## Discussion Session: U.S. EPA Proposed Formaldehyde 

## Rules and ARB Existing ATCM

August 1, 2013 Coastal Hearing Room Cal/EPA Headquarters, Sacramento

California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board• 1. Introductions

2. Objectives of Discussion Session 3. Background 4. ATCM & U.S. EPA general formaldehyde rule

- ARB presentation

- Stakeholder presentations

- Open discussion 5. ATCM & U.S. EPA third party certification (TPC) rule

- ARB presentation

- Stakeholder presentations

- Open discussion 6. Closing remarks 7. Adjourn 8. Optional TPC discussion with U.S. EPA staff



# Agenda

2

# • Discuss and compare U.S

. EPA proposed rules and the ARB ATCM
 share preliminary thoughts, ideas, questions, and suggestions for improvements



# • Explore potential approaches for 

## aligning/harmonizing the ATCM and U.S. EPA proposed rules to the extent feasible 

# Objectives

3

### ARB ATCM

• 1992

– ARB identified formaldehyde as a toxic air contaminant



### • 2007

– ARB approved Composite Wood Products ATCM



### • 2009

– ATCM’s Phase 1 emission standards took effect



### • 2012

– ATCM’s Phase 2 emission standards all in effect



### U.S. EPA Proposed Rules

• 2010

– Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (Title VI of TSCA ) was signed into law by President Obama



### • June 2013

– U.S. EPA released two proposed regulations in Federal Register for public comment period



### • Comment period extended to August 26 for third party certification rule and September 9 for general formaldehyde rule



### • U.S. EPA proposes that one year after adoption, rule will apply
nationwide 

# Background

45• 

### 1. Manufacturer requirements

2. Laminated products

3. NAF/ULEF approvals

4. Definitions



### 5. Labeling

6. Exemptions

7. Other 

# Discussion Topics

6

## • ATCM : TPCs determine amount of testing to certify product



## • U.S.EPA Proposal : requires minimum of one 

### TPC qualifying test and three months of QC data for each product type to be certified



###  products under ARB certified TPC would be considered certified under TSCA for one year



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  one year is not sufficient for mills to obtain certification


###  ARB suggests that U.S. EPA defer to TPCs regarding minimum amount of QC testing

7

## • ATCM : HWPW with composite core (CC) must be certified; no requirement for core



## • U.S.EPA Proposal : all types of HWPW must be certified to 0.05 ppm standard

 no requirements for core, except that hardboard used as core for HWPW is not exempt [section 770.1 (c)(2)]



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 support regulating all types of HWPW 

###  considering amending ATCM to require core for making HWPW be certified if contains composite wood product, consistent with requirement for laminated products; helps with enforcement; recommend that U.S. EPA include same 

###  most mills use certified core material to meet 0.05 ppm HWPW standard

8

# • ATCM : requires additional QC testing if 

### changes made in mill production (e.g., changes in resin formulation) for PB and MDF, but not HWPW



# • U.S.EPA Proposal : same as ATCM, but also applies to HWPW



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  support U.S. EPA’s proposal


###  considering amending ATCM to align

9

## • ATCM : distinguishes product types by composition, 

### thickness, resin, and number of plies for HWPW; allows grouping of product types with similar
emission characteristics for certification and QC 

### testing; addressed in implementation guidelines



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : requests input on appropriate criteria for grouping of product types



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  suggest following ARB’s guideline for grouping product types

o PB and MDF

- resin system and thickness

o HWPW

- resin used to affix face and back veneers, veneer species, thickness or number of plies, core type, adhesive used in core, and import vs. domestic core

10

## • ATCM : does not address retaining products until receipt of test results



## • U.S.EPA Proposal : requires producer to retain 

### lots from which samples are selected for QC tests and quarterly TPC tests, until producer

receives test results



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 support concept of taking steps to avoid shipping of noncomplying lots


###  suggest only retaining lots tied to QC tests due to quicker test results; quarterly test results take longer (e.g ., > 9 days)

11

## • ATCM : allows TPCs to reduce QC testing frequency for consistently performing PB and MDF panel producers from once per shift to once per 48 hours;
no reduction allowed for HWPW



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : allows similar reduction, but asks whether should allow indefinitely and whether reduced QC testing should be allowed for HWPW



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  indefinite approval acceptable as long as QC data

demonstrates continued consistent results


###  acceptable to reduce frequency of QC testing for larger HWPW producers to minimum of one QC test per week

12

## • ATCM: does not define acceptable correlation between QC method and TPC’s methods; addressed in implementation guidelines



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : identifies minimal correlation values from ARB’s guidelines, but uses the term “equivalence” for QC methods



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 support including minimum correlation and linear regression



### o alternatively, handle through “best practices”


###  QC methods only need to be correlated to TPC’s methods, not deemed equivalent

13

## • ATCM : annual equivalence based on two ranges of 

### five comparison tests



## • U.S.EPA Proposal : annual equivalence testing with five comparison sets in a range of emissions representative of the products that a TPC certifies



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts 

###  suggest equivalence requirement be in TPC portion of regulation 

###  decrease frequency from annually to every two years 

###  considering amending ATCM to redefine equivalence
ranges 

###  allow equivalence testing in one range if TPC only certifies certain types of products (e.g., NAF products)

14

## • ATCM : allows for approval of alternative QC test methods if they can be shown to correlate to primary or secondary method; ARB has 

### approved of five alternative methods



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : includes additional methods approved by ARB and asks if this is appropriate



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  U.S. EPA rule needs process similar to ATCM to review and approve of additional alternative methods


###  need mutual recognition of additional approved QC

methods

15

## • Applies to laminated products made by fabricators



###  laminate consists of wood veneer or synthetic material



## • ATCM requires use of certified platform



## • Conducted emissions testing of laminated 

### products to determine if current regulatory approach is adequate 

###  tested several products consisting of wood veneer affixed with UF resin to certified platform 

###  findings suggested need for change in existing regulatory approach to reduce emissions



## • Currently considering amendments to ATCM for 

### laminated products 

###  considering regulating glue used to affix veneers and synthetic laminates 16

# • Applies to laminated products made by
manufacturers or fabricators



###  laminate consists of wood veneer



# • U.S. EPA proposal requires use of certified platform, third party certification, and quality control (QC) testing



###  wood veneer attached to a certified platform using NAF resin would be exempt from third party
certification


###  producers required to maintain records of NAF

resin and certified platform purchases

17

## • Requiring TPC certification on all laminators and fabricators likely to result in significant cost increases



## • Many laminators/fabricators are small to mid

- size

businesses


###  cost impact to replace equipment to be able to use NAF resin may be significant


###  unfamiliar with concepts of TPC and QC



## • May not be sufficient TPC capacity to provide

certification services



###  potentially thousands of affected fabricators worldwide

18

# • Require low

- formaldehyde

- emitting resin use (i.e., those used in NAF/ULEF products, such 

### as soy, PVA, MDI, PF, MF, or MUF) and require recordkeeping of resins used to affix

veneers



# • No testing or certification required unless producers choose to use UF resins



# • Enforcement will evaluate intact products and 

### deconstruct to test platform emissions, if
needed

19

## • ATCM : requires ARB to evaluate and issue 

### NAF/ULEF approvals



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : panel producers must apply to TPCs for exemptions using a NAF/ULEF resin 

### or for ULEF reduced testing option



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 recommend U.S. EPA staff to conduct reviews and issue approvals; recommend accepting ARB approval

o potential for inconsistency with TPC reviews

o potential conflict of interest

 considering extending duration of renewal period for NAF exempt applications
 considering reducing confidential information (e.g., resin formulation data) that TPCs are required to maintain

20

# • ATCM : ARB issues amended approvals if prompted by producer’s operational changes



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : asks what should be required 

### of producers if changes occur



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 changes that may affect emissions include: addition/replacement of resin system, addition of products, increase in resin application rate 

###  recommend that U.S. EPA consider requiring the following if producer proposes change:

o ULEF PB/MDF

– 1 TPC verification test and 1 month of QC data

o ULEF HWPW

– 1 TPC verification test and 2 months of QC data

o NAF PB/MDF/HWPW

– 1 TPC verification test

21

# • ATCM : allows an option for reduced testing for mills using ULEF

- based resin systems



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : asks about viability of 

### option



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts


##  recommend U.S. EPA consider eliminating reduced testing option

o minimal additional requirements to meet ULEF

exempt status

o few panel producers utilize this option

22

# • ATCM : exempts hardboard from regulatory requirements



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : exempts hardboard; definition based on revised ANSI A135.4



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 considering amending ATCM to exempt hardboard defined as including only wet and wet/dry processed hardboard 

###  suggest regulating dry processed hardboard as MDF, due to similar appearance and uses 

###  wet processed hardboard is made with minimal amount of resin ( if any) and has a different appearance

23

# • ATCM : does not include raised panel in the definition of “panel”



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : defines a panel as including raised panels



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  many raised panels (e.g., doors) made by cutting MDF panel and affixing it to a platform.


###  suggest raised panels be included in the definition of laminated products

24

## • ATCM : emission standards for HWPW with

veneer core and composite core



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : includes all core types in 

### the definition of HWPW



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts


###  clarify if HWPW will include 2

- ply HWPW in definition 

###  suggest requiring core to be certified if contains composite wood product (excluding lumber core or special core products)

25

# • ATCM : defines retailer as entity that sells directly to consumers



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : defines retailer as entity that generally sells “smaller quantities” of composite wood products



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  recommend removing the word “smaller”

-- too subjective and may imply regulation does not apply to retailers that sell larger quantities of products

26

# • ATCM : definition solely includes wood

- based materials (peeled or sliced)



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : expands the definition to include woody grass (e.g., bamboo)



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts


###  considering amending ATCM to include woody grass and compressed cellulosic material ( e.g

, cork) in the

definition

27

## • ATCM : requires manufacturers to label their panels and fabricators to label either finished good(s) or box( es ) containing finished good(s) (e.g ., “CARB Phase 2 

### Compliant” or “93120 Compliant for Formaldehyde”)



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : panels and finished goods be labeled to show compliance with the TSCA regulation 

###  similar information to CARB label 

###  required one year after TSCA regulation finalized



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts 

###  labeling requirement similar to ATCM 

###  suggest U.S. EPA accept CARB label or
TSCA label

28

## • ATCM : requires each composite wood panel or bundle be labeled by manufacturers; ATCM does not address labeling partial bundles by


### distributors/retailers



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : asks whether retailers should label each item/bundle when items separated or 

### allow a signage in the retail display area or manufacturer/fabricator label every panel



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  suggest copy of the original label accompany partial bundles

29

# • ATCM : allows the use of bar codes for labeling finished goods by fabricators



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : asks whether bar codes should be permitted



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts
 recommend against the use of bar codes as sole form of label, as compliance is not clear for enforcement, retailers, or

consumers

30

## • ATCM : exempts oriented strand board (OSB)



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : exempts OSB



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  considering amending ATCM to only exempt OSB labeled to ANSI standard to ensure products made with waterproof,

low

- emitting resins; suggest U.S. EPA do same



## • ARB considering exempting additional products:

 molded products

 cellulosic fiber insulating boards (ASTM C208)

 cross

- laminated timber structural panels

31

# • ATCM : regulation applies to all finished goods, no minimum amount exempt



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : has not proposed a “de

minimis ” exemption; approach consistent with
ATCM



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 potential labeling and testing challenges for small finished goods

 surprised U.S. EPA did not propose “de minimis ” exemption

 open to exploring options with stakeholders and U.S. EPA

32

## • ATCM : does not apply to HWPW and PB 

### sold/supplied for manufactured homes subject to

U.S. HUD’s rules



## • U.S . EPA Proposal : covers MDF, which is not 

### covered by the current U.S. HUD standards 

###  asks about fabricator requirements and harmonization with U.S. HUD requirements



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 new manufactured homes should be labeled to indicate all MDF is TSCA compliant

 support requiring U.S. HUD to modify their regulation to be consistent with TSCA regulation regarding HWPW and PB in
manufactured homes

33

# • ATCM : requires two

- year record retention period



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : proposes a three

- year record retention period



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 recommend U.S. EPA follow ATCM’s two

- year record retention period

34

## • ATCM : clearance of older, noncompliant products via


### sell

- through provisions



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : prohibits inventory that was stockpiled; sets manufactured

- by date one year after 

### regulation finalized

 asks if one year is reasonable

 asks if the stockpiling prohibition should apply to
businesses that were not in existence in 2009



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 agree with the proposed one year timeframe

 recommend that stockpiling provision apply to all types of businesses (i.e., panel producers, distributors, fabricators, importers, and retailers)

