UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS ENHANCEMENTS TO ChAMP 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008 

EPA POTOMAC YARD 

2777 CRYSTAL DRIVE 

ROOM S-1204 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

PRESENT: 

CHARLES AUER, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

WENDY CLELAND-HAMNETT, Assistant Director, OPPT 

JAMES B. GULLIFORD, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 

and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) 

OSCAR HERNANDEZ Director, OPPT Risk Assessment Division 

LOUIS (GINO) SCARANO, OPPT Risk Assessment Division 

JIM WILLIS, Director, OPPT Chemical Control Division 

KEN MOSS, OPPT Chemical Control Division 
WELCOMING REMARKS 

Charles Auer called the meeting to order in room S-1204 of 2777 Crystal Drive, 

Arlington, Virginia, at 1:01 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss 

enhancements to ChAMP (Chemical Assessment and Management Program), including 

the IHPV (Inorganic High Production Volume) Challenge Program and the reset of the 

TSCA Inventory. He encouraged oral and written comments from the public. 

EPA'S CHEMICAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

Mr. Gulliford recognized Mr. Auer’s years of service and upcoming retirement. Ms. 

Cleland-Hamnett will serve as acting Director of OPPT. 

 The ChAMP program grew out of the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) 

and is a fundamental part of the agency's chemical regulatory framework under TSCA. 

At the SPP Summit in August, 2007, President Bush, President Calderon, and Prime 

Minister Harper announced new initiatives for chemical management in North America. 

The commitments will benefit US, Canada, and Mexico by increasing knowledge about 

chemicals and their use. Canada and US have committed to working with Mexico to 

establish a Mexican Chemical Inventory and a strengthened North American chemical 

regime; to encourage research and development on new approaches to testing and 

assessment; and to create mechanisms to share domestic scientific information and best 

practices for chemical assessment and management, as well as to enhance Mexico's 

assessment and management capacity. 

 US commitments under SPP call for EPA to assess and initiate needed action on 

the over 6,750 chemicals produced at above 25,000 pounds per year in the US, a 

threshold that includes both HPV (high production volume) and MPV (moderate 

production volume) chemicals. The screening level decisions will be publicly released. 

EPA will take actions as needed. RBPs (Risk-Based Prioritizations) for HPVs and HBPs 

(Hazard-Based Prioritizations) for MPVs will be the source of initial actions. This is to 

be done by the end of 2012. 

 ChAMP encompasses the US SPP commitments, but EPA has been looking at 

additional initiatives to enhance the chemical program, including an HPV challenge 

program for inorganic chemicals and a resetting of the TSCA inventory. The work will 

build on and benefit from prior work, such as the original, organic chemical HPV 

Challenge Program, Canada's categorization work, and the production information on 

inorganic chemicals obtained from the most recent IUR (Inventory Update Rule). 

 The ChAMP screening decision process for assessing and prioritizing HPV 

chemicals uses hazard data from the HPV Challenge and exposure information from the 

IUR to develop RBPs. The program is in the process of evaluating potential risks 

associated with each chemical – for prioritization purposes - to determine whether it is a 

high priority, special concern chemical. TSCA authority may be used to ask for 

additional data or testing as needed. Control measures will be implemented or required 

as needed, and low priority chemicals can be set aside to be reexamined if new data 

warrants reexamination. EPA will post the assessments and conclusions on the agency 

website, and stakeholders can comment and submit data electronically. 

2
 A number of tools are available for RBP implementation. EPA has authority 

under TSCA and the Pollution Prevention Act to take regulatory and non-regulatory 

actions. EPA can interact with industry to develop HPV Challenge-like programs or 

programs like Design for the Environment to assess and reduce risks associated with the 

use of chemicals. 

 For MPV chemicals, a different approach is being developed that will rely on 

hazard and fate assessments from the Canadian categorization results and EPA's SAR 

(Structure Activity Relationships). Hazard Characterizations (HC) will be used to 

identify MPVs that require follow-up, either gathering of additional data or risk 

management through the public posting of HBPs. As of November 2008, HBPs on 38 

MPV chemicals have been posted. 

