Posts Tagged ‘IUR’


EPA has released a total of 4 out of 7 planned training modules here for the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR, formerly IUR) rule.

The fourth module tells you how to register for CDX – the online reporting tool – for CDR.  Each individual who will be filing information on a chemical for a company must be registered.  There is one authorizing official who signs the completed form and certification, but there can be multiple support registrants who actually fill in the form.  If  you are already a CDX user, you need to “add a program”: Submissions for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Programs (CSPP)

The fifth module is on the electronic tool and actually using it and will publish in January.

Intriguingly, Module 7 is on Byproduct Chemical Substances.  I can’t wait!
EHS Strategies, Inc. can help you with CDR.


Read Full Post »

EPA TSCA CDR Webinar Announced

“EPA will host a webinar to assist industry with the reporting process for the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 from 1:30pm to 4:30 PM EST. The webinar is intended for industry stakeholders who will be reporting in response to the CDR requirements. The webinar will include an overview of the 2012 reporting requirements, a discussion of joint reporting, a discussion of considerations related to the reporting of by-products and updated information about registering for electronic reporting and for using the electronic reporting tool. There will be time at the conclusion of the presentation for participants to phone in with questions concerning the rule. Registration is now open for the webinar. As space for the webinar is limited, please register early. Webinar slides will be available on November 15 for early viewing.”

EHS Strategies, Inc. can prepare company-specific training and assist with reporting under the CDR.  Contact us to discuss how we can help you.

Read Full Post »

EPA is determined to get reports from solvent recyclers under the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting rule (formerly IUR).  From their “Q&A Document on Recycling and the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory“:

Question C. 8 We have facilities that recycle spent solvents. The spent solvents are received as a hazardous waste and are often complex mixtures of different types of solvents. These materials are re-distilled to remove water and other contaminants and to separate the various solvents, and are re-sold as solvents. Is the recycling of the solvents a “manufacturing” activity?

A: In this case, the spent solvents are considered to be byproducts of use. However, according to 40 CFR 720.30(g), the manufacture of a byproduct is exempt from reporting when the byproduct is solely used to extract a component chemical substance from the byproduct. The extracted component chemical substances, the various purified solvents this case, are reportable chemical substances.

Contact EHS Strategies, Inc. for help.


Read Full Post »

EPA is holding a webinar on how they are going to prioritize chemicals under TSCA Sept 7, 2011, 1:30 – 3:30 pm EST. Register here.   Apparently they heard the message that their picks of chemicals of concern for “action plans” were pretty random.  Will this be a recast of ChAMP?

Get background and blog on the topic with EPA here until Sept 14.  This seems more a focus on data sources than the actual assessment and prioritization process itself, however.  The devil is always in the detail and weighting of factors and just how large a collection of chemicals EPA intends to tackle and how.

Once upon a time, I helped develop a model with the then Chemical Manufacturers Association on how EPA could prioritize chemicals based on a separatory funnel filled with red, yellow and green chemical-application entities (represented by jelly beans in an actual sep funnel).

(c)1996, Chemical Maufacturers Association Product Risk Management Strategy Overview

We argued that EPA should focus on the highest likely risks (worst first) – the red chemical-application/use combinations (red dots).  The factors EPA lists in the background paper are “red,” although it’s not clear they are talking risk as in exposure + toxicity, rather than stand alone criteria: children’s products, PBT, developmental effects, carcinogens.  But key to the concept of the sep funnel was that EPA should titrate (tackle) red dots (high potential risk chemical-applications) only at the rate it could manage through its regulatory processes.  As it screened and addressed chemical risks, it could  titrate out some more chemical-use applications.  Of course, the Jackson EPA is into issuing blacklists of chemicals and publishing industry reported data (the new CDR with difficult CBI claims) to enable NGOs to exert pressure on companies to eliminate chemical use, so EPA can avoid writing regs.

