A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has recently been introduced into the US House of Representatives. The bill, cited as the “Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010″, is meant to amend the 1976 TSCA legislation that ensures that the public and the environment are protected from risks of chemical exposure. Some of the key goals of the bill include:
- establishing safety reviews and restrictions on chemicals that people may be exposed to
- requires the chemical industry to share data with the EPA, which in turn can share data with other regulators, states and workers
- encourages the development and use of safer chemicals and “green chemistry”
- discourages the use of animal testing
- The full text of the bill can be found at: http://energycommerce.house.gov
Since lithium battery shipping is a hot topic these days, I ask this question a lot in my training classes. More often than not, the answer is a resounding "no". That’s when I respond with "Are you sure?" Upon further discussion, many people realize that they do, in fact, ship lithium batteries.
So how could they not know? When I get a response of "no" to the question, I start asking more questions. Do you ever ship pieces of equipment or machinery that is powered by lithium batteries? Do you ever ship cell phones or laptop computers to other offices or field locations? After a little bit of thought, the realization often occurs… Hey, we DO ship lithium batteries!
Many shippers overlook these types of shipments when asked about shipping lithium batteries. They tend to think only of individual batteries or products that they ship, instead of equipment or tools of the trade. In order to avoid causing and accident or receiving costly fines, make sure you know what you are shipping before you ship it so that you can comply with the appropriate regulations.
Recently, PHMSA published a listing of the 130 civil penalty cases it closed in the 2008 calendar year. The total dollar amount collected for these violations was over $1.1 million. While I fully support inspections and investigations that lead to penalties for non-compliance, it makes me wonder what the hazmat community can do to save themselves from these costly mistakes.
Continue reading »
In the regulatory world, things are not always as clear as they seem at first glance. One example of this is the use of the words must, may, shall and should. They seem pretty straightforward, but if interpreted incorrectly, they could lead you down the road of non-compliance, or leave you scrambling to comply with something that is not actually required.
Continue reading »
Effective June 19, 2009, the state of California has added marijuana smoke to its Prop 65 list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Marijuana smoke was considered by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) of the OEHHA Science Advisory Board at a public meeting. The CIC determined that marijuana smoke was clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause cancer. Consequently, marijuana smoke is being added to the Proposition 65 list, pursuant to Title 27, California Code of Regulations, section 25305(a)(1) (formerly Title 22, California Code of Regulations, section 12305(a)(1)). Official proposition: http://www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html
Continue reading »
