Testimony

of the 

Hardwood 

Plywood 

and Veneer 

Association

EPA ANPR 

Formaldehyde 

Emissions from 

Pressed Wood 

Products EPA-HQOPPT-2008-0627; 

FRL-8386-3

C.T. “Kip“ Howlett Jr. 

President 

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer 

Association Jan. 29, 2009 
2

Testimony on EPA’s ANPR for National Product Emission Standards for 

Formaldehyde from Certain Wood Products Submitted by the 

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association (HPVA)

Background: EPA has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to a 

petition filed by the Sierra Club and 25 other organizations to have the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) formaldehyde emission limits on composite wood products become national 

standards. The authority that the Sierra Club petitions the EPA to use is under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). HPVA submitted comments to EPA in response to that petition.

Discussion: EPA requests specific information as part of this notice, asks for views on the legal 

authority it should utilize, raises questions about the health effects of formaldehyde and 

announces that the National Academy of Sciences will conduct a review, and sets out schedule 

for regional hearings over the next two months. Written comments of the Hardwood Plywood 

and Veneer Association (HPVA) on this ANPR will be submitted later to EPA. HPVA is pleased to

testify at the public hearing in Washington D.C. on January 29, 2009.

HPVA represents the hardwood plywood (HWPW) manufacturers in the U.S. and Canada. HPVA

also represents the hardwood veneer (V), and engineered hardwood flooring (EWF) industries 

in the US and Canada. HPVA only represents companies who manufacture in the US, Canada, 

and Mexico. In the HWPW and EWF sectors, HPVA represents more than 90% of the North 

American production capacity. However, over the last 10 years, over 60% of U.S. HWPW 

domestic production capacity has been permanently shut down. Moreover, at the present time 

because of the recession, operating rates are at 50% of this current, reduced US capacity.

Imports now take an 80% share of the domestic U.S. market, and China now accounts for about 

55% of those imports.

HPVA is a Third Party Certification organization (TPC-8) approved by CARB and additionally has 

over 25 years of formaldehyde emissions certification experience. HPVA has been a certifier of 

HWPW used in manufactured housing under the HUD program since its inception. HUD has the

only national formaldehyde emission standard for these products but is mandatory only for 
3

manufactured housing. It is used voluntarily in other applications when the HWPW bears the 

ANSI/HPVA HP-1 stamp.

HPVA supports the CARB emission limits for HWPW becoming national standards.

These CARB emission standards are basically de facto national standards now as currently 75% 

and soon 90% or more of North American (U.S. and Canada) HWPW manufacturing production 

will be CARB certified. ANSI/HPVA HP-1 and ANSI/HPVA EF national consensus standards are 

being revised now to incorporate the CARB emission limits and will go out for canvas shortly.

These national consensus standards currently require conformance to HUD’s emission values 

and apply to any use when the product is certified for these certification stamps. These 

standards are also common reference standards for significant segments of the market: home 

building (NAHB Green Building Standard), kitchen cabinets (KCMA’s Environmental Stewardship 

Program), and other programs.

HWPW is a specialty product not a commodity product. HWPW is a very heterogeneous

product. HWPW is manufactured with different real wood veneer faces, primarily HW species 

but SW decorative species as well. HWPW is manufactured using a wide variety of cores, most 

are veneer core (VC) (75%), particleboard (PB), medium density fiberboard (MDF), Combination 

Cores (veneers and thin MDF for example), and lumber core (<2%). HWPW comes in a wide 

variety of thicknesses and performance properties. The key point is that the HWPW emission 

standard is the same irrespective of these wide variabilities. 

By contrast, homogeneous wood products include particleboard (PB), medium density 

fiberboard (MDF), construction grade softwood plywood (SWPW) or oriented strand board

(OSB), hardwood (HW) pulp, or softwood (SW) pulp. 

On Jan. 1, 2010, there will be two emission standards in effect for HWPW-VC: 0.05 ppm for 

standard product and 0.04 ppm for exempt product. On July 1, 2010, HWPW made with 

composite cores (HWPW-CC) which include PB, MDF, lumber cores, and combinations of these 

products must meet the 0.05ppm for standard products and 0.04ppm for exempt products. The 

difference between these emission limits is only 0.01ppm which is also the narrowest 

differential of any of the regulated composite wood products. Exempt HWPW products cannot 

have a test result that exceeds 0.05ppm and 90% of the tests must be 0.04ppm or lower. 

Exempt products use No Added Formaldehyde (NAF) or Ultra Low Emitting Formaldehyde

(ULEF) resin systems. (Note: To qualify for a LEED credit a NAF or No Added Urea Formaldehyde 

(NAUF) which would be in the ULEF product category in the CARB system would be acceptable.) 
4

HWPW has the lowest emission standards of any of the regulated products. See Table I for the 

Comparison of Emission Limits.

