Chemical Processing - July 2008 - (Page 17)

compliance advisor new Bills target Chemicals Congress considers kid-safe chemicals legislation 15 years thereafter, EPA would have to assess/reassess whether the manufacturer of each chemical distributed in commerce has shown that the substance meets the safety standard. For new chemical substances, distribution in commerce couldn’t take place unless EPA has determined that the manufacturer has established that the substance meets the safety standard. Under Section 505, for any substance on the priority list because it’s a known or suspected reproductive, neurological or immunological toxicant, carcinogen, mutagen or endocrine disruptor or it’s persistent or bioaccumulative, a rebuttable presumption that it fails to meet the safety standard would apply if found by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) to be present in human cord blood. Upon EPA request, Section 506 would mandate that manufacturers submit certain scientific and prosetting A sAfety stAndArd duction/use/exposure information on a chemical. Under Section 501, a safety standard would be The bills would prohibit a person from manuestablished that “provides a reasonable certainty that facturing, importing or distributing in commerce no harm” will be caused by aggregate exposure of a fetus, infant, child, worker or member of other sensi- a chemical that doesn’t meet the safety standard or which EPA determines the person failed to meet tive subgroup to a chemical. In the case of a fetus, infant or child, the standard would account for their certain obligations under the Act. For chemicals failing to meet the safety standard, EPA could grant potential vulnerability by applying an additional use-specific exemptions that would be effective for 10-fold safety factor. a maximum of five years. EPA would be authorized Section 502 would require manufacturers of to prohibit a specified use of a chemical substance any chemical substance distributed in commerce to certify that the substance meets the safety standard or in “consumer products” if EPA determines that the product’s use in the home results in human exposure that insufficient data exist to determine whether the that doesn’t meet the safety standard. chemical meets the standard; and submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) all reasonably available information on the substance’s physical, A long shot chemical and toxicological properties that hasn’t preWhile this legislation is unlikely to pass, it’s an imporviously been submitted to EPA. Manufacturers would tant template of the kinds of provisions expected to be have an ongoing obligation to update the information. reintroduced next year. Those with chemical interests Section 503 would direct EPA to establish a prior- should monitor any measure seeking to amend TSCA ity list of at least 300 chemicals, which would be the as such revisions, if enacted, could have a dramatic first chemicals for which safety determinations would impact on the availability of chemicals now supplying be made by EPA. Criteria for identifying priority a wide range of manufacturing sectors. substances are set forth under the draft bill. Under Section 504, EPA would have three years lynn Bergeson, Regulatory Editor after a substance’s inclusion on the priority list to deter- lbergeson@putman.net mine whether each manufacturer has established that the substance meets the safety standard. If EPA fails to Lynn is managing director of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., a Washmeet the three-year deadline, manufacturers would be ington, D.C.-based law firm that concentrates on chemical industry required to issue to EPA, the public and “each known issues. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. customer” a written notice that a safety determination This column is not intended to provide, nor should be construed is pending. Within 15 years of enactment, and every as, legal advice. 17 As An influx of Democrats is expected in the new Congress, it surprises no one that Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) recently introduced a bill that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by adding a new Title V to reduce exposure of children, workers and consumers to “toxic chemical substances.” U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) introduced the same legislation, H.R. 6100, in the House of Representatives. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bills would establish a national goal of by 2020 eliminating exposure of all children, workers, consumers and sensitive subgroups to harmful chemicals distributed in commerce. If enacted, the bills could dramatically impact chemical manufacturing and processing. Such revisions could have a dramatic impact on the availability of chemicals now supplying a wide range of manufacturing sectors. chemicalprocessing.com July 2008 http://chemicalprocessing.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Chemical Processing - July 2008

Chemical Processing - July 2008 Contents From the Editor ChemicalProcessing.com Field Notes In Process Energy Saver Compliance Advisor Who’s a Big Hit? Succeed with Condensate Control Take Some Basic Steps with pH Measurements Steam Projects Provide Fast Payback Process Puzzler Plant InSites Equipment & Services Product Spotlight/Classifieds/Ad-Lits Ad Index End Point

Chemical Processing - July 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.