CORRIM

Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials
Box 352100
Seattle, WA 98195-2100
(206) 543-8684 o fax 685-0790

ANNUAL REPORT 1999

INTRODUCTION:
CORRIM was created as a non-profit research corporation to facilitate research and education on the environmental performance of renewable materials. Operations by CORRIM during 1998-99 were directed by the Board of Directors made up of the member research institutions. The main activity was the development of proposals to obtain funding for completion of the first set of research modules identified in the CORRIM research plan entitled "Environmental-Performance Research Priorities: Wood Products , that was completed in 1998. A chronology of the major events, decisions and deliverables over the past 12 months serves as a useful summary of these efforts.

CHRONOLOGY:
1. Annual Meeting May 22, 1998. The annual Board meeting was held by conference call with 8 board members and 3 technical panel chairs and company representatives and:

• Approved prior minutes and a 1998 Annual Report summarizing activities from startup to May 1998 as drafted by the President and circulated prior to the meeting.
• Discussed next steps for obtaining funding of the research plan noting that the proposal for Phase I funding of the first 4 research modules that was delivered with the completion of the research plan would soon be prioritized by the AF&PA Chief Technology Officers (CTO's) under the Agenda 2020 industry/DOE research program. It was agreed that it would be premature to pursue any other funding sources until disposition of the proposal submitted to Agenda 2020.
• Reviewed the financial statement and agreed to reimburse CINTRAFOR for the cost of completing, publishing and distributing the research plan along with other expenses that were not allowed under the U of Washington master DOE contract. It was noted that a previously approved audit of CORRIM expenses in order to qualify in the future for government contracting was underway.
• Two hundred copies of the research plan were distributed and an article was in preparation for submission to APA's Engineered Wood journal. Approved development of a linked website to carry a summary description of the research plan.
• Acknowledged that there was no formal need to elect officers but then discussed the potential need for a 2nd VP as provided for in the By Laws that could be acted on at the next meeting in order to better respond to anticipated increased activities once the first research modules were funded. Leonard Johnson and Paul Winistorfer were mentioned as possible candidates.

2. In June 1998 the AF&PA CTO's gave the CORRIM proposal a high priority and recommended it for funding to DOE.

3. In July the CORRIM Executive Committee scheduled a Technical Workshop for August 21 & 22, 1998 given the limited time that would be available to get prepared to formally respond to DOE. DOE then notified CORRIM that the proposal would not be funded due to an inadequate industry match (20% matching contributions by institutional and companies members were not accompanied by letters of support) and the limited funds available. The Technical Workshop agenda was altered to address the need to modify the proposal and to obtain more direct funding support from industry.

4. Technical Workshop August 20&21, 1998 with 7 research institutions, 2 panel chairs, ATHENA and Weyerhaeuser representatives participating:

• Given the implications of having received a very high-priority ranking with AF&PA but not being funded by DOE along with statements that DOE and AF&PA would assist in seeking funds it was agreed that CORRIM should: (1) prepare to resubmit the proposal with a reduction in direct funding and increased use of matching funds (with support letters from research institutions and companies), and (2) modularize elements of the proposal and seek DOE and AF&PA support to help CORRIM obtain funding from other sources. These changes would demonstrate our due diligence, and increase our chances of getting a high level of support for fund raising.
• It was agreed that interest in carbon sequestration would require information from "cradle-to-disposal" as contrasted with the "cradle-to-a structural building shell" developed in the Phase I proposal and that a trimmed down "life expectancy, use and disposal" module should be included.
• It was agreed that each institution had the potential to contribute matching funds (non-federal) to the project. In-kind time spent by companies to provide data and analysis could also become a match and some direct-industry funding contributions would be needed in areas that would be hard for the research institutions to provide a match. A match of 1:1 or more should become an achievable goal
• The proposal was reconstructed around a reduced externally funded budget with increased matching funds, targeted deliverables and a core management team for each stage of analysis (data management, forest resources, processing, structures, and integration with ATHENA). A secondary emphasis was focused on being able to link deliverables to alternative funding sources including:
  
  
  • NIST (how to make better materials purchase decisions)
  • NSF (how to reduce the environmental load while delivering commodity needs)
  • USFS (carbon mitigation and biodiversity enhancement)
  • EPA (reduced waste and toxins, determine best available practices)
  • Industry (cost effective material efficiency and reduced environmental loads, cost effective contributions to carbon mitigation)
  • Foundations (etc)
    
    
• A revised (top/down) budget with targets for each stage of processing group was developed.
• It was agreed that the panel and committee chairs would work out the details for their parts of the proposal including organizing the work teams and obtaining the institutional matches proposed in the revised budget. These modifications would be submitted to Lippke, Bowyer and Wilson who would integrate the changes into a revised proposal that could be submitted to the next planned CTO meeting in order to enlist AF&PA help in obtaining industry matching funds (meeting date expected to be October 1998)

5. Board meeting conference call of December 16,1998 with 11 board members, 3 panel chairs and ATHENA reviewed the revised proposal and:

• Agreed to a number of proposal changes , acceptance of the panel chairs organizational teaming recognizing that it did not provide a very close balance in support across the member research organizations, and agreement that the revised budgets were skimpy although above target and that they should not be lowered.
• Noted that contacts with the National Academy of Engineering did not identify much opportunity to gain their support for a renewable resources center that might parallel other extractive material centers.
• Agreed to reimburse Jeff Gorelik for accounting services over the last year. Noted that Gorelik is moving to Wisconsin but for the time being will continue supporting CORRIM, that the IRS had lost our application for "not for profit research institution status" but would give us high priority with a replacement application and that the first Weyerhaeuser $25,000 grant remains a receivable until we receive this approval.
• Next Steps: Progress on the proposal will be reviewed with Weyerhaeuser to enlist their help in obtaining industry matching funds.

6. The independent auditors completed an audit report on the expenses of CORRIM Inc for the subcontract with the U of Washington and found them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, a critical requirement for becoming a government contractor.

7. January 5, 1999: The revised proposal was reviewed with Weyerhaeuser resulting in their committed to assist in raising industry matching funds. A plan was developed to prepare a presentation that would be targeted for use within specific companies in order to gain management support from about 10 companies in order to reach a 20% industry cash match of $240,000.

8. February 3, 1999: The revised proposal to Agenda 2020 was completed and submitted to AF&PA including support letters from the research institutions of over $300,000 and the expectation that $240,000 industry cash matching funds would be raised.

9. February 6, 1999: AF&PA CTO's met and CORRIM was subsequently notified that we again had received a top priority ranking and that a number of the companies present would contribute matching funds.

10. In anticipation of the April 27 AF&PA Agenda 2020 Energy Task Force meeting, a status report on fund raising was provided to AF&PA showing firm commitments from Weyerhaeuser, Simpson, Willamette, Potlatch, Champion, and IP for a total of $175,000 and expected support from Plum Creek, LP and Mead for about $80-90,00 with some chance of support from Boise, GP and Truss Joist and hence the expectation that we would reach the $240,000 target before the June CTO meeting.

11. June 8, 1999: Firm commitments for industry matching funds exceeded the $240,000 target. The contributing companies of Weyerhaeuser, Potlatch, Simpson, Champion, IP, GP, LP, Temple Inland, Mead, and Plum Creek have pledged support of up to $270,000. Instituional matching funds of $323,940, matching funds from our ATHENA cooperator of $200,000 and estimated in-kind support from industry of $70,000 in addition to the requested $500,000 from DOE raise the total project funds to an estimated $1, 363,940.

FUTURE PLANS

• Respond to Agenda 2020 (or any other) opportunity to initiate funding for completion of the research called for in the CORRIM research plan.
• When AF&PA support for the research proposal is finalized, and with their support work with the USFS to develop their complementary research program.
• Broaden the base of industry advisors with supporting roles on the technical panels

Prepared by Bruce Lippke
CORRIM President

APPENDICES:

A. CURRENT MEMBERSHIP

B. TECHNICAL PANEL STRUCTURE (institutional participants - with industry advisors to be added)

C. TECHNICAL STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

D. CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENT

APPENDIX A

CURRENT MEMBERSHIP

CORRIM member research institutions each provide a representative to the voting Board of CORRIM. Supporting companies provided additional non-voting representatives to facilitate information flow and review by experienced practitioners.

