May 9, 2 013 

### Profile of Chemical Users Coalition  

### Pe rspective on Recent EP A Initiatives  

### Chemical Action Plans and Wo rkplan Chemicals  

### Chem View Information Po rtal  

### Transparency Projects  

### Re cent GAO Report  

### Downstream Industry TSCA Issues  

### Longer-term Policy Interests 

### Formed in 2 010 to represent a critical downstream perspective on chemical management  

### Manufacturing operations – not retailers, service providers or brand names without domestic manufacturing  

### Mix of companies across industries – find common ground  

### Limited membership, but major industry leaders  

### 8 companies; almost $ 600 B in global sales  

### Aligning ability to innovate with environmental protection is common theme of activities  

### Will engage EP

A, Administration, Congress as needed 

### Po sitive elements of new existing chemical program  

### Having an agenda – Action Plan, Wo rkplan list ▪ Provides greater certainty for planning purposes ▪ Weneed reliable expectations over 5+ year timeframes  

### Agenda appears calibrated to what EP A will do ▪ Appears to match EP

A intent, resources, capabilities ▪ Good to avoid “menu” lists that go beyond program’s abilities ▪ Ex: EP A National Priority List, TSCA Master Te sting List, ChAMP concept ▪ Such lists are less valuable for planning, stewardship activity  

### Initial assessments have targeted scope ▪ Areas of potential risk where TSCA might be able to fill a gap ▪ Provides early signal of relevance to downstream industries 

### Important to maintain agenda over time  

### Establishes program consistency and continuity  

### Concern: recent change in agenda for 20 13assessments ▪ Does it signal ongoing annual shifts in agenda? ▪ Does it return to TSCA history of unpredictability?  

### Process suggestions  

### Identify early point of contact for individual assessments ▪ Wo uld allow for direct communication, information flow  

### Identify steps in existing chemical process ▪ What follows screening assessments? ▪ Po ints of public comment, interaction? 

### Defining “Uses” in Screening Assessments  

### “Use” as end - use applications – preferred approach ▪ Example: paint strippers for NMP , methylene chloride ▪ Facilitates exposure assessment, identifying management options  

### “Use” as a general chemical function – less desirable ▪ Example: “fire retardant” category is a function that is desired for a variety of materials in a variety of technical applications ▪ Specific applications determine likely exposures; technology of applications determines practical choices  

### Evaluation of non - substitution technology options?  

### Engage industry on design, exposure control options 

### Priority issue: approach to articles under TSCA  

### Article regulation should not be a “default” approach ▪ As a general matter

, articles are not the main business of TSCA ▪ But “targeted” article regulation may be needed in some cases  

### Determinations that should precede article regulation ▪ Cannot address objective by regulation of substances/mixtures ▪ C lear nexus between article and U. S. exposures causing risk ▪ Articles of concern likely to be distributed in the U. S.

- 

### Implementation issues for articles need greater clarity

- Clarify “use” definitions; example of “consumer use” confusion

- Re asonable screening measures for chemicals in articles? 

### Chem View Information Portal  

### First reaction is very positive ▪ Re gulatory information addresses a key downstream concern ▪ Access to TSCA data helps chemical evaluation activities  

### Priorities for inclusion in site ▪ Include all TSCA requirements, including export and Section 8 ▪ Presence on Inventory

, with CAS, PMN, Accession identifier ▪ Allow for searches by PMN number , Accession number ▪ Indicator of pending SNUR (with planned restrictions) ▪ Include proposed rules – ability to comment + direct impact ▪ Sunset dates for data submission, link to data submitted 

### Issues to address in Chem View development  

### Data quality: EP

A assessments ▪ Mix of documents with different purposes, developed over time, based on evolving sets of underlying data ▪ Consider ways to assure users see best available data ▪ Dates on assessments, sequence documents so best available data must be viewed first, pop - up notices about existence of more recent information  

### CBI concerns will arise with additions and information links ▪ Need process for stakeholder vetting to address any CBI issues  

### Ongoing beta testing of site with general public ▪ Site holds very useful information, but it is complex ▪ Understanding public use, reaction can guide better design 

### Transparency Initiatives  

### As users of chemical data, we appreciate effective access to information; but we also know that CBI protection is essential for us to be competitive ▪ B to B data - sharing vs. public domain information is a key issue  

