Comment Log Display

Comments – Dynea, GP, Hexion Pg 1 of 5 13 April 2007
To: CalEPA, Air Resource Board
From: Dynea North America – Tom Holloway; Georgia-Pacific
Chemicals, LLC – Pablo Dopico; Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. –
David M. Harmon
Subject: California Air Resources Board (CARB) proposed Airborne
Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from
Composite Wood Products
Comments representing the position of major resin suppliers in
North America for the subject regulation follow. The focus of
these comments is the section of the proposal that grants
incentives (exemptions) only for no-added formaldehyde resin
[“NAF”] systems. This provision places no requirement for actual
raw panel emissions produced with a qualifying-exempt system to be
lower than those defined in the appropriate tables of the Proposed
Regulation Order and is therefore inconsistent with establishing
an emission based regulation. Further, it discriminates against
formaldehyde-based systems that may yield similar results as NAF
systems.
For example, a review of the Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) analysis tables [ISOR Chapter V, tables V-22, 24, and 26]
reveals the following:
• Identification of a NAF binder system noted to yield ASTM E1333
emissions less than or equal to 0.05 ppm.
• Identification of a formaldehyde-based adhesive system
characterized at less than or equal to 0.01ppm.
The Proposed Regulation Order would exempt the NAF binder, but
would hold the manufacturer using the formaldehyde based
technology accountable for compliance in accordance with the third
party testing protocol outlined in the regulation.
More specifically, NAF binders are afforded the opportunity in
93120.3 (e) (1) to qualify for an exemption from compliance with
third party certification based on “a demonstration of the
emissions performance of the candidate no-added formaldehyde based
resins. “ However, the criteria required for such a demonstration
of emissions performance which warrants consideration for the
exemption are not clearly specified in the regulation. Section
93120.3 (e) (4) simply requires that “the evidence submitted by
the applicant is sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant can
meet the emissions standards specified in section 93120.3 (a).”
This section does not specifically require compliance with phase 2
to obtain approval for exemption. Furthermore, the third party
certification which constitutes the backbone of the assurance and
enforcement protocols in the regulation are thus not required of
NAF binders. In contrast, the same opportunity for an exemption
from third-party certification and ongoing testing is not offered
to formaldehyde-based binders.
We recommend that a level playing field be established for all
adhesives (and panel products produced from those adhesives) that
is performance-based and technology encouraging. A potential
solution is to require all adhesive categories to comply with the
testing protocol outlined in the regulation and grant a panel
manufacturer exempt status only once the third-party certified
data obtained in accordance with 93120.3 (b) indicates that the
combination of
Comments – Dynea, GP, Hexion Pg 2 of 5 13 April 2007
adhesive system and panel processing conditions yields the desired
results (for example, achieving the applicable Proposed Phase 2
level defined in the regulation or a percentage thereof). The
benefits of this approach are:
• establishes clearly defined emission characteristics for
exempt-eligible panel products that may be lower than the current
criteria,
• encourages both short and long term adhesive and panel
manufacturing innovation commensurate with potential for acquiring
exempt status based on documented emission performance,
• eliminates the uncertainties associated with formaldehyde
emission component variability (substrate, adhesive, and other
processing conditions), and
• enables a panel manufacturer to establish cost/benefits
associated with establishing exempt status.
Detailed Background and Comments
Staff has repeatedly indicated during preceding workshops that
they do not intend to deselect formaldehyde based resins, but when
they grant an exemption to no-added formaldehyde [“NAF”] products
that is not available to equivalently low-emitting formaldehyde
bonded products, such as the PF-bonded particleboard that they
describe in the BACT analysis, they are de facto deselecting the
formaldehyde-based options. The additional costs for
formaldehyde-based resin bonded products due to QA testing
requirements, third party certification, and the liability of
penalties for non-compliance that are not equally imposed on the
no-added formaldehyde products may very well drive board
manufacturers to select the no-added formaldehyde option even
though the performance criteria could be met with a
formaldehyde-based resin (which is thereby “deselected”).
As was pointed out by Mr. Will Warburg (Plum Creek Timber Company)
at a recent Public Workshop, switching from the current UF resins
to PF resins would result in a manufacturing capacity decrease of
about 20% in a MDF plant. Other companies’ experiences in
particleboard manufacturing plants have shown even more drastic
reductions in productivity with the use of PF resins.
Currently, North America consumes approximately 3 billion pounds
of UF-based resins annually. Given that California consumes about
10% of the products made with UF-based resins, this translates
into about 300 million pounds to meet current market demands – not
counting imports. There is not enough existing resin manufacturing
capacity, especially among NAF sources, to replace this volume.
Even converting existing UF manufacturing capacity to manufacture
the performance-equivalent replacement amount of PF production
would be highly unlikely in the timeframe allowed under the
proposed regulation order. Further, we anticipate that the impact
will be larger than that which has historically been observed due
to the California market alone. No commercially viable binding
technology exists for composite products except hardwood plywood
that does not include the use of formaldehyde.
Comments – Dynea, GP, Hexion Pg 3 of 5 13 April 2007
Therefore, we recommend a “level playing field” for all adhesives,
and the products made from those adhesives. We would support a
beneficial approach that is performance-based and technology
encouraging. In fact, the Staff Report (ISOR) provided nearly all
the elements necessary to define a performance-based criterion.