Membership in CORRIM and the Board of Directors are composed of:
     Research Institutions (voting Board members):

Bruce Lippke, President, University of Washington (UW)
Jim Bowyer, Vice President, University of Minnesota (U. Minn.)
Tom McLain, Secretary, Oregon State University (OSU)
Donald Bender, Washington State University (WSU)
Jim Dangerfield, FORINTEK, Canada
Geza Ifju, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI)
Bo Kasal, North Carolina State University (NCSU)
W. Ramsay Smith, Louisiana State University (LSU)
Leonard Johnson, University of Idaho (U. Idaho)
Dennis Le Master, Purdue University
Sue LeVan, U.S. Forest Service-Forest Products Laboratory (USFS-FPL)
Doug Gardner, Michigan Tech University (MTU)
Darrel Nicholas, Mississippi State University (MSU)
Paul Winistorfer, University of Tennessee (U. Tenn.)
Mike O'Halloran, APA

     Company representatives (non-voting Board members):

Del Raymond, Weyerhaeuser Co.
Bill Nicholson, Potlatch
John Gorman, Simpson Investment Co.
Vacant, Boise Cascade
David Crooker, Plum Creek Timber Co.
Bob Glowinski (ex officio), AF&PA
Future members to be designated: LP, GP, Champion, IP, Temple Inland, Mead,

 

APPENDIX B

TECHNICAL PANEL STRUCTURE

Technical Panels: The Board identified three primary panels and a number of supporting Technical Advisory Committees (TAC's) to assist the panels. The three primary panels are (1) Data, Standards & Procedures, (2) Stages of Processing, and (3) Strategy Assessment. The Stages of Processing Panel was subdivided into four TAC's: (1) Resources, (2) Processing, (3) Structures, and (4) Use and Disposal.

The Data Standards and Procedures Panel is composed of :            (* identifies active reviewers)
David Briggs*, Chair, University of Washington

Members and Candidates:
     John Zerbe*, vice chair, USFS-FPL (consultant)
     Jim Bowyer*, U. Minn.
     Leonard Johnson*, U. Idaho
     Pat Layton*, AF&PA
     Bruce Lippke*, UW
     Jamie Meil*, JKM Associates for FORINTEK, Canada
     John Perez-Garcia*, UW
     Jim Wilson*, OSU
     Reid Miner*, NCASI
     The Stage of Processing Panel and its Technical Committees are composed of:
     Panel Chair: Jim Wilson*, OSU
     Resources Committee Chair: Leonard Johnson*, U. Idaho
     Processing Committee Chair: Jim Wilson* (acting), OSU
     Structures Committee Chair: Ken Fridley*, WSU
     Use and Disposal Committee Chair: Paul Winistorfer*, U. Tenn.

APPENDIX C

TECHNICAL STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

TECHNICAL STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: The Board formed a technical Steering Committee made up of the Board and selected independent expertise representing government, environmental interests, and other materials experts to provide guidance for the technical panels of experts who are assigned the tasks of developing and reviewing the research modules.

The Steering Committee includes (in addition to Board members): Jim Bowyer, Chair

Panel Chairs:
     David Briggs, Data, Standards and Procedures, UW
     Jim Wilson, Stages of Processing, OSU
     Con Schallau (acting): Strategy Assessment, consultant

Steering Committee Members at Large:
     Steve Kelley, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
     Valri Robinson, DOE, Office of Industrial Technologies
     Scott Chubbs, American Iron and Steel
     Connie Best, The Pacific Forest Trust
     Joe Demkin, American Institute of Architects
     Reid Miner, National Center for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI)
     Roger Blair, EPA