The Volatile Chemist
International Hazard
Posts: 1981
Registered: 22-3-2014
Location: 'Stil' in the lab...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Copious
|
|
TSCA USA Legislation signed to law
I don't know how many people care about business-related chemical-legal issues, but I'd love to eventually have a lab. And some recent legislation in
the US, from how it's described, shows very little chemical knowledge on the part of the legislators. I saw this particular story first on twitter.
I'm surprised I didn't get a white house email about it, seems something Obama would brag about. But whatever.
https://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Chemical-Safety/TSC...
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Interesting.
Which part do you not like ?
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
I brought this up earlier, not in the right thread I guess, but nobody seemed interested:
"It's time to start hoarding before TSCA kicks in"
This is the title of two letters submitted to the editor of today's Wall Street Journal. Here are two excerpts:
"...After all the glowing articles about the bipartisan revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), what this means is that they need to
hustle to the nearest home center and purchase a lifetime supply of acetone, MEK, lacquer thinner, etc., as these products will start disappearing
from store shelves due to our new enlightenment. I hope you don't need these products in the future. Steve Helmreich, Colorado Springs, Colo."
"Just because a thing is overwhelmingly bipartisan doesn't mean it is right or even good. The unelected "experts" at the EPA and related groups have
been given even more power to control every inch of our existence - in the name of helping, of course. Michael Moussourakis, Long Island City, N.Y."
Edit 1:
Here's a paper that shows whats on TSCA's hit list. Note the table. I didn't see much that was of concern to me. I presume that the EPA is only
concerned with these chemicals contained in consumer products. Ie, we will still be able to buy chemicals through suppliers like Elemental Scientific,
LLC. Please correct me if I am wrong.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents...
Some chemicals that jumped out at me:
TCE (already impossible or hard to get)
CCl4( " " " " )
benzene
cadmium & Cd compounds
chromium & Cr compounds
barium carbonate (wtf)
naphthalene
DCM
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
The chemical industry and other groups with interest support the bill. So it isn't horrible. There are new labelling requirements. It also allows
for different levels of enforcement based on rather the product is targeted at consumers or businesses. That means more purchases will require a
business license. So for example as a consumer, you probably won't be able to get DCM but if you are a business then you probably will be able to.
DCM is still going to be in paint stripper but those may be limited to contractors vs the general public. How that is going to work is several years
out as the rule making process is outrageous.
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
BTW - acetone is definitely not going to disappear due to toxic chemical legislation.
Your body produces, and metabolizes, several grams of acetone a day so it has no cumulative toxicity, and your body is adapted in ingesting some grams
a day as well. Like many endogenous chemicals, if you ingest a lot at once - greatly in excess of natural levels - you can get acute toxic symptoms,
but it has significantly lower acute toxicity than any alcohol (including ethanol and isopropyl alcohol).
|
|
|
Arg0nAddict
Hazard to Self
Posts: 54
Registered: 8-6-2016
Location: PNW
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mercuric
|
|
I am having a hell of a time getting benzene (at an appropriate cost) but I just noticed my supplier has it listed for me now. Are these good prices?
Usually they have the cheapest chems and I don't have to pay freight or any shipping. Just send an email and 2 days later they say come on in at pick
it up. Their glassware prices are equal to a kidney though.
ACS Grade Benzene:
500mw - $20.58
1000m - $32.82
4000ml - $115.00
16000ml - $323.33
LAB Grade Benzene:
500mw - $18.11
1000m - $28.92
4000ml - $101.20
16000ml - $313.23
Are group purchases allowed here?
|
|
|
careysub
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline
Mood: Lowest quantum state
|
|
People do it all the time. There is even a companion site, "SynthSource" set up to facilitate it.
|
|
|
Praxichys
International Hazard
Posts: 1063
Registered: 31-7-2013
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Coprecipitated
|
|
Check it out, I run the place -
www.synthsource.org
|
|
|
UnsafeAtAnySpeed
Harmless
Posts: 5
Registered: 24-6-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
My concerns: Will this legislation hurt the home chemist?