We even went so far as to draft the reporting elements of a “red dot reporting rule” – focused on toxic  chemicals that would likely be highest risks according to exposure filters.  At that time (mid-90’s), we were trying to avoid threatened massive IUR reporting. Fifteen years later, we get the Chemical Data Reporting Rule – without the filters, so we’ll have a lot of yellow and green chemical dots being reported on – with EPA still not sure how it’s going to prioritize chemicals.  Sigh….

Read Full Post »

CDR & Byproducts

TSCA Chemical Data Reporting rule (formerly IUR) Responses to Comments Summary on byproducts are precious. See F.3.e-3 and 4 on recovery and recycle of raw materials. Hope you have continuous closed processes!

And then there’s this one:

“Response F.3.f-1: EPA is aware that there may be situations where a company identifies a way to recycle or otherwise bring into commerce a byproduct chemical substance that is not listed on the TSCA Inventory because it has traditionally been treated as a waste or in such a manner that it has been otherwise exempted from listing on the TSCA Inventory and/or reporting under IUR. Manufacturers in such situations should contact EPA for help in properly identifying the byproduct and to determine whether it should be added to the TSCA Inventory.”  And talk to the Office of Enforcement maybe….
See docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0187-0436 pdf page 86

Write a rule for processor reporting, EPA, and quit enlarging the definition of “manufacture”  beyond recognition.
Contact EHS Strategies, Inc. to figure out what CDR means to your company.

Read Full Post »

EPA’s revision of the Inventory Update Rule, now called the Chemical Data Reporting rule or CDR, has some major and minor differences from the old regime (EPA’s chart) and looks pretty much as proposed last year.  Here are my key observations:


– The principle reporting year is now 2011, with reports due Feb 1 – June 30, 2012.

– But you will have to report manufacture and import volumes for 2010 as well.  (The next round of CDR in 2016 will pick up all years between the rules and trigger reporting if any year is over the threshold.)

– Regulated chemicals (consent orders, proposed or final SNURs and section 6) are now caught at 2,500 lbs (instead of the proposed any amount).

– Compromised at 100,000 lbs for triggering Part III downstream reporting.  EPA put off requiring it for all reported chemicals to 2016.

– They didn’t go with the massive extensions discussed in the preamble of the proposal.  They kept the new descriptors for users, functions and uses in Part III to line up with Canada.  Different, but not real difficult to work through (probably).

Could be Trouble:

“Known to or reasonably ascertainable” takes over from “reasonably obtainable” with some explanations and examples that are not very enlightening.  But not to fear, this is an “objective” standard according to EPA: it’s simply what the reasonable person similarly situated would do as due diligence.  You don’t have to do “an exhaustive survey of all employees,”  but you may or may not need to go outside the company to get Part III information if you ever had it or if “comparable” companies have that kind of information.  At a minimum, you are probably doing more work than you did for the last IUR.   Good luck!

Byproducts: EPA’s position is that this hasn’t changed since the beginning of the PMN program.  In this age of zero waste programs where everyone is looking for uses for their wastes, there are going to be a lot more companies freaking out than just the electronics, metals, paper and utility industries (who made the mistake of asking EPA).  RCRA regulation is no safe harbor.  Read EPA’s guidance carefully and prepare for further clarifications and possible challenges that are sure to come.

Confidentiality Claims: up front substantiation.  Make sure you know how your customers feel about revealing their uses.  EPA’s intent is to publicly release all information on chemicals they can get (ignoring TSCA authority to only use reporting to support enforcement of the Act).  As I’ve blogged before, companies have been too casual about making claims, but there remains a need to protect legitimate CBI, so do your homework.

– Mandatory Electronic Reporting: to be determined.  Thankfully, there will be more time to test and learn the new CDX.

There are plenty of details to work through and new “clarifications” to come.  At least we’ve got time to figure it out now.

If you need help, contact EHS Strategies, Inc.

Read Full Post »

TSCA IUR Final Rule

Prepublication of final Inventory Update Rule released August 2, 2011.  Except now it’s called the CDR – Chemical Data Reporting rule.

EPA Fact Sheet

Analysis to follow soon.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »