"dadiOH" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

I'm still fuzzy on the legality of copper napthenate. I know that it was
unavailable in the US (as a wood preservative) for some years but I get
the
idea from this site that it is now OK if the manufacturers step through
EPA
hoops.


http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...overnment.html

That's an interesting discussion of potentially bad business decisions. Not
sure if the folks that refused to pay for the required analysis will be able
to ride the coat tails of Nisus and become certified. In any event, Nisus
now has a monopoly on the market because they decided to cooperate with the
EPA and do the required analysis.

I'm completely at ease with the EPA requiring information about new chemical
products, especially something like a wood preservative that would likely
end up in every corner of the US. The sad truth is that undocumented
*chemicals* have been *invading* aquifers and polluting the environment in
ways we don't fully understand. And they're not going to self-deport. (-:

As a taxpayer I don't like getting stuck with the bill for cleaning up toxic
waste sites of companies that have gone bankrupt. The huge number of toxic
sites left as a result of bankruptcies is as clear an indictment of the
weakness in the pure "free market" system as you can find. I suppose we
could require huge indemnity bonds from any chemical company. Then it would
be insurers, not the EPA, requiring that companies investigate the potential
damage a new product could cause. If they didn't or couldn't, no bond and
no business license.

As for CN (copper napthenate), I found this site about Nisus, the company
now selling it:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...129362408.html

These guys made it sound like the companies making CN previously were trying
to create a shortage they could blame on the EPA to avoid the cost of
certification required by the Toxic Substance Act. The Nisus CEO said: "In
every instance through this process EPA did exactly what they said they
would do and they did it exactly in the time frame given - or sooner,"
continued Kirkland. "Normally this process would take a minimum of six
months, but in this case the folks at EPA got it done in just six weeks
without lowering any standards. You always hear stories about inefficient
government or government that gets in the way of business...well today, in
our small corner of the world, EPA got it done!"

We can only hope that the businesses that refused to cooperate with the
certification process will find that the sequester stalls any new
applications from them for at least a year or two. Long enough for Nisus to
at least recoup the investment they were willing to make in certifying the
product as safe.

There's an interesting side issue here. In looking for "off label" products
with higher concentrations of CN as Nestork discussed in the opening post,
one could be walking down the slippery slope that got chlordane banned.
Namely "if 1 gallon of chlordane is good, 500 gallons must be MUCH better."
Not accusing you of anything, Nestork, just pointing out that it's human
nature to almost always believe more is better.

With CN there could easily be a point where adding a higher concentration of
the chemical to the target wood doesn't result in any better protection and
might even have a down side. Like wasting money. (-:

--
Bobby G.