Are eBay and sites like that going to be effected?
[Edited on 24-6-2016 by UnsafeAtAnySpeed]
[Edited on 24-6-2016 by UnsafeAtAnySpeed]
[Edited on 24-6-2016 by UnsafeAtAnySpeed]
|
|
|
UnsafeAtAnySpeed
Harmless
Posts: 5
Registered: 24-6-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by careysub  | BTW - acetone is definitely not going to disappear due to toxic chemical legislation.
Your body produces, and metabolizes, several grams of acetone a day so it has no cumulative toxicity, and your body is adapted in ingesting some grams
a day as well. Like many endogenous chemicals, if you ingest a lot at once - greatly in excess of natural levels - you can get acute toxic symptoms,
but it has significantly lower acute toxicity than any alcohol (including ethanol and isopropyl alcohol). |
If Acetone is banned at least you can dry-distill Calcium Acetate.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
They are only going to do 5 chems a year or so and it will be at least 2 years before they start because of the rule making process. Further they are
going to be concentrating on chems that are in consumer products not things sold as chemicals. Although it is possible that they will jump right on
making actual chemicals sold only available to businesses. That should not take more than 5 or 6 years for the rule making process.
|
|
|
Arg0nAddict
Hazard to Self
Posts: 54
Registered: 8-6-2016
Location: PNW
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mercuric
|
|
Oh yeah forgot about that I joined a while back. I'll put a link to it on my YouTube channel. Only 300 subs but I just started making videos again and
speaking here after 3 years.
|
|
|
The Volatile Chemist
International Hazard
Posts: 1981
Registered: 22-3-2014
Location: 'Stil' in the lab...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Copious
|
|
Barium Carbonate?? Really...?
And aga, I'm not too fond of the government saying it wants the EPA to evaluate *every chemical* used by industry for 'hazards', then allowing it to
get rid of whatever. Big waste of money and a nuisance for amateur chemistry.
Thanks for the replies everyone. I wasn't quite understanding it, as the websites that talk about it are vague and uppity.
|
|
|
BJ68
Hazard to Others
Posts: 102
Registered: 12-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist | Barium Carbonate?? Really...?
And aga, I'm not too fond of the government saying it wants the EPA to evaluate *every chemical* used by industry for 'hazards', then allowing it to
get rid of whatever. Big waste of money and a nuisance for amateur chemistry.
|
Remember, remember, , the fifth of November:
CoRAP with The List
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=23212&...
and "SVHC Roadmap to 2020 implementation"
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=23212&...
What is the bet, that they (ECH and EPA) will cooperate in this issue*?
*= and it will be only a matter of time, until you will get more or less the same (EU)-restrictions like a "marketing ban" (prohibition of supply to
the general public) of CMR-Substances to the general public or Restrictions on the marketing and use of explosives precursors (98/2013)....
Bj68
|
|
|
Loptr
International Hazard
Posts: 1347
Registered: 20-5-2014
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Grateful
|
|
Always expect the worst and be delightfully surprised if your wrong.
I expect them to combine the usage of any legislation available to limit the accessibility of the general public to anything that could potentially be
"dangerous" or be used to hurt others. Have you guys seen the Homeland security list of chemicals? It pretty much has everything on it.
|
|
|
The Volatile Chemist
International Hazard
Posts: 1981
Registered: 22-3-2014
Location: 'Stil' in the lab...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Copious
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Loptr |
I expect them to combine the usage of any legislation available to limit the accessibility of the general public to anything that could potentially be
"dangerous" or be used to hurt others. Have you guys seen the Homeland security list of chemicals? It pretty much has everything on it.
|
No, I haven't...you mean this list?:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/appendi...
