Mass. Manufacturers Wary Of Chemical Classification | Feds label of formaldehyde as carcinogen
Massachusetts officials are considering more stringent reporting requirements for manufacturers that use formaldehyde, a development that comes in the wake of a federal agency’s recent decision to classify the chemical as a “known human carcinogen.”
Under a current proposal, industrial users in Massachusetts who process 1,000 pounds or more of formaldehyde each year would have to report to the state and create a reduction plan, according to the Toxics Use Reductions Institute (TURI) at UMass Lowell. That is 25 times smaller than the current reporting threshold of 25,000 pounds.
The state proposal could be final by the end of the year, according to Liz Harriman, deputy director at TURI.
Those deliberations continue as federal agencies wrangle with industry groups over the dangers of formaldehyde, a chemical that has long been regulated in Massachusetts and other states.
Decision Fallout
Some industry watchers think that the recent decision by the federal National Toxicology Program to link formaldehyde to cancer could be another stepping stone toward further federal regulation, a move that industry groups say could cost jobs.
It is unclear if stricter regulations will emerge at the federal level, but Harriman said that one possibility could be rules regulating worker exposure to formaldehyde.
Recent scrutiny of formaldehyde has Mike Buck worried.
He is president of Barrday Composite Solutions in Millbury, which is the largest user of paraformaldehyde in the state, according to the most recent state data. Paraformaldehyde, which is also regulated by TURI, is a powder-like version of the normally gaseous chemical and Buck said it is a vital ingredient in Barrday’s resins, which it uses to make military helmets and components for the airline and aerospace industries.
Buck understands the need to protect workers and the environment from toxic chemicals, and said the company is OK with complying with existing Massachusetts laws, though he said that the paperwork is onerous and has required an outside firm to complete.
Buck said the recent federal reclassification of formaldehyde has him worried. He thinks it might lead to further regulations that would make it harder for companies like Barrday to compete internationally.
“Our concern is that under the guise of environmental science, people may be taking these concerns to an extreme that will put Massachusetts manufacturers at a disadvantage in the global economy,” Buck said. “Everybody is for environmentally friendly materials until they understand what it does to the economy and what it does to business.”
Buck said that his employees who work with paraformaldehyde wear protective suits and respiration masks and that the company’s production equipment has filters that scrub emissions before they leave the building.
All of those measures are required by state law.
David Lussier, a process engineer at Barrday, said that the company has worked to reduce the level of toxic byproducts created at the plant, one of which is regular formaldehyde, but said that reducing its use of paraformaldehyde would mean reducing its volume of business.
Reduction Plans
Though the state only tracks large industrial users of formaldehyde, the chemical can be found in smaller quantities in hair and nail salons, science labs and mortuaries, which use it as a preservative or a sanitizing agent.
Large users of formaldehyde in Massachusetts consumed 22.5 million pounds of the chemical in 2008, the most recent year for which public data is available.
The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act, passed in 1989, required major consumers of formaldehyde to report how much chemical they process each year. Those companies must also work with TURI to create a use reduction plan.
The Department of Environmental Protection can levy orders and fines against companies who fail to report or file plans.
But the law does not require the companies to adhere to that plan if it doesn’t make economic sense, Harriman said.
“If they don’t have any economically or technically feasible alternatives, they should continue what they’re doing,” she said. “We’re telling them that their substance is hazardous enough to their workers and community that it would be good to reduce their use as much as possible.”
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments