Nicole, The "fault" here is not primarily in either OSHA or EPA. The fault lies in us, the people, who have let the budgets for these organizations be cut until they are ineffective.
And TSCA has a catch 22 clause that doesn't allow EPA to require an industry to test their untested chemicals unless EPA can prove (usually to a court) that the chemical poses a "significant risk." Hmmmm. Assessing risk with no data. Nice mandate, that. But that's exactly what the health officials did with the WV spill chemical.
As for the piddling 60,000 grandfathered chemicals under TSCA, quit worrying about them. There are bigger issues. There are now more than 21,000,000 chemicals available for catalog purchase (see
www.cas.org). Who is buying them? What products are they in? Where ever they are, you can be certain there is no toxicity data on more than a handful.
The EU's REACH program required manufacturers to register all chemicals manufactured in amounts over a ton a year that will be present in any products sold in the EU. Their list is up to 143,000+. In this group, they identified over 30.000 high production volume chemicals (1000 ton/year) on which there is no data. Those same 30,000 untested HPV chemicals, you can be sure, are in US products as well.
If we don't train all our students about these issues, get them politically active, and help support the activists complaining about this, it will never end.
If, instead, all this is OK with you, then put together or download a nice Lab Standard power point training module that goes through the label terms, pictograms, MSDS and SDS formats and assures students that this will provide everything they need to know. And rejoice when some of your graduating students land jobs in the very industries who have brought us this system.
It is our fault. And our students are part of industry's vast population of test animals in the only experiment industry is conducting.
Thanks, I feel much better now.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: Shoshenskiy, Nicole <nshoshenskiy**At_Symbol_Here**MSDSONLINE.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 12:41 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Question About MCHM
This chemical was grandfathered into the TSCA inventory in 1976 along with about 60,000 other chemicals for which very little data exists. I see the fault of this catastrophe as belonging just as much to EPA is it does to OSHA. And the
EPA has far greater financial resources as well as representation, support of special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington. The HPV Challenge program has not made much progress on making a dent in the grandfathered list as they have only addressed
roughly 300 chemicals to date.
The two pronged issue at hand is how can OSHA monitor or make recommendations on processes and practices in a facility manufacturing or using grandfathered chemicals when the EPA has exempted them from collecting all but the most basic
of data? EPA and ECHA formed a partnership 4 years ago to exchange/share data via the REACH program and we can only hope that they have identified substances of "high concern" that will be triaged first in the collation and exchange of data.
Nicole Shoshenskiy
Authoring Team Lead
MSDSonline
350 North Orleans Street, Suite 950
Chicago, IL 60654
Direct: 312.881.2894
Notice: Copyright =A9 2014, MSDSonline. All rights reserved. This email, including
any attachments, may contain confidential information and may not be redistributed without permission. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender, by phone or reply-email, and delete it and all its contents from your system.
Yes, but those events only helped EPA. Nothing seems to help OSHA.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
If it wasn't for Love Canal & Times Beach we wouldn't have RCRA.
You've got it right, Peter. I've known David Michaels, the current head of OSHA, for over 30 years. In one of his press releases he explained the problem this
way: OSHA has enough inspectors to visit every workplace in the US for 15 minutes once every 133 years.
OSHA prioritizes only because they have such a limited budget to enforce. Gone are the random inspections. Gone are visits after every complaint. Instead, they
send a letter to the employer stating what the reported issue is and give them certain number of days to correct it. Then all the employer has to do is send another letter saying it is fixed. I don't even have to point out to you all the flaws in this procedure.
If someone falls from a defective fixed ladder on the side of the chemical holding tank and is killed, then you can expect OSHA will come take a look.
We get the enforcement we are willing to pay for. And apparently, the majority, and/or their representatives, think this is just fine. They don't see the inconsistency
in their thinking when they complain indignantly about the WV spill or the West Fertilizer explosion.
After a lifetime of watching this behavior, I see no signs it will change. So it must be what they want.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
OSHA inspects workplaces, not storage tanks and such, except as part of a workplace inspection. The number of inspectors available to OSHA are very few compared
to the number of workplaces, so they prioritize based on injury/illness rates of industries, employee complaints, and a limited number of other criteria. Many workplaces don't see an OSHA inspector from one decade to another.
My understanding is that these storage tanks were not subject to state inspection, nor to most other inspection regimes.
You're right. The media missed a lot of aspects to this story. Like how could a chemical be used on a regular commercial basis and not have its health effects
more carefully known, especially in the event of an accident. There must be some very fine print in the TSCA law that exempts this chemical. Also in question if the fact that this chemical, like many others such as off-grade plasticizers, contain unknown
impurities, whose health effects may be known or unknown, and if known, disclosed to the end user, in the event of an accident. HAZMAT Team response time if critical. OSHA inspection schedules of the storage tanks and facilities, which I heard anecdotally
were also relaxed for this company and type of operation. If anyone knows why, I would love to hear it. Thanks for your response.
Professor (Retired), Dept. of Sciences
Wentworth Institute of Technology
In my mind, the media fell short on their coverage of this whole debacle. The real story was not that 10,000 gallons leaked into a river.
The REAL story should have been - what happens to the probably millions of gallons of this stuff when it is used for its intended purpose of "coal flotation"? What
happens to it afterwards? History demonstrates that coal companies are not the best stewards of the environment.
======================================================
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
From: Casparian, Armen
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:08 PM
Subject: Question About MCHM
Hi All,
In the January 20 edition of C&EN, in the article "Toxicity Unknown," we are told that East Chemical manufactures 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol (MHCM) and Freedom Industries buys it (and it crude form, which probably means it contains some unknown impurities)
to use as a coal cleaning agent in coal powered electric power generation stations. Also mentioned is the fact the 37 year old Toxic Substances Control Act is supposed to regulate substances used in commerce. In this matter, that responsibility falls on
the shoulders of EPA. The article also states that "companies are not mandated to submit hazard information to EPA, except when data suggest the possibility of substantial risk." Further, the article states that "TSCA sets up complex legal requirements that
EPA must meet before the agency can require manufacturers (I assume Eastman Chemical) to provide toxicity data for a chemical in commerce." What does the law say about the responsibility of users buying the chemical,!
like Freedom Industries? Risk is a product of the health hazards and the probability of an accident occurring, i.e. leaking into the Elk River. It seems from the MSDS provided by Eastman Chemical, a thorough knowledge of the health effects of MHCN was undetermined.
Being in crude form, it may or may not have a CAS #. As a regulatory and enforcement agency, shouldn't EPA have required more thorough studies and documentation about this chemical, from either Eastman Chemical or Freedom Industries, before allowing it
in commerce? Perhaps, these "complex legal requirements" need to be changed. Moreover, what do Freedom Industries records show as far as periodic inspections of the storage tanks and their condition, as required by OSHA regulations? A somewhat similar
set of circumstances were present in the Bhopal, India accidental release of methyl isocyanate (MIC) in 1984. And we know what the consequences were then. In the same issue, in the "Safety First " =E2=80=98from t!
he editor' article, I think Jim Kaufman is right on target when he states that "It's criminal that principals and superintendents (in this case company chemical health and safety inspection teams as well supervisory regulatory inspection teams) aren't paying
more attention to compliance with health and safety regulations."
Armen Casparian
Armen S. Casparian
Professor (Retired), Dept. of Sciences
Wentworth Institute of Technology
Boston, MA 02115
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