 ChAMP has focused on developing a process for meeting SPP goals. As of the 

meeting (12/8/08), 190 HCs, 151 RBPs, and HBPs for 38 MPV chemicals had been 

posted. The goal for 2009 is to continue posting RBPs for HPV chemicals and to ramp 

up the posting of MPV HBPs. 

 In March of 2008, EPA Administrator Johnson announced plans to seek input 

from a wide range of partners and stakeholders on possible ChAMP enhancements. EPA 

conducted meetings, discussions, and webcasts around the country and in D.C. In 

September, Administrator Johnson announced the decision to go forward with two 

enhancements. One enhancement is to update the TSCA inventory by resetting it to 

better reflect the chemicals currently in commerce in the US. The other is to develop a 

phased approach to challenge the US chemical industry to develop health and safety data 

on inorganic HPV (IHPV) chemicals. In both of these efforts, EPA will seek comment 

and engagement from stakeholders. 

 ChAMP is not a substitute for the HPV Challenge program. The intent is to 

complete data sets for the HPV Challenge program, and that data will be part of 

ChAMP's screening. ChAMP works closely with its Canadian and Mexican counterparts 

on the SPP commitments, and REACH submitters and evaluators will benefit from US 

and Canadian work. The schedule for North American assessment work compares 

favorably to REACH's registration schedule. US, Canadian, and European leaders met in 

2007 and 2008 to discuss ongoing cooperation. 

PROPOSED APPROACH TO THE INORGANIC HIGH PRODUCTION 

VOLUME CHALLENGE PROGRAM 

Mr. Auer called for the panel for the IHPV Challenge program, which consisted of 

himself, Gino Scarano, and Oscar Hernandez. Dr. Scarano presented on the proposed 

approach for the IHPV challenge program, starting with a definition of inorganics. 

TSCA defines a chemical as inorganic if it does not contain carbon or contains carbon 

only in the form of -CO3, -CN, -OCN, -NC, or -NCO groups or chalcogen analogues of 

such groups. The IHPV Challenge program is an enhancement to ChAMP that is 

intended to characterize the toxicity, environmental fate, and physical-chemical 

properties of inorganic chemicals that are manufactured or imported into the US at 

volumes greater than a million pounds per year. 

 Over the last ten years, the HPV challenge program focused on about 2,800 

organic chemicals. The 2006 IUR included reporting on production volume of inorganic 

3
chemicals for the first time. Preliminary figures show there were 763 inorganic 

submissions, 446 HPV, 317 MPV. The 2011 IUR will include use and exposure 

information for inorganics. 

 EPA's thinking is outlined in the document, “Proposed Approach for the 

Inorganic High Production Volume (IHPV) Challenge Program,” which is available at 

www.regulations.gov under docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0807). EPA seeks written and 

oral comments on the proposal and is committed to finding and working with 

stakeholders. 

 The IHPV Challenge Program was proposed as a three-phased process: Phase 1, 

development, launch, and sign-up, will be in 2009; Phase 2, implementation of the 

challenge, which would include receiving and reviewing data, will run from 2010-2013, 

using section 4 of the TSCA test authority vigorously for unsponsored chemicals; and 

Phase 3, running 2013-2015, will be for assessment and initiation of needed actions. 

IHPV data and IUR exposure information will be considered, and the information will be 

used for a risk-based prioritization. MPV inorganics will be subsequently assessed and 

prioritized. 

 The remainder of the presentation focused on Phase I. 

 Current thinking is that the program will be designed to take full advantage of 

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), Canadian 

Categorization, and REACH work; use the cluster approach from the MPV effort; and 

use information available from other sources, including feedback from this meeting. 

OECD. OECD established its HPV Program in 1991, and it was the basis of the 

US HPV program. OECD developed an internationally-accepted Screening Information 

Data Set (SIDS). To date, there are 887 completed assessments in the international 

forum, 616 of them posted. 