Is this just for businesses, or individuals too?
|
|
|
SupaVillain
Hazard to Others
Posts: 171
Registered: 28-10-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Government or not, they do not have the right to pass or enforce this totalitarian attack on freedom. They always will be and always have been
unsuccessful at controlling the chemistry of this world. You just have to figure out how to do what you have to do to get what you need, and that may
be a business license. You claim these people are not educated about the chemicals they are attempting to rob from the people's hands, and that you
are? Then what is the problem? You are far, FAR ahead of them. They are criminals, and not in the least bit "American". I have no doubt that you can
find a solution. IIRC if oil is the main source of organic compounds, there will still be oil drilled for a long time. If not, algae has been
converted with high temp and pressures to "biocrude oil", and more methods will come to simulate the natural process of crude oil's creation. Although
this might not be high yielding, I think that further things can be done, and that something made from microscopy, imaging technology, and computer
virtual reality, microchemistry can be witnessed and worked with, and experienced, with far more ease and affordability than what we deal with today.
[Edited on 30-6-2016 by SupaVillain]
Oh.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
The dhs list is mostly in huge quantities. Like 400lbs of nitric acid.
and many are listed for flamability.
the new law is specific in consumer products. Otc stuff will eventually be impacted.
industrial products are for carcinogen and toxicity only and only the worst offenders will be banned.
|
|
|
The Volatile Chemist
International Hazard
Posts: 1981
Registered: 22-3-2014
Location: 'Stil' in the lab...
Member Is Offline
Mood: Copious
|
|
Still, some of the more esoteric, carcinogenic solvents may leave the market.
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Funny how the world changes, reading some old chemistry and history books i learnt the following.
Lead used to be called plumbian? (sp?) hence where plumber and plumbing came came from, all house hold pipes were made of lead!!
Mr mole was slaughtered for his skin to get good join when soldering. Yet now we treat lead like the devils own spit!
Apparently lead and Benzene were both in petrol along with Hexane, i have no idea how my parents ever got to 50!
Is it about safety for the dumb public or is it about power and control of industries? Money has to be in it somewhere, that or we have lowest forms
of intelligence making the decisions!
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Hexane is surprisingly non-toxic. It is used in processing soybeans due to that fact.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
Such kneejerk responses to the bill with no explanation of why we should be terrified. This was widely supported by industry. While I personally won't
say (nor am I quite sure) exactly how I feel about it, it's definitely going to help with the godawful patchwork chemicals legislation going on in
some places *cough*CALIFORNIA*cough* and it seems very unlikely to cause wholesale banning of chemicals.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2159
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Yeah California's current scheme is grandfathered in. And chemicals banned by states are going to be given priority. States can also request
chemicals be moved up the list. Carcinogenic and tetragenics are top priority. There is also an emergency provision if states want to ban a
chemical, allowing them to put a ban on place and wait for testing.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
I see no reason current legislation shouldn't be grandfathered in - the point is to stop the patchwork stuff and start building a comprehensive
federal plan, not to instantly invalidate any work states have already done. The "current scheme" of California that bugs me is not Prop 65 by even a
little bit, but their tendency to overreact on every damn possible hazard which leads to things like Prop 65. I don't care that Prop 65 exists - it's
here and it's been here and I'm used to it - I want future Prop 65s to die quiet deaths that no one even hears about. If they really are amazing new
ideas, let them override current federal legislation rather than cropping up in one area and slowly, slowly, infecting others.
It's intensely irritating right now when something's worked out at the federal level and states say "y'know we really kind of like that idea, but
we're going to use different numbers."
Now I'm not sure whether I like the EPA to have actual authority to ban chemicals (they really didn't under the old legislation). I'd far rather have
them work with industry to get replacements to be used. But frankly I don't see that changing much from what's happening now. Industry outpaces
legislation for most concerns.
That letter writer from Magpie's post that thought MEK and acetone would be banned, good lord. They haven't even done that in Europe.
And that other letter writer that thinks this is "more power" - it isn't. This is diverting a little of the existing power from the states to the
feds. Now maybe this isn't a great idea. But it isn't creating anything new.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
