American Coatings Association

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released a document that addresses a series of 18 industry scenarios and questions related to the agency’s new Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The scenarios were originally proposed to EPA by Bergeson and Campbell (B&C) in their efforts to represent broad segments of the regulated community.  EPA has stated that the goal of their document is to help industry comply with the requirements of the CDR rule, however they stress that it is not a substitute for that rule, nor is it a rule itself.  Furthermore, it does not impose legally binding requirements on the regulated community or on EPA.

Despite these wide caveats, the document is useful in understanding the mindset of regulators as they seek to inform on compliance expectations.  The document and other EPA CDR compliance information can be found at http://www.epa.gov/iur/pubs/guidance/aboutsub.html. 

Last August EPA issued the final Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule, previously referred to as the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. It expanded the requirements for reporting data on production volume, use, and exposure for many chemicals widely used in commerce, and makes electronic reporting mandatory. Its purpose is to facilitate the collection of quality screening-level, exposure-related information on chemical substances and to make that information available for use by EPA. The new rule seeks to make, to the extent possible (due to data confidentiality claims), this same information available to the public.  

The new CDR rule is aimed principally at chemical manufacturers and importers subject to the requirements of the TSCA, but will impact paint formulators’ relationships with raw material suppliers seeking information to support their own compliance programs. 

The official reporting period begins Feb. 1, 2012 and runs through June 30, 2012. 

Companies required to participate in reporting for the 2012 CDR rule will need to register and use the Agency-provided electronic reporting tool, eCDRweb, to electronically complete and submit their CDR Form U.  If you have not already registered through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), you are strongly encouraged to do so as soon as possible.  If you have not registered, you must first register with CDX under the new "Submissions for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Programs (CSPP)" to access the eCDRweb tool.  

ACA’s Feb. 15 webinar on compliance with the CDR rule featured Martha Marrapese, Esq and Amanda Price, PhD, both experts from the international law firm Keller and Heckman.  The webinar offered details germane to the mandatory electronic reporting requirements and reviewed critical compliance considerations.  Stressing that CDR reporting is required mainly for chemical manufacturers and importers, and generally does not apply to formulators of paint, who are considered “processors” of chemicals under the rule. 

Where paint companies do face a potential impact from the new CDR has to do with responding to requests from their raw material suppliers for information (to meet supplier reporting obligations).  More and detailed information requests can be expected about formulated uses and potential downstream customer uses and related health, safety, and environmental impacts.  While such requested information may not be available, paint manufacturers will see a more concerted effort to acquire it.  Language in the final CDR regulations, while not specifically mandating a response, hold that processors of chemicals need to fairly consider these supplier requests and support them as information is available.

A more important consideration for paint manufacturers who import raw materials directly is that the import activity requires reporting under the CDR.  While reporting is subject to some limitations and exemptions, for the most part importing brings about the same CDR reporting obligations as actual chemical manufacturing.  ACA members importing raw materials are strongly encouraged to take steps to understand their CDR reporting obligations, and be mindful of the fact that failure to meet the required  compliance deadline of June 30, 2012 carries stiff penalties.

The last, and perhaps most confusing, aspect of the CDR rule is EPA’s interest in receiving information on “by-products” of chemical manufacturing or processing that have commercial value.  While paying to have waste products and off-spec material hauled away for off-site waste management/disposal would appear to not impart “commercial value,” there are certain scenarios that do.  For the paint industry, the off-site transfer of “mis-tints” and other unwanted  paint products to companies seeking to use them “as intended” (for paint) would be valuing them  as “paint” and not as discreet chemicals, thereby avoiding any CDR reporting obligation.  Similarly, spent solvents used in fuels-blending programs would not be valued as discreet chemicals but for a collective attribute (flammability and/or thermal value).  Other manufacturing by-products, and even some wastes, to the extent they are valued and utilized to supply other manufacturers or processors with a discreet chemical, may in fact trigger CDR reporting obligations.  As a result, while paint manufacturers, as processors of chemicals, face little apparent CDR reporting obligations, other commercial practices for waste management and off-spec materials should be carefully scrutinized to be certain they are not a known source of raw material for chemical production.   

EPA expects to continue to provide more details and clarification on the CDR reporting requirements, and ACA will be monitoring developments.  A follow-up webinar on focused paint industry CDR reporting requirements is being planned for the April-May 2012 timeframe and ACA members should plan to participate. 

Contact ACA’s This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it for more information.