Share this on

‘Risk' tag could stand in way of formaldehyde rule

Composite panel producers balk at federal requirement

Heath Combs -- Furniture Today, February 13, 2009

HIGH POINT — One challenge facing a possible national rule on formaldehyde emissions is Section 6 of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.

Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can regulate a substance, it first must first be shown to pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

But makers of composite panels - such as particleboard, MDF and hardwood plywood, common components in furniture - would like to avoid such a designation. The California Air Resources Board has regulated formaldehyde emissions from composite panel products sold in that state, but wasn't required to make an "unreasonable risk" designation.

Tom Julia, president of the Composite Panel Assn., said that an unreasonable risk finding would be problematic.

In 1992, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment determined there was no safe exposure threshold level that existed for formaldehyde to preclude cancer, leading to a primarily technology-driven rulemaking process took place over the last several years, Julia said.

That saved the CPA a fight over unreasonable risk, which could open board makers to litigation.

Panel makers don't want to deal with that, Julia said, adding that the formaldehyde classification would be a "go to the mat" issue for the CPA to fight against. The group would rather find a way to persuade the EPA to have regulatory mechanism allows them to regulate without the Section 6 classification.

Julia said it would be wiser to take what he called the "gold standard" on formaldehyde regulation - the CARB rule, which is showing itself to be one of the toughest production standards in the world.

"We have to figure out how to take gist of the CARB rule and apply it to a federal level," he said.

He said that with formaldehyde, an ingredient in products from textiles to cosmetics, the issue is quantity. An unreasonable risk debate would draw in regulators over health effects and the political climate could be unsure.

"It's the dosage, not the drug," Julia said. "It is not worth the debate over health effects and what it might do to consumers. Wise minds might not prevail here."

Under the current Toxic Substances act, if the EPA were to explore regulatory options, it have would do so under Section 6, said Maria Doa, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency's National Program Chemicals Division. There is no other rulemaking process that the EPA could use, to limit or require certain constraints on production or to limit amounts used in a product, she said.

"If we're doing action under TSCA, that's the standard that's in the law," Doa said.
"Enforcement is generally tied to a regulation."

An alternate route, she said, could be voluntary mechanisms such as a consensus standard that would need to be self-enforced within the industry.

Share this on

Panel producers support national formaldehyde rule

Jan 14, 2009

AHFA urges U.S. formaldehyde standard

Feb 4, 2009

Bill would set U.S. formaldehyde standard

Sep 14, 2009

Also by this author

Also by Heath E Combs

Featured Company

Surya

For more than 30 years, the name Surya has been synonymous with high quality, innovation and luxury. Our Fall 2009 collections are no exception. Our designers have masterfully created some of the most cutting edge and versatile pieces to date. Encompassing... more