Composite Panel Industry Adapts to Pending CARB Regulation

Composite Panels Poised to Meet CARB’s Formaldehyde
Emission Caps

On January 1, 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is scheduled to begin enforcement of its “Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products.” Adopted on April 26, 2007 (see EBN Vol. 15, No. 7 and Vol. 16, No. 6), this regulation is due to be ratified before April 22, 2008, and will be implemented in two stages: Phase I in 2009 will cap emission levels for medium-density fiberboard (MDF) at 0.21 parts per million (ppm), particleboard at 0.18 ppm, and hardwood plywood at 0.08 ppm; from 2010 to 2012, Phase II will lower levels further to 0.11 ppm for MDF, 0.09 ppm for particleboard, and 0.05 for plywood.

Currently, the only mandatory standard in the U.S. for formaldehyde emissions—listed as a known human carcinogen since 2004—is a 1985 regulation created by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that sets limits for particleboard and hardwood plywood used in manufactured homes (mobile homes) at 0.3 ppm and 0.2 ppm, respectively. The HUD standard applies only to panels used in HUD-regulated manufactured housing and does not currently regulate formaldehyde emissions from MDF, though a 0.3 ppm standard for MDF is being developed. The CARB standard is much tougher and more comprehensive, but it is enforceable only in California and does not apply to manufactured homes used by HUD. Other states are sure to adopt similar standards, however, and CARB’s regulations will be far reaching because all products made out of state and imported into California will have to comply.

But is the composite panel industry ready for these new standards? According to representatives from the Composite Panel Association and several panel manufacturers, most companies will be able to meet Phase I limits, and only some companies will be technologically challenged to meet Phase II limits. According to Jeff Lundegard, Western division director of sales at SierraPine, “We have products that are already Phase II compliant.” He continued, “We could go to 100% Phase II if the market desired.” Elizabeth Whalen, director of corporate sustainability at Columbia Forest Products, agreed: “We already meet Phase II, so CARB compliance isn’t a big concern.”

Panels made using urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins—the least expensive, highest emitting, and most common composite panel binder—can still meet Phase I limits but will have a hard time reaching the low Phase II limits. Most no-added-urea-formaldehyde (NAUF) panels and all no-added-formaldehyde (NAF) panels, however, will meet Phase II, and these panels have been on the market for years. (CARB will label NAUF panels that meet Phase II requirements “ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde” [ULEF] when its regulations go into effect.)

Typically, NAUF and ULEF panels are made with phenol-formaldehyde (PF), or phenolic resins, which take longer to cure than UF and are more expensive. Manufacturers of NAF panels have to turn to even costlier resins to avoid formaldehyde entirely. They use polyvinyl acetate (PVA, or white glue), methylene diisocyanate (MDI, a polyurethane), or soy-based resins.

Replacing UF at the factory level with alternative resin systems that meet the CARB standards will present challenges for manufacturers, according to Lundegard. These other resins (including MDI, PF, and PVA) have very different curing times and characteristics. “When we started to make Encore [which uses a PF resin], it took three to four months to make the switch,” explained Lundegard. And changing resins is just part of the equation. Resins react differently to different wood types, so even after a resin is tested, introducing it into another facility using different fibers can produce different results and cause further delays.

“We successfully made PureBond particleboard using our soy-based adhesive,” noted Whalen, “but we are not currently manufacturing it.” Market conditions and product priorities factored into the company’s decision to stop production. But Columbia is still making its core product, hardwood plywood, using its PureBond technology. The company is working on partnering with other manufacturers to produce particleboard with its soy-based resin, according to Whalen.

What is the resin of the future? MDI and PVA panels will meet proposed Phase II limits, but both are expensive and have manufacturing challenges. PF resins can reach Phase II as well, but they produce a panel that is darker and takes longer to cure than UF. Several manufacturers are now taking a closer look at melamine-formaldehyde (MF). Panels made from MF have a lighter color than UF and are less prone to chipping, but MF’s main advantage is that both UF and MF panels have similar run times, so the manufacturing shift would not be as abrupt as with other resin technologies.

CARB recognizes that these UF-free resins achieve its goals and has made provisions in its regulations: NAF panels will be exempt from emissions testing, and ULEF panels will be subject to reduced third-party testing, with a three- to six-month test period to show compliance followed by periodic inspections. The costs of this testing are borne by the companies, so there is some incentive to produce exempt NAF panels.

“Because we don’t know what the final testing and enforcement provisions will be, it is difficult to gauge how much it will cost,” noted Curt Alt, vice president of marketing and communications for the Composite Panel Association. For some manufacturers, testing is less of a concern. “We test all of our products all the time for a variety of criteria,” commented SierraPine’s Lundegard. “UF is just part of that testing.” But all panel manufacturers agree that making the transition to Phase II caps will be a financial challenge. Lundegard suggests that meeting proposed Phase II limits will add 20% to the cost of the company’s MDF and 35%–37% to its three-quarter-inch particleboard.

The composite panel industry is facing additional challenges, such as the rising costs of all resins and having to install equipment in order to comply with the EPA’s Maximum Allowable Control Technology for hazardous air pollutants, which goes into effect on October 1, 2008. Also, wood fiber shortage is a concern; with the housing market downturn, less wood scrap is being generated for the mills and there is more competition for that fiber from outside the composite panel industry. The pellet stove industry, for instance, uses the fiber to manufacture fuel.

Wade Mosby, senior vice-president of The Collins Companies, commented that because of high costs, the only buyers of CARB-compliant panels are those looking for LEED points or trying to manage indoor air quality, such as hospitals. He has concerns about the future costs of panels. “If everyone in North America [including importers] has to comply with CARB, then it is a level playing field,” he commented. “But if competitors have an 18-month grace period [to sell noncompliant products], then it will give them an advantage and it will be tough for us.”

– Brent Ehrlich

For more information:

Curt Alt, Vice President,
Marketing and Communications
Composite Panel Association
Leesburg, Virginia
703-724-1128, ext. 237
calt@cpamail.org
www.pbmdf.com

April 1, 2008

DISCUSSIONS

There are no comments for this page yet.

[ top of page ]

	PureBond Exempt From CARB Testing Requirements EBN: Product News - May 2009		California Adopts Voluntary Green Building Standards EBN: What's Happening - September 2008
	California Limits Allowable Formaldehyde in Wood Panels EBN: What's Happening - June 2007		California Targets Formaldehyde in Panel Products EBN: What's Happening - July 2006

[ top of page ]

Composite Panel Industry Adapts to Pending CARB Regulation

Composite Panels Poised to Meet CARB’s Formaldehyde Emission Caps

Composite Panels Poised to Meet CARB’s Formaldehyde
Emission Caps