3536• 

### 1. Manufacturer requirements

2. Laminated products

3. NAF/ULEF approvals

4. Definitions



### 5. Labeling

6. Exemptions

7. Other 

## ATCM & U.S . EPA General

Formaldehyde Rule

– 

## Open Discussion

3738• 1. Approval of TPCs

2. Limitation on TPCs

3. TPC agent

4. Qualifications

5. Inter

- laboratory comparison

6. Renewal period

7. TPC test methods

8. Enhanced testing

9. Disclosure of AB and TPC information 

# Discussion Topics

3940 

## • ATCM : requires ARB to approve TPCs



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : use EPA

- approved Accreditation Bodies (ABs) to approve TPCs

 ARB

- approved TPCs will have one year to be approved by

AB



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  suggest U.S. EPA approve TPCs to promote consistency in approval process


###  considering amending ATCM to require ABs to audit
TPCs41 

# • ATCM : does not address potential TPC

conflict of interest



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : does not address


### conflict of interest



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 to avoid potential conflict of interest, considering amending ATCM to clarify that panel producers, importers, distributors, fabricators, and retailers
cannot be TPC42 

# • ATCM : does not require international TPCs to have an agent in California



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : requires TPCs based outside of U.S. to designate an agent in
U.S.



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  have not had problem contacting TPCs and do not see need for agent43 

## • ATCM : requires experience with verification of laboratories and wood products



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : requires accreditation with ISO Guide 65 for product certification 

###  U.S. EPA asks whether experience with one type of wood product is sufficient to certify all types



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts
 support accreditation to ISO 17065 (replaced Guide 65) 

###  experience with one product type is sufficient to certify all products



### o TPCs certify compliance with emission standards and correlation of QC test methods, both independent of product type44 

## • ATCM : requires TPCs to participate in ILC within first 

### year of approval and then every two years



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : requires annual ILC and asks about frequency, administering ILCs, criteria to judge acceptable performance, and costs of conducting ILCs



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  suggest ILCs every two years, with flexibility that U.S. EPA can require participation in annual ILC 

###  suggest judging performance relative to other TPCs, in absence of reference material 

###  suggest including minimum performance criteria 

###  ARB will share cost data with U.S. EPA staff45 

# • ATCM : requires TPCs re

- apply for approval every two years



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : asks whether 

### renewals should be every two or three years and about frequency of TPC audits by ABs



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  suggest frequency of accreditation renewals and audits be on same schedule, every two or three years, whichever is consistent with accreditation requirements46 

# • ATCM : allows for use of primary method (large chamber) or secondary method (small chamber deemed equivalent to large chamber)



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : TPC rule requires verification testing using primary method

 general rule allows quarterly verification testing using primary or secondary method



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 TPC rule should allow either method for verification tests47 

# • ATCM : suggests TPCs conduct enhanced 

### testing and inspections (e.g., monthly for a period of three months) after non

- complying

events



# • U.S. EPA Proposal : asks whether enhanced testing or inspections should be required after failed quarterly tests or exceedance of 

### quality control limits



# • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 suggest U.S. EPA require enhanced frequency for QC testing and inspections following either such occurrence48 

## • ATCM : does not require ARB to disclose information 

### about TPCs; ARB maintains list of TPCs, certified panel producers, and NAF/ULEF producers on ARB’s

website



## • U.S. EPA Proposal : post names of ABs, TPCs, annual reports from ABs and TPCs, and panel producers approved for reduced TPC oversight



###  U.S. EPA asks whether useful to post additional information about panel producers, some of which could be confidential



## • ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts



###  difficult to maintain current listing of less information than proposed by U.S. EPA; suggest limiting the released information to list of TPCs and certified producers49• 1. Approval of TPCs

2. Limitation on TPCs

3. TPC agent

4. Qualifications

5. Inter

- laboratory comparison

6. Renewal period

7. TPC test methods

8. Enhanced testing

9. Disclosure of AB and TPC information 

## ATCM & U.S . EPA TPC Rule

– Open Discussion

505152

Angela Csondes, Air Pollution Specialist

916

- 445

- 4448 or acsondes@arb.ca.gov

Lynn Baker, Staff Air Pollution Specialist

916

- 324

- 6997 or lbaker@arb.ca.gov

Peggy Taricco , Manager

916

- 323

- 4882 or ptaricco@arb.ca.gov

Composite Wood Products ATCM Website : http:// www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm