May 1 2 , 2008

Document Control Office (7407M)
Of f ice of Pollution Prevention and To xics (OPPT) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20460

- 0001

RE: Docket ID Number EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2008

- 0267

Dear Sirs
,

I am writing to offer comments on behalf of the Hardwood Ply w o od and Veneer Association (HPVA) on the Toxics S u bstance Control Act (TSCA) Section 21 Petition from Sierra Club and 25 other NGO’s described in the April 25, 2008 F e d e ral

R e gister, 73 Fed. Reg. 22,369 which asks EPA to promulgate a rule under section 6 (a) of TSCA by adopting the Californ i a Air R e sour ces Board (CARB) formaldehyde emissions limits for hardwood plywood, MDF, and particleboard. The petition also seeks to have these limits apply to manufactured housing covered by Housing and Urban Development rules and regulations.

We rec o mmend that EPA deny this peti tion , monitor the progress of th e covered products in moving towards the new technologies that the CARB requirements are mandating, encourage HUD to update its standards for these products, and utilize the IRIS formaldehyde review and update scheduled for 2010 to assess the need for any further action s for these products as well as other sources of formaldehyde exposure not subject to these rules.

HPVA represents the hardwood plywood ( HWPW )

, hardwood veneer ( V ) , and engine ered hardwood flooring ( EWF) industries in the US and Canada . HPVA onlyrepresents companies who manufacture in the US, Canada, and Me xico. In the

HWPW and E W F sectors, HPVA represents more than 90% of the N orth A merican production capacity. However, o ver 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 th is current, reduced US capacity.

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 because they are typically unfinished than domestically prod uced panels, the market share of imported products may actually be 70

- 75% of the North
American market. Be cause the import codes sometimes group non

- homogenous products under the same code

, exact figures for the products of interest in this petition are difficult to determ i ne.

HPVA has been a cer tification agency for compliance with HUD requirements for over 23 years. When the Kitchen C a binet Manufacturers Asso c i ation (KCMA)
established their Environmental Stewardship Program (ESP) w h i ch incorporates the HUD formaldehyde standards, we became their cert ifying agency. HPVA will apply to be a Third Party C e rti fier of the CARB standard.

Due to the first OPEC oil embargo in the late 1970’s, the US embarked on an
ambitious energy conservation effort in residential and commercial buildings. This
effort resu lted in significantly lowering the air changes of fresh air into the indoor living space, and the construction materials and indoor wood products used had
to be significantly re

- engineered to meet these new circumstances. HUD used an indoor air quality gui deline established by the Wisconsin Department of Public Health to establish individual product emission standards for the major indoor building materials components used in manufactured housing.

The HUD product emission standards resulted in an estimated reduction of up to 95% in formaldehyde emissions from the regulated products. The new CARB limits for HWPW represent an additional 70% reduction to the 95 % that hasalready occurred. We estimate that domestically produced HWPW will be in

compliance with the Phase I CARB requirements. The Phase II limits ho w e ver require the use of new technologies. Trials are being run now with new resin systems that have not bee n in commercial use and some only recently invented and patented. The CARB deadlines for Phase II are ambiti ous and key provisions of the CARB certification and enforcement program are also still a work in progress.

For example, t he CARB regulated products are interior building products with a
si gnificant l oophole exempting fabricators who manufacture hardwood plywood from compliance with the CARB emission limits when they apply the facing veneer to a compliant composite panel. CARB is in the process of address ing that loophole as we understand it.

As these new technologies become more commercially commonplace

, w hich will happen over the near term after the Phase I and II deadlines take effect, these reductions will become universal for North American producers. This is an evolutionary process requiring a complex infrastructure from suppliers, manufacturers, and distribution to end users and fabricators be put into place.

In summary
, HWPW has both the lowest emission standard and also the earliest compliance deadlines for compliance in th e CARB rule. Over 85% of prefinished
and 62% of unfinished HWPW produced domestically u ses a VC and the Phase I and II deadlines for those products are Jan. 1, 2009 and Jan. 1 2010, respectively.
Th e new CARB limits may over time evolve into de facto national standards . The steps in this process are outlined below.

EPA should deny the section 21 petition for three reasons.