 There are about 160 inorganics in the OECD HPV program; 109 have gone 

through the process and 51 are in the information-gathering or data review phase. 

OECD's information will be useful to the proposed program. Additionally, OECD's 

guidance will be a useful starting point for IHPV guidance. 

 OECD's SIDS for organic chemicals looks at four parameters: physical-chemical 

properties; environmental fate; environmental effects; and health effects. Some of the 

properties will not apply to inorganic chemicals, and EPA seeks input on that specific 

issue. OECD has identified parameters to be considered in describing the physicalchemical properties of inorganic chemicals: degree of dissociation of metal-containing 

compound; chemical speciation and valency; crystalline structure, particle size, and in 

vitro solubility. EPA will consider and refine OECD's recommended approach to come 

up with the best way to describe the hazard of an inorganic, probably focusing on 

physical-chemical properties, environmental fate, and bioavailability. 

Canadian Categorization Effort. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act 

of 1999 required Canadian authorities to prioritize 23,000 chemicals on the DSL 

(Domestic Substances List) in 2006. EPA will apply these results to the IHPV program, 

where relevant. 

REACH. EU's REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction 

of Chemicals) law went into effect in 2007. EPA has discussed collaboration with the 

European Commission and the European Chemicals Agency and will look at inorganic 

chemicals submitted for information relevant to the IHPV program. 

4
ChAMP/s MPV Effort. ChAMP's MPV HBP (hazard-based prioritization) 

groups chemicals into clusters based on structure. Relatively data-rich chemicals are 

clustered for data-sharing purposes. EPA is considering a similar approach for inorganics 

and will look for comments from stakeholders on the clusters that EPA develops and 

proposes. 

Dr. Scarano directed the audience to EPA's Risk Assessment Forum and OECD's 

guidance on categories for other information. 

 The goal is to have reviewed the OECD, Canadian, and REACH information and 

EPA-proposed clusters for inorganic HPVs by late summer of 2009. In the fall, EPA will 

host a workshop to discuss the issues and refine the approaches. Then EPA will initiate 

the sponsor sign-up and implement the program. 

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED APPROACH TO THE IHPV PROGRAM 

 

Mr. Auer opened the floor for questions and comments. Dr. Kristie Sullivan from the 

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine said PCRM supports the clustering 

approach. She asked about the in vitro solubility studies with regard to lung, stomach, 

and intestinal fluid. Dr. Scarano said the studies would be in vitro. Dr. Sullivan said she 

would submit any further comments in writing. Mr. Auer emphasized that the categories 

of chemicals would be EPA-designed, not sponsor-designed, though EPA would get 

input. The industry would then sponsor all of the chemicals in a given cluster. This may 

cause challenges, since certain chemicals in a cluster may not be relevant to a given 

segment of industry. EPA is interested in using this method of clustering and trying to 

identify and work through the issues the method raises. Dr. Sullivan said the new 

categorization process will prevent similar chemicals from being submitted 

independently with different test plans, as occurred with the HPV program. 

 

Jim Cooper from the National Petroleum Refiners Association expressed appreciation 

for Mr. Auer's work and said that it had been a pleasure working with him. He felt 

encouraged that EPA was learning from the past and applying lessons learned to other 

chemical groupings--for example, using the word “clustering” instead of categories. He 

said the stakeholder process was a valuable experience and hoped that it would continue 

to be used. He suggested looking at timelines from previous programs, since some 

sponsors did not understand the complexities of setting up test plans and that some 

products are more difficult to test. He said he assumes there w*ill be consistency among 

the HPV and IHPV programs. He said he liked the idea of allowing arguments for 

certain endpoints based on physical properties, especially to minimize the unnecessary 

impact on animals in the testing. 

