Comment Log Display

 I believe that human life is a sacred gift and that every
precaution should be made to keep from negatively impacting the
quality of this gift. However, we also have the individual right
to balance our quality of life against certain risks. Since we all
think differently it is easy for a group to perceive that a risk is
actually greater than it is or even to see a series of risks and
measure them out of proportion based on a limited view of all of
the factors associated.  I think that is what has occurred with
the formaldehyde ruling in the ATCM measure. 
 The way the ruling is drafted it unfairly affects importers of
some product. If you look at the board manufactures who
participated in the draft you will see that they are the largest
suppliers of board on the North, Central, and South American
continents. Since their operation is so large you have helped them
further monopolize the industry.  
 The furniture importers in the United States who deal with
Fabricators in the Far East find themselves buying product from
several hundred different sources, who buy board from an
exponential amount of board manufacturers.  These manufacturers
are set up to adhere to US, European, Japanese and other board
standards. These standards are similar in nature to the phase 1
ruling but have a very different test protocol.  The large chamber
test requirement without sufficient lab facilities in these areas
will create a manufactured demand and bottleneck for procurement.

 The cost work that has been provided by the ARB is based on the
data from the “on board” board manufacturers and only reflects
cost based on new resin technologies in their facilities. This
work is understated beyond their walls. It does not take into
consideration the body of work in the fabricators, the importer
and the retailer to accommodate the data for chain of custody. It
also does not reflect the demand generated by the procurement
bottleneck in the Far East. There will be some board manufacturers
who decide that in the global community, defining a process to
accommodate one state in another country is not worth the extra
effort.  When these factors other than resin cost come into
consideration, the real cost will be substantially greater. 
 There are several companies who maintain a large inventory in
Fabricator warehouses in the Far East. There is no good mechanism
to allow these inventories to contain specialty products specific
to California.  So you are forcing either a cost increase to
everyone else in the world or potentially causing companies to
consider stopping sales within California. 
 Cost is not the only issue with the program. It appears that in
the rush to get the ruling approved, passed and enacted that there
are some parts that are not complete. 
 The chain of custody as stated is going to overwhelm fabricators
and retailers alike.  In every discussion on this subject that I
have participated in, there has been no retailer present.  During
a conversation with the AHFA and several member fabricator,
importers in January of 2008 the chain of custody was defined like
this.  The manufacturer sends board lot test info to fabricator.
The fabricator sends board test info by shipment to retailer or
importer, adds verbiage to BOL or invoice, and labels finished
goods. A problem with this flow is the volume of data when the
shipment is a container of product that is consolidated with
product from various fabricators who have dealt with multiple
manufacturers.  
 It would be simpler to support a chain of custody that has added
verbiage to the BOL or invoice identifying product compliance and
to let this and the label on the finished goods suffice for the
retailer. In the event there was a need to follow the chain of
custody back to the board manufacturer you would look for the
label, get the fabricator or importer name, SKU and production
date, and the retailer would follow up with the importer or
manufacturer. This would streamline the outbound data.
 The enforcement of the program is always going to be in question.
 You have stated that the large chamber testing is going to be the
gold standard. However the enforcement arm is going to raise red
flags by using a FLEC device. As of today there is no direct
correlation between the readings of the FLEC cell and the large
chamber.  You have then said that you will use a deconstructive
test protocol for a final judgment. Even though this is closer to
the original test of the raw board there is still the chance that
the original conditioning period of the board and the secondary
test will give inaccurate results.  This will also expose more
formaldehyde fumes to the atmosphere in a shorter period of time
than would have ever off-gassed through the encapsulation of the
finished goods, so the number you get for the test will not
reflect “real life” of the finished goods. 
 I think that the ARB collectively has their hearts in the right
place; however they could serve humanities interest better by not
imposing this ruling as it is stated within the defined time
frame.  Or even better, by not going alone and to join with the
other states and international agencies in defining one acceptable
standard that will not create unfair monopolies and actually do the
good that was intended.