of life against certain risks. Since we all think differently it is easy for a group to perceive that a risk is actually greater than it is or even to see a series of risks and measure them out of proportion based on a limited view of all of the factors associated. I think that is what has occurred with the formaldehyde ruling in the ATCM measure. The way the ruling is drafted it unfairly affects importers of some product. If you look at the board manufactures who participated in the draft you will see that they are the largest suppliers of board on the North, Central, and South American continents. Since their operation is so large you have helped them further monopolize the industry. The furniture importers in the United States who deal with Fabricators in the Far East find themselves buying product from several hundred different sources, who buy board from an exponential amount of board manufacturers. These manufacturers are set up to adhere to US, European, Japanese and other board standards. These standards are similar in nature to the phase 1 ruling but have a very different test protocol. The large chamber test requirement without sufficient lab facilities in these areas will create a manufactured demand and bottleneck for procurement. The cost work that has been provided by the ARB is based on the data from the “on board” board manufacturers and only reflects cost based on new resin technologies in their facilities. This work is understated beyond their walls. It does not take into consideration the body of work in the fabricators, the importer and the retailer to accommodate the data for chain of custody. It also does not reflect the demand generated by the procurement bottleneck in the Far East. There will be some board manufacturers who decide that in the global community, defining a process to accommodate one state in another country is not worth the extra effort. When these factors other than resin cost come into consideration, the real cost will be substantially greater. There are several companies who maintain a large inventory in Fabricator warehouses in the Far East. There is no good mechanism to allow these inventories to contain specialty products specific to California. So you are forcing either a cost increase to everyone else in the world or potentially causing companies to consider stopping sales within California. Cost is not the only issue with the program. It appears that in the rush to get the ruling approved, passed and enacted that there are some parts that are not complete. The chain of custody as stated is going to overwhelm fabricators and retailers alike. In every discussion on this subject that I have participated in, there has been no retailer present. During a conversation with the AHFA and several member fabricator, importers in January of 2008 the chain of custody was defined like this. The manufacturer sends board lot test info to fabricator. The fabricator sends board test info by shipment to retailer or importer, adds verbiage to BOL or invoice, and labels finished goods. A problem with this flow is the volume of data when the shipment is a container of product that is consolidated with product from various fabricators who have dealt with multiple manufacturers. It would be simpler to support a chain of custody that has added verbiage to the BOL or invoice identifying product compliance and to let this and the label on the finished goods suffice for the retailer. In the event there was a need to follow the chain of custody back to the board manufacturer you would look for the label, get the fabricator or importer name, SKU and production date, and the retailer would follow up with the importer or manufacturer. This would streamline the outbound data. The enforcement of the program is always going to be in question. You have stated that the large chamber testing is going to be the gold standard. However the enforcement arm is going to raise red flags by using a FLEC device. As of today there is no direct correlation between the readings of the FLEC cell and the large chamber. You have then said that you will use a deconstructive test protocol for a final judgment. Even though this is closer to the original test of the raw board there is still the chance that the original conditioning period of the board and the secondary test will give inaccurate results. This will also expose more formaldehyde fumes to the atmosphere in a shorter period of time than would have ever off-gassed through the encapsulation of the finished goods, so the number you get for the test will not reflect “real life” of the finished goods. I think that the ARB collectively has their hearts in the right place; however they could serve humanities interest better by not imposing this ruling as it is stated within the defined time frame. Or even better, by not going alone and to join with the other states and international agencies in defining one acceptable standard that will not create unfair monopolies and actually do the good that was intended. |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2008-02-14 09:03:59 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.