A review of the BACT analysis tables [ISOR Chapter V, tables V-22,
-24 & -26] listing emission characteristics of products that will
meet the proposed Phase 2 emissions requirements made with
“no-added formaldehyde” shows three SierraPine MDF products with
ASTM E1333 emissions < 0.05 ppm. Under exemption application
provisions in the Proposed Regulation order [ISOR Appendix A,
section 93120.3(e)(1-6)], “[T]he Executive Officer shall issue an
Executive Order approving the application if the evidence
submitted by the applicant is sufficient to demonstrate that the
applicant can meet the emission standards specified in section
93120.2(a) through the use of no-added formaldehyde based resins.
The approval shall have a duration of two years, and the
manufacturer may reapply for approval as provided in this
section.”
Additional review of the above-cited BACT analysis tables reveals
that Roseburg’s Skyblend ® Particleboard emissions are
characterized at < 0.01 ppm, which is substantially lower than the
< 0.05 ppm emissions listed for SierraPine’s NAF MDF products.
Also, other listed products that are manufactured using
formaldehyde-based resin systems are shown with emissions equal to
or less than those for the NAF, exemption-candidate SierraPine MDF
products.
Therefore, the ability of select formaldehyde-based bonding
systems to provide low formaldehyde emissions equivalent to
NAF-based bonding systems has been established. The demonstration
techniques (ASTM E1333 or correlated equivalent ARB-approved
methodology) are also equivalent.
ARB Staff has provided the concept of “Near-zero emission” [“NZE”]
(ISOR, Ch V, Tables V-24 & V-26) products that can be cohesively
defined to bridge existing gaps and provide the basis for a
performance-based, technology-encouraging, and mutually beneficial
modification to the Proposed Regulation Order.
Specifically, it is proposed to establish a common,
performance-based category for third-party certification exemption
eligible “Near-zero” formaldehyde emission products [“NZE”] as
those having an ASTM E1333 measured or extrapolated formaldehyde
emission meeting the applicable Phase 2 emissions limit or some
percentage thereof. This would replace the currently defined
“no-added formaldehyde resins” in the body of the Proposed
Regulation Order, and would be exemption eligible under
application and performance terms as otherwise stated.
It should be specified in the regulation that screening testing
and enforcement testing will be conducted on all products equally,
including those granted exemption under applicable sections of the
regulation order.
Comments – Dynea, GP, Hexion Pg 4 of 5 13 April 2007
Benefits:
This would place a reasonable and clearly defined criterion for
the emissions characteristics of exemption-qualifying products.
This approach encourages both short and longer term resin and
manufacturing process development with commensurate potential for
certification exemption based on documented performance
equivalency for all competing resin and manufacturing
technologies.
While product volumes manufactured with technology-forcing
“no-added formaldehyde” resins might be sufficient to meet the
consumption needs of the State of California, they are not
adequate to fulfill the needs of other States and/or countries
that are likely to follow California’s emissions limiting
regulation lead. Incorporation of the “Near-zero” proposal would
additionally encourage global development of comparably performing
products.
Rational:
This proposal will formally and fairly recognize achievement of
desired results under consistent and defined criterion. It does
not diminish achievement based on labels or perception.
Wood products manufacturers will have clearly defined performance
guidelines, by which they can evaluate their opportunities and
options, along with more accurately determining the associated
costs. This is key to their business decision process.
References:
ISOR Ch V, Pg 63: “In general, staff projects that BACT will be
based on reformulated UF resins. However, the proposed regulation
provides an incentive for panel manufacturers to convert to no
added HCHO resins early by not having to comply with the
requirement to perform quarterly emission tests of their products
under a third party certification program.”
ISOR Ch V, Section A.3., Table V-2 (Pg 68) indicates that under
Japanese Building Stand Law Classifications that F**** board usage
has no restrictions.
ISOR Ch V, § E (Pgs 101 – 106), presents the Technical basis for
the Proposed Emission Standards and introduces the concept of
“Near-zero HCHO Emissions.
ISOR Appendix A (Proposed Regulation Order), Section
93120.1(a)(25) [Pg A-4] defines “[“N]o-added formaldehyde based
resins” means resins formulated with no-added formaldehyde as part
of the resin cross linking structure for making hardwood plywood,
particleboard, or medium density fiberboard. “No-added
formaldehyde based resins include, but are not limited to, resins
made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate.”
Comments – Dynea, GP, Hexion Pg 5 of 5 13 April 2007
ISOR Appendix A (Proposed Regulation Order), Section 93120.3(e)(1)
provides for exemption from third party certification for
manufacturers who plan to use no-added formaldehyde based resins.
ISOR Appendix A (Proposed Regulation Order), Section 93120.3(e)(4)
provides that “[T]he Executive Officer shall issue an Executive
Order approving the application if the evidence submitted by the
applicant is sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant can meet
the emission standards specified in section 93120.2(a) through the
use of no-added formaldehyde based resins. The approval shall have
a duration of two years, and the manufacturer may reapply for
approval as provided in this section.”