TSCA Deadline Caused Manufacturers 'Significant Issues'

Chemical manufacturers in the US have reported difficulties reporting on their chemical use for the TSCA inventory deadline, according to industry associations.

Manufacturers and importers were required to file Notices of Activity (NOAs) by 7 February on their chemical use for the 'inventory reset rule', required under the reformed TSCA.

The data will be used to determine the substances active in commerce, ensure confidential business information (CBI) claims are current and to better focus the chemicals programme under section 6 of TSCA, which provides the EPA with the authority to prohibit or limit the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use or disposal of a chemical.

An EPA spokesperson confirmed the agency received more than 85,000 individual NOAs by the deadline, which he said "represents a significant effort by manufacturers".

He urged chemical manufacturers and importers who missed the deadline to file as soon as possible "so that the agency can accurately designate substances as active or inactive on the TSCA inventory at the close of the full retrospective submission period on 5 October".

Industry problems
Robert Helminiak of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) told Chemical Watch that "a large number" of its member companies had met the deadline. But he added that reporting through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) had presented "a number of difficulties".

Socma member companies experienced "system errors that caused entire submissions to essentially vanish, requiring additional time and effort to resubmit their notices".

He said that coordinating joint submissions with foreign supplier entities had also been "very challenging, since they are likely not familiar with the CDX platform".

"Collecting information in a multi-party supply chain also presents serious difficulties, since submitters who import may not be familiar (or in contact) with additional companies that manufactured or processed a substance and may run into confidentiality issues with ascertaining its particular chemical identity," he said.

Socma's members also said they did not receive enough support from the EPA during the process. Mr Helminiak said that formal guidance promised by the agency was never provided.

Although the EPA ran three informative webinars in Autumn 2017, he said the transcripts of these were published less than a week before the deadline.

Mr Helminiak added that Socma members had raised concerns about how quickly the agency would be able to produce a draft inventory for the remaining processor period.

"If the window between the release of the draft inventory and the close of the processor period is too narrow, there are chances that chemical substances may inaccurately be labelled as inactive," he said.

Jon Corley, a director in the communications department of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said manufacturers and importers had experienced "significant issues" being able to provide notifications for mixtures with CBI protections.

This, he said was because the notifications required participation from at least two parties. "In some cases, a participant was a foreign supplier (or multiple foreign suppliers) with less understanding of the importance of, and how to participate in, the reset process."

He called on the EPA to conduct early outreach to processors, "including hosting webinars and posting questions and answers and other processor-specific guidance as soon as possible after the draft inventory is published".

Processors (downstream users) have until 5 October. They are not required to report, but must do so to avoid having a chemical labelled inactive.

Mr Corley added that the EPA should offer separate, specific training on the CDX platform to processors who may not be familiar with it.