There is a wide variety of resin systems in use to meet these standards ranging from soy based,

PVA, PF, and modified UF systems. Resins are 4.5-8% of HWPW by weight compared to PB and 

MDF which will be 9-12% by weight. Costs and technical application issues will vary by plant 

depending on the type and age of the equipment.

As a TPC we are observing success in achieving compliance with the CARB emission limits 

utilizing a range of different technologies. Another concern will be meeting other product 

physical performance requirements that are required to meet Building Code and other 

mandated performance properties. These requirements can include glue bond and fire 

performance.

Resin use can also impact the performance of environmental control equipment. In order to 

insure compliance with environmental operating permits, those operating parameters also 

have to be considered.

The key point is that changing resin systems varies by plant, equipment, product mix, markets 

served, and a variety of other factors. Conversion of resin systems includes both capital and 

increased operating costs. Changing resin systems can also affect plant productivity if resin 

press time cycles are slowed which also results in increased costs with conversion. This change 

is not a simple task.

The CARB emission limits for HWPW should apply universally to all HWPW products. 

The CARB standard has a very significant flaw in that it contains different definitions for the 

identical product (HWPW) in order to bifurcate the regulatory compliance solely on the basis of 

the kind of manufacturer who are both making HWPW but one is classified as a manufacturer 

and the other a “fabricator”. For one class of manufacturers the emission limits apply, but for 

the other class a giant loophole has been created. See Appendix A.

Veneer cores are the most common cores used to manufacture HWPW, and there is no CARB 

standard for veneer cores (VC). A Veneer Core is not hardwood plywood because it does not

have a decorative face and back veneer. Veneer core is plywood but it is a “plywood core” and 

CARB has no formaldehyde emission requirement for “veneer (plywood) core” platforms. 
5

HWPW is manufactured laying up the veneers including the face and back and pressing them to 

make the sheet of HWPW. The other method is pressing the face and back onto a VC platform, 

PB, MDF, or combination. Both methods are used in the production of HWPW and EWF.

“Fabricators” do the very same thing.

The critical problem is the need to reduce CARB approved emissions for PB and MDF when they 

are used as a core in HWPW and for VC which has no mandatory emission limit to meet the 

HWPW limits. 

1 In all three (3) cases, a single emission value must be met at the end of any of 

these combination of processes to have a CARB certified HWPW product.

The resin systems used to apply the face and back decorative veneers and the veneers 

themselves must combine to reduce the emissions of CARB compliant PB and MDF by 45 to 

67% in order to meet the emission standard for HWPW when a “manufacturer” produces the 

HWPW using those products as cores. This is not the requirement for a “fabricator” who makes 

the same end product. A manufacturer, whether they lay up all the veneers or apply a face and 

back to a purchased veneer core, PB or MDF core would have to meet the applicable HWPW 

emission standards. 

A fabricator applying a face veneer to a veneer core would have no HWPW standard to meet 

and a PB or MDF core product would not have to meet the substantial emission reduction 

requirements applicable if they were a HWPW-VC or HWPW-CC manufacturer. In fact, the 

emissions could actually increase because CARB has in effect exempted the “glue line” that a 

fabricator uses to apply the face veneers which could have high emission characteristics.

There is also a very significant enforcement issue here as well. A “fabricator” can have 

“certified” PB or MDF for their core panels, but the face and back veneers would have to be delaminated in their finished HWPW product to re-test the cores for CARB compliance. The 

adhesives used and the process of de-lamination can both change the emission characteristics 

of the core and make verification of compliance very difficult if not impossible to ascertain. The 

adhesive lines used in the manufacture for the face and back veneers are exempt under the 

CARB rule. In effect, those adhesives can legally adulterate the core. CARB had committed but 

has yet to complete research to determine if this technical question could result in this aspect 

of their rule being practically unenforceable. HPVA is collaborating with Penn State University 

to address this hypothesis.

There is no corresponding emission standard for a VC platform if it is used by a “fabricator.” A 

“fabricator” cannot provide a comparable CARB certification for a Veneer Core platform unless 
6

both the “fabricator” and the VC platform supplier voluntarily agree to meet a CARB 

certification limit. Even in that situation, the “fabricator” does not have to meet the HWPW 

emission limit after the application of a decorative face and back. A “fabricator” has no 

obligation to certify if they apply the face and or back veneers to the VC, PB or MDF cores that 

the finished HWPW product meets the CARB HWPW emission standard.

Our experience as a TPC clearly demonstrates that HWPW products manufactured by 

participants in our program who use VC platforms need to utilize platforms that conform or 

closely conform to the HWPW emission standards to insure that the final product also conforms 

to those requirements. The ANSI/HPVA HP-1 revision addresses this concern by requiring every 

imported lot of VC platforms be QC tested before it goes into HWPW production. 

The CARB rule has intended and clearly permits this dual product classification. CARB requires 

HWPW with certified low emissions but also allows other HWPW products with emissions

that are both unknown and un-certified.

Moreover, will the consumer be able to differentiate between HWPW that is manufactured and 

therefore fully certified and that which is laminated and not fully certified? Would that 

information affect consumer choice if they had full knowledge of the definitions of the products 

in Appendix A that helped them make that decision? Appendix A is not consumer friendly 

prose.

The CARB rule has this significant flaw and that flaw must not be replicated or adopted in any 

federal emission standard for these products.

The emission standards must apply to any and all HWPW irrespective of who manufactures the 

HWPW. CARB arbitrarily differentiates between a primary HWPW manufacturer and a 

“fabricator” who also manufactures HWPW but is exempt from having to certify the HWPW 

they manufacture. 

To summarize, this exemption creates a two tiered system: HWPW made by a “manufacturer” 

must be third party certified to meet the most stringent of the product emission standards and 

be certified to reduce otherwise CARB compliant core when they are used to the more 

stringent HWPW values. On the other hand, if you manufacture HWPW but are a “fabricator”, 

CARB has for this group of HWPW “manufacturers” exempted the glue lines used to apply the 

face and backs to the core and exempted the significant emission reduction requirement in the 

final product from the HWPW standard.
7

This exemption is a giant loophole. It particularly advantages off-shore producers who escape 

the higher operating costs associated with the new resin systems, certification and testing 

compliance costs, and record keeping that is difficult to audit and enforce. Given the dismal 

state of the domestic US economy, low price point products have a decided advantage. Without 

insuring a level playing field, non-compliant, cheaper products will likely further erode the 

domestic production share of the US market costing the US economy jobs and value added 

taxable profits of domestic producers. This is not a non-tariff trade barrier but a consistent, 

equally applied standard for product performance and safety.

This is a product standard. Because it achieves specified safety and health performance 

characteristics, this standard must universally apply to all HWPW products irrespective of who 

produces it, irrespective of where it is made, and irrespective of the type of core used to 

manufacture HWPW. The CARB emission standards for HWPW must be the same for anyone 

who makes HWPW. Moreover, the emission limits for HWPW are the lowest of any of the 

regulated composite wood products.

This exemption results in inconsistent product performance for otherwise identical products 

subject to a product safety standard. This exemption creates a huge economic advantage for 

“fabricator manufacturers” who avoid the costs of compliance. 

Imports of HWPW should meet US performance standards and only a federal rule can achieve 

this leveling of the playing field. 

The US market has been witness to increasing market share taken by imports, primarily by 

Chinese manufacturers, on a volume basis (near 80%) and a value basis (over 65%). See 

attached Table 1. U.S. capacity has been shut down permanently or idled as a result. 

The recent report on these imports by the International Trade Commission - USITC Publication 

4032 (August, 2008), Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competitive Conditions 

Affecting the U.S. Industries focuses on several factors that have favored Chinese 

manufacturers. A copy will be provided for the record.

The ITC identities many of the factors that give Chinese product manufacturers their cost 

advantage and mentions the costs of meeting new, more stringent formaldehyde standards as 

one of these. The report does not specifically quantify the economic value of those advantages. 

The hardwood industry is working with Congress to continue this investigation as the recent 

economic downturn has resulted in reported backsliding recently of some of the key reforms to 
8

address these issues.2 HWPW is an important component in furniture and with most of that 

capacity in China and Southeast Asia that supplies the US market, the “fabricator” exemption 

allows HWPW from those manufacturers to come in basically unregulated. Increasing market 

penetration by kitchen cabinet manufacturers off shore is also occurring. This is the second, 

most important end use for HWPW. 

Imports are a major factor for US consumers who would be protected by this rule. An 

enforceable federal standard will help to insure both consumer protection and a level playing 

field for producers.

A rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act with its international enforcement provisions 

provides an assurance that all HWPW irrespective of country of origin, domestically or foreign 

produced, will have the same formaldehyde performance characteristics. Absent a federal rule, 

imports with cost advantages will have a marked pricing advantage and in these hard economic 

times increase their market share. Meanwhile the U.S. has a piecemeal, non-federal, import 

unenforceable approach, while the technology exists and domestic industry has made the 

commitment to utilize this new generation of technologies. As a TPC, we can certify that it is 

rapidly being employed in North America. As a TPC, we can also state that we observe higher 

failure rates from off shore producers with some foreign suppliers significantly higher than 

allowable U.S. limits whether CARB or even HUD and their own domestic emission standards.

We do not believe as we have previously commented to EPA that a rule can be justified under 

section 6 (a) of TSCA. The CARB rule is essentially predicated as a technology based standard 

and for that reason we believe that authority under another section or a new statutory 

provision that would permit the incorporation by reference of the revised and updated 

ANSI/HPVA HP-1 and ANSI/HPVA EF national consensus standards would be a preferable 

approach. These standards which have been the operating norm in the industry and widely 

accepted and referenced by end users of these products address the other concerns that we 

have discussed in these comments.
9

In summary and for the reasons discussed, HPVA supports the timely promulgation of a 

federal standard for formaldehyde emissions from HWPW. The federal standard should

apply universally to all HWPW products. The federal standard for HWPW emissions should 

apply to all manufacturers and producers who sell their HWPW in the U.S. Imports of HWPW 

should meet U.S. performance standards and only a federal rule can achieve this leveling of 

the playing field.

PLEASE DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS or COMMENTS to:

C.T. “Kip” Howlett Jr.

1825 Michael Faraday Drive

Reston, VA 20190

703-435-2900

khowlett@hpva.org
10

=============================================================================

1 Manufacturers of VC platforms can and some suppliers do produce and certify the 

formaldehyde emission values of their products. This is voluntary but prudent because HWPW

manufacturers who use these platforms can better assure that their final HWPW product will 

meet the stringent CARB emission values for HWPW.

2

Imported HWPW accounts for over 62% of the US HWPW market which is estimated to be 

about $2.4 billion. Because imported panels are of lower unit value than domestically produced 

panels, the market share of imported products may actually be 70-75% of the North American 

market. Because the import codes which sometimes group non-homogenous products under 

the same code, exact figures for the products of interest in this ANPR are difficult to determine.
11

APPENDIX A

Source: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite 

Wood Products Section 93120.1 Definitions

CARB PRODUCT DEFINITIONS: 

(19) “hardwood plywood (HWPW) means a panel composed of an assembly of (A) hardwood layers or 

plies of veneer or (B) veneers in combination with a platform consisting of lumber core, composite core, 

a special core or back material joined with an adhesive. The face veneer may be composed of a 

hardwood or decorative softwood species (ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2004). “Hardwood plywood” includes wall 

paneling, industrial panels, and “hardwood plywood” panels used in making flooring. “Hardwood 

plywood” does not include laminated products, military specified plywood, or curved plywood.

(20) “Hardwood plywood- composite core” (HWPW-CC) means hardwood plywood with a composite 

core.

(21) “Hardwood plywood-veneer core” (HWPW-VC) means hardwood plywood with a core of a sheet or 

sheets of veneer.

(35) “Plywood” means a panel product consisting of layers of wood veneers in combination with a 

platform, pressed together with resin.....”

(34) “Platform” means a veneer core, composite core, or combination core, lumber core, or special core 

material used in the manufacture of hardwood plywood or laminated products. (Emphasis added)

(5) “Combination core” means a platform for making hardwood plywood that consists of a combination 

of layers of veneer and particleboard or medium density fiberboard.

(7) “Composite core” means a platform for making hardwood plywood or laminated products that 

consists of particleboard and/or medium density fiberboard, or combination core.

(25) “Laminated product” means a finished good or component part of a finished good made by a 

fabricator in which a laminate or laminates are affixed to a platform. If the platform consists of a 

composite wood product, the platform must comply with the applicable emission standards.

(24) “Laminate” means a veneer or other material affixed as a decorative surface to a platform.

(8) “Composite wood products” means hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density 

fiberboard......”

CARB PRODUCER DEFINITIONS:

(26) “Manufacturer” means any person who manufactures or produces a composite wood product.

(12) “Fabricator” means any person that uses composite wood products to make finished goods. 

“Fabricator” includes producers of laminated products. (Emphasis added)
12

TABLE 1.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Hardwood Plywood 

(HWPW), Particleboard (PB), and Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF)

Phase 1 (P1) and Phase 2 (P2) Emission Standards (ppm)1

Effective

Date

HWPWVCHWPWCCPB MDF Thin MDF

1-1-2009 P1: 0.08 ----- P1: 0.18 P1: 0.21 P1: 0.21

7-1-2009 ----- P1: 0.08 ----- ----- -----

1-1-2010 P2: 0.05 ----- ----- ----- -----

1-1-2011 ----- ----- P2: 0.09 P2: 0.11 -----

1-1-2012 ----- ----- ----- ----- P2: 0.13

7-1-2012 ----- P2: 0.05 ----- ----- -----

1Based on the large chamber test method (ASTM E1333-96) in parts per million 

(ppm). 

HWPW-VC = veneer core; HWPW-CC = composite core

CARB COMPLIANCE STANDARDS AND TIMETABLE