Pat Cosano from Corporate Environmental Programs for GE asked about opportunities 

for public comment on the criteria by which chemicals are being evaluated in the current 

ChAMP effort and the IHPV program. She asked in particular about how to submit 

information relevant to a particular chemical before EPA posts the RPB. Mr. Auer said 

the enhanced website will give the opportunity for direct comment on specific RBPs or 

HPVs. In 2009, EPA will work to post the chemicals it plans to assess in a forthcoming 

5
period to allow for comment. He felt that will aid EPA in planning and for industry and 

NGOs to anticipate which chemicals will be coming through. 

James Conrad from Conrad Law and Policy Council asked if the program will 

automatically apply the results of the Canadian Characterization. Mr. Auer said that 

EPA would look at the results, judge them, and apply them when appropriate. Mr. 

Conrad asked what the benefit of the IHPV Challenge program would be if REACH was 

collecting the same data the IHPV Challenge was collecting and testing the same 

chemicals. Mr. Auer said more would be known once the European Chemical Agency 

has gone through the pre-registration information. There is likely to be considerable 

overlap between the two programs, but the extent of the overlap is unknown. More will 

be known at the end of 2010 

PROPOSED APPROACH FOR RESETTING THE TSCA INVENTORY 

Mr. Auer called for the panel on resetting the TSCA inventory, which consisted of Jim 

Willis, Ken Moss, and himself. Jim Willis recognized Mr. Auer's leadership in getting 

EPA to a point where TSCA inventory reset is possible. TSCA Section 8(b) requires that 

EPA compile, keep current, and publish the TSCA inventory. Historically, EPA has kept 

the inventory current by adding new chemicals as they went through the new chemicals 

program and Notices of Commencement were filed. At the time of compiling the initial 

inventory, the inventory had about 62,000 chemicals. More than 21,000 chemicals have 

been added through the new chemicals review program since 1979. In 1986, EPA 

promulgated the Inventory Update Rule (IUR), which requires companies to update 

production volume data for certain chemicals in the inventory. He referred the audience 

to the background document, “Background Discussion Piece: EPA's TSCA Inventory 

Reset,” which outlines EPA's current thinking on the reset (available at 

www.regulations.gov under docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0807). EPA seeks oral and 

written comments on the current thinking. 

 The Inventory supports many TSCA regulatory functions and must be kept 

current. The proposed clean reset approach will create a better tool to help EPA perform 

its mission. It will allow EPA to review chemicals that might be returning to commerce 

after having been removed from the inventory and will allow EPA to take action, when 

appropriate, to control risks or require testing. The reset and the final result should be 

useful to EPA's mission, useful to stakeholders, should not penalize stakeholders, should 

be fast and easy to implement, should be low burden to EPA and the reporting 

companies, and should be consistent with TSCA. 

 At this point, EPA is seeking initial reactions to general ideas and has not locked 

into any particular course of action. An approach will be proposed in six months and 

released for comment before the approach will be finalized. The current thinking is that 

the public version of the Inventory will be posted online with CAS or accession numbers 

and chemical names. Generic names can be used when the chemical name is 

confidential. Companies would have a period of time to certify via a secure website that 

they had manufactured a chemical listed on the inventory within a past time period (three 

years is the current suggested period). The interface will be very simple. At the end of 

the certification period, EPA will process the certifications and produce a new online 

6
reset TSCA inventory, containing only chemicals that have been certified by one or more 

companies. There would be a limited time period for corrections. After the reset, PMN 

or other TSCA section 5 notice will be required prior to manufacture of any non-exempt 

chemical substance after it had been removed from the inventory. 

 The reset will be coordinated with the IUR reporting period, June through 

September of 2011, since having the reset inventory online would alleviate chemical 

identification problems and allow us to get the IUR data out to the public faster. We 

would like comment on how far in advance of the IUR reporting deadline we should 

implement the reset program and how we can make this less burdensome for companies. 

Subsequent resets can be timed to occur in conjunction with IUR reporting. The reset 

may lead to increased requests for correct CA index names, CASRNs, and TSCA 

Accession Numbers, especially when companies cannot find their chemicals in the 

inventory. EPA will have to accommodate the increase in inquiries and Notices of Bona 

Fide Intent to Manufacture. 

 EPA has looked at alternative approaches to the reset and is asking for comment 

on those approaches. Under TSCA section 8(a), EPA could issue a reporting rule to 

require manufacturers to report all chemicals manufactured during a specified time 

period. However, this approach would be more burdensome and would create an 

incomplete dataset due to small business exemptions. 

Rather than removing chemicals from the inventory, EPA could maintain a list of 

active and inactive chemical substances or issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for 

all or some inactive chemical substances. However, that approach might be more 

burdensome than the current plan. 

EPA is seeking comment on alternatives to the manufacturer certifying chemicals 

manufactured in a past period, such as certifying intended future manufacture. EPA also 

is seeking comment on what procedures to follow in allowing corrections during a 

limited time period for errors inadvertently introduced during the reset, if such a 

correction cycle should be provided. Since EPA is required to “compile, keep current, 

and publish a list on each chemical substance which is manufactured or processed in the 

United States,” EPA is asking for comment on how it should address chemicals that are 

processed in the US but not manufactured here. 

 

DISCUSSION ON THE INVENTORY RESET 

Mr. Auer opened the floor for questions and comments. Tom Johnston of McKenna, 

Long & Aldridge asked about the section of the inventory for inactive chemicals and 

whether a special category could be made for chemicals that are not of concern, which 

would expedite resurrecting those chemicals. Mr. Willis said the thought had been 

discussed and EPA invites comment on that. Mr. Auer said there are several ways the 

inactive list could work. 

Ted Thiagarajan of MBC of Malaysia asked how foreign manufacturers could 

get involved. Mr. Moss said a domestic representative or agent would be needed to 

supply the Pre-manufacture Notification. Mr. Auer said foreign manufacturers often 

work with the importing entity. EPA's current goal is to make it easy for foreign 

manufacturers by using approaches consistent with those already in use. Dirk Bouma of 

the BMT Reach program followed up on the question of representatives for foreign 

7
companies. Mr. Auer said the issue had not been fully considered. The approach EPA 

develops will ensure that foreign companies are not disadvantaged and that any chemicals 

imported into the U.S. during the reporting period will be accurately reflected on the 

inventory. 

Mark Duvall from Beveridge and Diamond asked about documentation 

requirements to back up the certification of manufacturers during the reporting. He also 

asked about the need for maintenance of proof of manufacture for the original inventory 

reporting period. Mr. Willis said EPA had assumed that companies would maintain 

records that would verify manufacture in the regular course of business and had not 

thought about prescribing specific record maintenance. As for records from the original 

inventory, Mr. Willis said he could see instances in which maintaining the records can be 

useful, such as to document that a correction to the Inventory may be needed to add a 

chemical that should have been included by EPA in the initial Inventory. 

Herb Estreicher of Keller & Heckman suggested carving out categories of 

substances that are exempt from IUR, such as polymers and biochemicals. Mr. Willis

said that should be considered and comment on it would be welcome. Mr. Estreicher

said there should be a way for a foreign manufacturer to provide chemical composition 

information directly to EPA without disclosing it to the customer. 

Pam Buster read questions from the webinar audience. The first question was 

whether, for MPVs, hazard-based prioritizations would be listed publicly. Mr. Auer said 

they would. The second question was whether industry would have an opportunity to 

contribute in-house safety data. Mr. Auer said the opportunities are available. The third 

comment from the webinar audience was that, due to the multiple errors in the initial 

inventory compilation, the reset should provide at least two correction periods for data 

erroneously submitted or erroneously processed. Mr. Auer said the goal is to develop a 

process that will be simple but adequate. Correction is important, but the correction 

process cannot be open-ended. Discussion on this issue will be important. Mr. Willis

said the current inventory has gone through multiple correction cycles, and it will be the 

starting point for the reset. That should reduce errors. 

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT 

Mr. Auer opened the general discussion. Larry Culleen commented that he hadn't 

heard any discussion on the timing and that there are several activities that are underway 

that have to be worked into the reset. He suggested considering mechanisms for dealing 

with issues that are similar in nature. He said that it is not clear how phosphors and other 

products that are subject to some discussion will fit in. Mr. Willis agreed that EPA will 

have to deal with a number of inventory corrections and related issues so guidance will 

be clear when the reset begins. The initial thinking on timing had been to have the reset 

inventory available for the IUR reporting period, which would mean rolling the program 

out at the end of 2009 to give the companies time to see what is on the inventory and 

make any necessary corrections. The last minute for rollout would be near the start of 

IUR reporting. EPA seeks guidance on whether to shoot for the beginning of the year for 

which the IUR data will be compiled, 2010, or to synchronize with the IUR reporting 

period in 2011. 

8
Nelson Lawson spoke for the Pine Chemicals Association. The association’s members 

have hundreds of products on the TSCA inventory, mostly resins and polymers, and a 

history of positive interactions with EPA. The association supports the goal of cleaning 

up the inventory but is concerned about the time requirements. 

 The slowing economy and industry consolidation have led to reductions in 

regulatory staff at the same time as the companies are dealing with REACH, and the 

addition of another program at this time will be burdensome unless it is managed 

efficiently. The association supports the simple online certification process. 

The association would prefer a past time limit of five years to three years, since 

demand for some specialty products fluctuates. The association would like to see the 

ability to certify a chemical that is expected to become active in the next 12 months and 

retain it on the active inventory list. The flagging could be worked into the online 

process, and the product could be automatically moved to the inactive list if EPA does 

not receive a notice of commencement within 12 months. He said the active and inactive 

lists should be available online so they can be scanned for errors, and corrections should 

be filed online. The correction period should not take more than three to six months. 

 It is important to develop a quick and cost-effective way of getting chemicals 

from the inactive list to the active list. He suggested that there be two inactive lists, a 

fully inactive list for chemicals that would require the full PMN process for reactivation 

and a partially inactive list for a more expedited reactivation process, which would 

require only a notice of commencement bona fide and intent to manufacture. Companies 

that have already gone through the PMN process and paid fees should not have to do so a 

second time. He further suggested that the online flagging process allow submitters to 

point out multiple entries for the same substance for any potential future inventory 

consolidation or combining of IUR reporting volumes. 

Bob Freerksen from DuPont said the proposed timeline underestimates the burden to 

industry. The IUR requirements and the reset requirements are not necessarily parallel. 

Polymers would have to be identified, and there is no volume threshold. The information 

systems that industry currently has in place for the IUR may not be sufficient for the 

reset. He added that the upcoming IUR will have an increased requirement for collecting 

new information on inorganic chemicals. There are also rumors of further changes to the 

reporting requirements. The current timeline has all these burdens on industry at the 

same time, and EPA's staff will already be busy with the increase in inquiries from 

industry. 

 He also expressed concerned about the effect the timing will have on DuPont's 

suppliers. Many of them are small companies that will have to gear up for the reset. It 

will take time for DuPont to make sure the suppliers have certified their products. He 

said he saw the benefits of timing the reset with the IUR but that the reasons did not 

outweigh the increased burden. He agreed that processors should be allowed to certify, 

that it is consistent with the language of the statute, and would help processors avoid 

disruptions in their supply chain. 

 

Bill Herz, Vice President of Scientific Programs for the Fertilizer Institute, said that 

brokers and traders have an increased role in commodity chemicals. Manufacturing 

entities meet 95 to 97 percent of the cost and logistical burden of meeting regulatory 

9
requirements. He requested that EPA look into how the burden of the IHPV challenge 

and other enhancements to TSCA could be more equitably shared in order to level the 

playing field. Mr. Auer agreed that everyone involved in introducing materials into 

commerce should contribute to developing the information. EPA tried to do that with the 

original HPV challenge. He asked Mr. Herz to submit written comments on the issue. 

