MOCA remains thorny issue for PMA

CHARLOTTE, N.C.—Everybody calls it MOCA.

Nobody calls the curing agent frequently used in polyurethane products by its full name: 4,4'-methylene-bis (2-chloroailine).

Either way, it has been a thorn in the side of many urethane goods manufacturers for decades.

However, unlike in the past, mentioning its name today didn't seem to send shivers down the spines of most attendees at the annual Polyurethane Manufacturers Association meeting, held April 26-28 in Charlotte.

That's partly because a large number of current PMA conference attendees weren't around when the organization initially went to war against U.S. government agencies over the use of the curative in the early 1970s.

In 1973, MOCA was king. It was commonly used in many polyurethane products.

So PMA members were deeply troubled when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration alleged that the curative was unsafe and placed it on a list of chemicals that allegedly caused cancer.

A very small organization at the time, the newly formed PMA disagreed, maintaining it never caused cancer in humans.

Without the agent, a number of smaller cast urethane goods makers could go under, Jay Meili, a charter member of the association, maintained at the time.

The PMA took on OSHA, and later other government agencies, in long, drawn-out battles over the next two decades. The association emerged from the "70s MOCA war with a reputation “for actually being able to take on the government and protect the rights of our members from unreasonable regulation,” Walt Smith, another PMA charter member, said in a 2011 interview.

While the PMA was able to hold its own and reach a standoff with U.S. agencies on the MOCA issue for decades, more foes of the curative have stepped up, and at this point many of them are on the European front. As Meili once noted, like a hydra, the issue always seems to grow a new head.

It started again in 2012 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer changed its classification of MOCA from a possible to a known human carcinogen.

That had a domino effect on other regulations, according to Michael Kocak, who in addition to serving as president of the PMA in 2014 is also chairman of the association's EHS-Regulatory committee.

“Being a carcinogen meets criteria under REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) to be identified as a SVHC (Substance of Very High Concern) and be included in the candidate list,” he said at the most recent PMA conference.

“Then the next step occurred when it was placed on Annex 14, so in three years it will not be able to be used in the European Union without authorization being granted,” he said.

A number of other countries have their own versions of REACH, and further actions are expected in those countries, said Kocak, quality assurance manager of Cranberry Township, Pa.-based C.U.E. Inc.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, based in France and made up of 34 countries, is undertaking a risk assessment of MOCA, “which given IARC's classification and REACH's actions will not likely be favorable,” he said. “Many countries base their regulatory actions on this risk assessment.”

Kocak said regulators in the future will look at OECD's assessment, IARC's classification and the actions other regulatory bodies have taken and move forward with their own actions.

The bottom line is, “IARC has put a target on MOCA's back,” he said.

If MOCA were pulled from the market, which is unlikely at this point, it would be highly disruptive, according to Kocak. “Replacement curatives or entire systems would have to be investigated.

“Replacement materials would likely be more expensive, therefore putting business at risk. The physical and performance properties would likely suffer, again placing business at risk.”

Don Gallo, who serves as legal council for the PMA, said at a committee meeting that members of the association will once again work with OSHA on the MOCA issue.

The key, he said “is to tell them all the things we're doing.”

Not all cast urethane processors that use MOCA are doing the right things when they work with the curative, according to Gallo, who is with the law firm of Whyte, Hirschboeck, Dudek in Milwaukee.

“We need to get all of them following PMA's strict rules,” he said.

Members of the PMA didn't have much they were required to do in the 1990s and the 2000s when it came to MOCA regulations, other than to provide strict rules for processors in the handling of the material, Kocak noted.

“So we lost contact with governmental agencies.”

That will change. The PMA will need to begin lobbying, he said, to ensure the association receives a fair hearing and can present its side of the issue.

“We can attempt to influence regulations and legislation to make sure that they are based on sound science and adopt a sensible, reasonable approach that protects health and the environment without causing unreasonable burdens,” Kocak said.

In addition, Kocak said, it can support research that fills in gaps in knowledge that can be used to support science-based regulations and laws, and help member companies comply with statutory and regulatory requirements.