### Favor approach emphasizing effective system for case by case CBI claims; most adaptable to the many contexts where competitive intelligence challenges arise ▪ Adding rigor (e.g., upfront substantiation ) may be needed ▪ Mandatory disclosure provision raise more concerns, particularly when EP A expands interpretation of key terms (e.g., health and safety study) to include process and chemical function data

###  

## Pe rspective on protection of R&D information  

### Chemical ID should be protectable, if substantiated ▪ Low exposure to public; less compelling disclosure need ▪ CBI value is at its highest; provides roadmap to innovation 

###  

### This pattern can reverse at commercialization stage ▪ But that depends on specifics of chemical and technology ▪ Can be sorted out in case by case CBI determinations  

### Pe rspective on protection of mixture information  

### Toxicity testing of a mixture has limited value to users ▪ Important if mixture is used, but B to B sharing is often adequate ▪ Generally don’t rely on such tests to evaluate constituent toxicity 

### Re commendations on Transparency Policies  

### Case by case CBI determinations are preferred  

### Processors, users should be allowed to participate in CBI claim and appeal process for use/exposure information ▪ Upstream chemical producer may not be party in interest  

### Protecting chemical identification at R&D stage is critical  

### Protecting names of chemicals in a mixture when a mixture is tested should be allowed  

### Engage stakeholders on value of data to be disclosed ▪ Assumptions about value of data may be inaccurate 

### Support Agency response on Processor Re porting  

### Mirrors comment CUC filed on CDR rule  

### Processors may hold key information on exposure, but the context determines when they are the best source ▪ Factors include EP

A data needs, length of supply chain, number of parties at each step, sophistication of parties, existing industry networks for sharing data, experience with EP A collaboration  

### Obtaining more detailed exposure data beyond CDR is best accomplished through a case by case approach ▪ Po ssibly by industries, product categories, pathways for release to the environment, specific geographies ▪ Where feasible, voluntary action tends to be timely and effective 

### TSCA impact on downstream industries  

### Re gulation as processors, importers, exporters, etc. ▪ But dependent on suppliers for chemical - specific information  

### Supplier compliance issues can disrupt operations  

### Challenge: TSCA applicability to materials supplied  

### Often provided materials that are mixtures or are identified by names not used in TSCA rules ▪ CAS number ID vs. PMN numbers (in SNUR) ▪ MSDS chemical names vs. TSCA substance names  

### Proprietary chemical ID information masked by suppliers 

### Supplier notice about TSCA obligations is uneven  

### More consistency on TSCA Inventory status  

### SNUR, reporting obligations not always noted  

### Particularly when supplier is distributor/broker  

### Long lag times for public notice about SNURs  

### Re cent EP

A actions have included PMN’s filed in 1990’s  

### Some chemicals have been in commerce for several years before downstream companies learn of SNUR  

### Direct final process creates a narrow window to respond 

### TSCA rules do not offer effective pathways to determine what TSCA rules apply to a chemical  

### Bona fide request process is too slow and requires unrelated information (e.g., filing date for PMN)  

### SNUR “safe harbor” provision (7 21.5(c)) is not useful; requires companies to “document” lack of knowledge that a SNUR applies; document that you don’t know?  

### CUC polled members on most effective approach  

### To p priority: online check of regulatory status, by chemical  

### Direct alignment with capability of Chem View , so ongoing CUC interest in developing site to support compliance 

### Additional measure that would be helpful  

### Export notification: posted updates on chemicals covered ▪ Identify changes since prior update  

### Issue SNUR actions on a more timely basis  

### Bona fide request tailored for processors ▪ Wo uld be used mainly for R&D purposes for chemicals not yet in commerce (prior to Notice of Commencement) ▪ Re quest would be to determine whether the substance is facing controls (e.g., restrictions on use, volume, discharge to water) ▪ Certification of intent to process ( not manufacture) submission  

### Update training materials for importers (e.g., CDR role) ▪ Consider translation to assist global supplier networks 

### Speed to market (efficiency in new chemical review)  

### Critical need to maintain global competitiveness  

### Concerns about policy/resource changes that affect speed  

### Interested in any streamlining efforts  

### Consistency of policy

, information across borders  

### Global companies facing diverse regulatory systems  

### US should not defer to policies that are not risk- based ▪ But opportunities for practical alignment of standards exist ▪ Mutual acceptance of data and assessments are also possible  

### Similar need to align across state borders