First, EPA and CPSC have made determinations that the formaldehyde levels measured in indoor ambient spaces did not warrant additional regulatory requirements beyond those imposed in the HUD regulation. Since those determinations in the early 1990’s, ambient levels have continued to decline and will decline further as the new CARB required technology becomes commonplace.The HUD and Wisconsin long term targets for indoor air levels of formaldehyde

are 0.1 ppm , with recognition by both agencies that for manufactured ho using the lower air exchange rates would result in higher initial levels in the indoor ambient. As long as the target indoor ambient did not exceed 0.4ppm, public health was protected from the acute effects of HCH O exposure, and with the known decay of
emi ssions from products, the long term potential chronic risks were adequately
ad dressed as long as the levels were 0.1 ppm or lower. T he recent data collected by CDC demonstrates that manufactured homes clearly met those targets. Data
from California similar ly demonstrates that levels in conventional homes which are subject to its rule were also well below the 0.1ppm target level.

Based on those ambient measurements and the continued reductions that will be occurring, there is no basis for EPA to make a finding of unreasonable risk that is

ne cessary to accept the petition filed by the Sierra Club et al.

Second, t he new CARB requirements are not predicated on an indoor air quality guideline but the estimated contribution of indoor levels that emit into the outdoor air and the resulting reduction in ou tdoor ambient levels from the
associated indoor air reductions. CARB also under its statutory authority employ ed a technology forcing, BA C T requirement in its rule. CARB could legally mandate the most stringent measures feasible. Under TSCA, EPA must make both an initial unreasonable risk determination which the facts do not support and

must incorporate the “least burdensome requirement” in fashioning a remedy. This legal incompatibility between TSCA and the CARB ATCM approaches is sufficient reason to deny the petition.

Third, the petition does not sufficiently set out facts and supporting data to warrant EPA accepting this petition other than CARB has established a new regulation.

Enforcem ent is also a factor and EPA may not be the best agency to have the
enforce ment authority for building products because t he y must meet a widevariety of other physical performance requirements for purposes of building code

compliance and other legal requirements. We support this development and
evolution towards a national performance level but strongly urge that HUD
should be the lead federal agency.

The key performance gap is off shore producers who do not participate in
certificati on programs with outside inspection and audits

.

The chal lenge is products produced outside the U.S. and outside the regulatory and consensus standards compliance programs that are applicable to domestic producers.

In our HUD certification program over the last 25 years, we tested products which averaged 0.1 ppm which is about half the regulatory emission limit. The certification failures have been predominately with products produced outside
the US (1 4 %), but only a small fraction of the total imported hardwood plywood is participating in the HPVA certification program. We have no way of knowing the total volume of imported plywood or its emission properties. The failure rate for domestically produced wall panels was 7%. There were no failures for domestically produced industrial panels irrespective of the core

.

The issue is not that HUD, CARB, or consensus national standards do not work, but rather products are sold into applications that are not and have not been subject to these standards. The growing share of the US market to foreign produced product (estimated now to be over 70%) whic h is not otherwise
certified exacerbates this situation unless the importer is in a c ertification program such as HPVA’s.

U niform national performance standards will be achieved sooner using th e following approach es: the HU D program over manufactured housing can quickly incorporate the new C ARB emission values for products used in manufactured
home s , t he consensus industry standards by the product associations such as HPVA, the new Green Building Guidance from the NAHB , the recent adoption ofthe HUD requirements as a condition of membership in the RVIA , all result in

these new technologies being in place sooner . O ff

- shore producers in certification

programs to meet these new requirements will become compliant as well. We support an effort to have FHA and other federal backed mortgage lines of credit require new homes to have a warranty of compliance with the se applicable new standard s

.

New technologies including no formaldehyde containing resins and ultra low emitting re

- formulations of existing technologies conf irm that the new California requirements can be met by the domestic HWPW industry.

We support the effort to have HUD conform its product emission standards for
HWPW to the CARB standards. We w ould join with MHI in petitioning HUD to make that change. We a re in the process of revising our ANSI

- HPVA national
consensus standard s for HWPW and EWF and are considering the inclu sion of these new emission requirements as well.

C ontinued improvements in product stewardship will occur. They in fact will continue for the reasons explained below. Revisions to the HUD manufactured housing standards, consensus voluntary national standards , and the practical necessity to avoid double inventories of products will result in national

con formance before any federal regulatory action could be finally implemented under any likely scenario.

In conclusion, a fter EPA completes it s IRIS review of formaldehyde in 2010, if there are other uses that need to addressed, those can be more efficiently addressed at that time. This review can certainly also include an ev aluation of the effectiveness of the HUD and related national consensus programs for use of
these in building products.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us.Respectfully submitted,

Kip Howlett
Preside nt Hardwood Plyw ood and Veneer Association 1825 Michael Faraday Drive

R e ston, VA 20190
703

- 435

- 2 9 00 khowlett@hpva.org