You may have already seen the news item in sp2 News about the revised code of conduct released by the UK’s Chemical Industries Association and Chemical Business Association, which have jointly prepared guidance for safe sale of chemicals.
The code of conduct is designed to ensure that products are sold only to customers that have been vetted for legitimate and correct use of chemicals. It’s highly encouraging to see that the associations have endeavoured to produce guidelines that go beyond legal minimum requirements to guarantee the safe use of chemicals, and that chemicals are not available to individuals that are likely to misuse them. It’s also interesting to see that the guidelines include new security advice on the sale of explosive precursor chemicals.
Safety and security
Meanwhile in the USA, SOCMA continues its tussle with Congress over what the appropriate legislative and regulatory approaches should be with respect to safety and security in the chemical manufacturing industry. In its latest statement on the issue, SOCMA has called on Congress to update the now very out-of-date Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for chemical management without enacting a complete overhaul. The association has emphasised the need to build on the existing regulatory framework, and supports development of the new Chemicals Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP).
The REACH experience
This reminds me of the time Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council, was at loggerheads with the European Commission over just what the REACH regulations were meant to achieve, how they were going to achieve their objectives, and how they wouldn’t (but, in fact, did!), replicate or overlap with existing regulations. Also at issue were the types of chemicals to which they would apply. I remember the chemical industry arguing very strongly that chemical intermediates need not be subject to REACH, as they never left the plant during manufacture, many being produced in situ and being consumed during the chemical process (of course intermediates are traded, and there should be legislation covering this, which is the point of the CIA and CBA code of conduct).
SOCMA quite rightly points out that the USA can benefit from ‘the REACH experience’ not just in terms of enacting appropriate legislation, but also through the use of the registered data and the avoidance of repeating work already completed in Europe. SOCMA says that most professional toxicologists believe the risks posed by most chemicals in commerce are overstated by environmentalists and the media, both of which are pushing for the replacement of TSCA with ‘much more onerous’ regulation.
So who decides what legislation is appropriate? Industry bodies like CIA and CBA with their ‘beyond legal minimum requirements’ approach, and SOCMA, with its professional toxicology opinion, or the environmentalists and the media, which may have a broader point of view? I’d be interested to hear readers’ views on this.