 

Mark Duvall from Beveridge and Diamond suggested excluding polymers from the reset 

inventory, since the EINEC and the USEPA’s IUR do not currently include them. He 

said that excluding polymers from the TSCA Inventory would be a marked policy shift 

and would decrease the burden on industry and EPA. Mr. Auer said the scope of data 

collection is not under consideration. The goal is to get an understanding of the 

chemicals manufactured or processed in the US, and that includes polymers. Polymer 

manufacturers would certify that the polymers were manufactured, imported, or 

processed within the reporting period. Chemicals produced at a rate under 25,000 pounds 

per year are not currently subject to the industry update rule, but the information will still 

be needed to meet the goal. He asked for suggestions on how to do it in an efficient 

manner that protects everyone’s interests. 

 

Jim Cooper said NPRA appreciated the goals of the reset and that industry would benefit 

from an accurate reflection of the chemicals in commerce. He said that, for the sake of 

feasibility, separate issues must be kept separate, and the reset cannot be confused with 

longstanding nomenclature issues. He said that he supported certification for the past 

five years rather than three, since demand does fluctuate. He suggested that chemicals 

that have already been reviewed could be cleared more quickly if EPA were to ask if 

there had been changes in the manufacturing processes or use activity scenarios, since 

that would be the only reason for further scrutiny. Mark Grenda from Afton Chemical 

argued that the nomenclature issues have to be corrected. Nomenclature corrections on 

nonyphenol have been trickling in since the 1980s. Corrections were much more 

effective for diisocyanates in the 1990s, when the correction procedure was simplified. 

He said the nomenclature issue should be addressed by a simplified procedure for 

corrections. Mr. Auer agreed but added that nomenclature is often not a simple issue. 

 

Russ White from the American Petroleum Institute highlighted issues from his written 

comments, focusing on the reset, IHPVs, and overall ChAMP implementation. On the 

reset, he encouraged EPA to design a program that minimizes burden to industry and 

EPA as well as disruptions to the marketplace. Because HPV and MPV chemicals are 

already being prioritized, the reset’s benefits will be small. However, the confusion and 

burden caused by the reset could be high. He said the reset is of a lower priority than 

other ChAMP components and that slowing the reset timeline would result in a better 

process and less burden. 

He asked that EPA publish the list of chemicals to be removed from the inventory 

in the Federal Register and suggested that EPA provide a period of time during which 

substances can be reinstated without penalty and without going through the PMN 

process. The time period should encompass at least one IUR reporting period, which 

should be a five-year period. He added that any reset efforts should include an exemption 

10
11

for the petroleum process streams listed under 40 CFR 710, since they are known to be in 

commerce and none are obsolete. 

 Regarding IHPVs, he asked for a list of the affected chemicals, which would help 

stakeholders understand the scope and implications of the program. He added that 

inorganics were characterized under the OECD HPV program, and full use should be 

made of that data before proceeding with further data collection or testing. He supported 

clustering and asked that EPA provide the regulated community with ample notice of the 

Fall 2009 meeting where the cluster approach would be discussed. 

 On ChAMP implementation, he encouraged EPA to include more transparency 

and clarity in the program to assess and assign risk-based priorities for HPVs and MPVs. 

To accomplish this, he urged EPA to share information on the document-drafting 

methodology. Information has been issued on characterization and risk-based 

prioritization, but he was interested in knowing about the methodology. He asked that 

EPA produce a list of current MPVs and HPVs. He also asked that EPA publish and give 

notice of the groups and chemicals that will be assessed similar to the batch notices 

provided under Canada's chemical management program. Finally, he said EPA and 

industry would greatly benefit from the planned user-friendly online repository or docket 

for each chemical, since it would improve transparency and increase site usage. He 

referred EPA to his written comments for greater detail. Mr. Auer said EPA is nearing 

the first release of the 2006 IUR data, non-CBI database. He said the public should have 

the information, and he thanked Mr. White for his comments. 

 

ADJOURNMENT 

Mr. Auer called for further comments. Hearing none, he thanked the public for its 

participation and said OPPT looks forward to working with the public as these projects 

go forward. He adjourned the meeting at 3:07 p.m.