Unreasonable risk definition

Most polymers are inherently non-toxic and can be sufficiently defined to present no unreasonable risk. Site-limited intermediates have limited exposure potential by definition which together with chronic hazard control language will present no unreasonable risk but will result in real economic savings. 

To summarize the benefits of TSCA with respect to new chemicals, there is a bit of evidence that indicates that unreasonable risk may have been averted from a few new chemicals, although the evidence is slim. The most solid evidence of the effect of TSCA on obtaining more adequate information about new chemicals, namely the data submitted with the PMNs, indicates that the act has not had any significant benefits in this respect, except to give us, for the first time, a definition of the universe of new chemicals and a way of tracking them if such tracking seems desirable. 

Under the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, a hazardous material is any substance or material, including a hazardous substance and hazardous waste that is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce. DOT thus has broad authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials that, by definition, include hazardous substances as well as hazardous wastes. 

ORM (Other Regulated Material) Under U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, an Other Regulated Material (ORM) is a material that (a) May pose an unreasonable risk to healdi and safety or property when transported in commerce and (b) Does not meet any of the definitions of the other hazard classes specified in subchapter C of the regulation or (c) Has been reclassified an ORM (specifically or permissively). 

No definition of unreasonable risk was included in the final House bill. However, the House Report makes it clear that the House endorsed the general approach of balancing a chemical s risks and benefits ... 

Because Section 6 is intended to apply primarily to individual chemical substances, regulation of entire categories should be limited to situations where EPA demonstrates that the categorization involved is appropriate to fulfill the objectives of Section 6. Under this approach, EPA s definition of a category will not be suitable to achieve the purpose of the Act imless EPA proves that the definition constitutes a rational grouping of chemicals under the Section 6 criteria for determining unreasonable risk. ... 

The legislative history of the original CPSA confirms the Congressional desire to balance a proposed standard s benefits to consumer safety against its drawbacks in other areas of consumer welfare. S. 3419, the Senate version of the Act, included an express definition of unreasonable risk of injury ... 

A definition of unreasonable risk was deliberately omitted from H.R. 15003, the bill passed by the House, and this omission was carried forward into the final version of the Act by the Conference Committee. The House s reasons for omitting a definition of unreasonable risk, however, do not reflect a rejection of the Senate s cost-benefit approach. As the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce explained ... 

---