EPA Updates Safer Chemicals Ingredients List

/in , ,

On September 23, 2023, EPA announced that it is adding 10 chemicals to the Safer Chemicals Ingredients List (SCIL), a list of chemicals which have been reviewed by EPA’s Safer Choice Program and meet its Safer Choice Criteria.  The chemicals on the list are considered to be among the safest chemicals for their functional use class (such as surfactants, solvents, or chelating agents), allowing manufacturers to choose the safest available chemicals for each type of ingredient in a product.

Manufacturers can apply to have chemicals added to the SCIL.  During the application process, a third-party profiles the substance and the Safer Choice Program assesses whether it meets Safer Choice criteria, which includes toxicity and fate standards.  Products containing chemicals that meet Safer Choice criteria may be eligible to enter into partnership with the program, which grants use of a Safer Choice product label.

According to EPA, the updated SCIL includes 1,071 substances.  The 10 chemicals added to the list in September 2023 are shown below.

List Name CAS Registry Number Functional Use Class
Fats and Glyceridic oils, vegetable, hydrogenated 68334-28-1 Emollients
Tocopherols 1406-66-2 Preservatives and Antioxidants
Sulfuric acid, dimethyl ester, compd. with .alpha.,.alpha.’,.alpha.”,.alpha.”’-[1,6-hexanediylbis(nitrilodi-2,1-ethanediyl)]tetrakis[.omega.-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] 247074-09-5 Polymers
Glycolipids, sophorose-contg., Candida bombicola-fermented, from D-glucose and mahua Madhuca longifolia fats and glyceridic oils 1573124-58-9 Surfactants
1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,4-dimethyl ester, polymer with 1,2-ethanediol, .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) and 1,2-propanediol, ester with .alpha.-methyl-.omega.-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) 152442-40-5 Polymers
Dodecanoic acid, ester with 1,2-propanediol 37321-62-3 Solvents
Diisopropyl succinate 924-88-9 Solvents
Diisopropyl sebacate 7491-02-3 Solvents
Methyl propanediol 2163-42-0 Solvents
Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 Solvents

DOJ Files Lawsuit Against eBay for Environmental Violations

/in , , , ,

On behalf of EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the online retailer eBay for selling and distributing “hundreds of thousands of products” that allegedly violate the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

DOJ first alleges that eBay violated the CAA by selling or causing the sale of over 343,000 automotive aftermarket defeat devices.  These devices, which are often advertised as vehicle power enhancers, “can cause motor vehicles to emit hundreds to thousands of times more pollution than a motor vehicle with properly functioning emission controls,” the complaint says.  DOJ alleges that each aftermarket defeat device sold, offered for sale, or caused to sell by eBay constitutes a violation of CAA section 203(a)(3)(B), which forbids selling or offering to sell a motor vehicle part that bypasses an emission-related element of design.

Second, the complaint alleges that eBay committed a series of FIFRA violations by selling or distributing a minimum of 23,000 unregistered, misbranded, or restricted use pesticide products.  DOJ also alleges 8,074 violations of a Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order (SSURO) issued by EPA in 2020 (and amended in 2021), which identified some of these allegedly unlawful pesticide products.  Among the products sold in alleged violation of the SSURO was an insecticide containing dichlorvos, which DOJ characterizes as highly dangerous, and a “disinfection card” claiming to protect users from COVID-19 when worn around their neck.

Finally, eBay is being sued under TSCA for violating a 2019 rule prohibiting the manufacture, processing, and distribution of products containing methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal.  The TSCA section 6(a) rule was the result of EPA’s determination that those uses pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health due to methylene chloride’s acute human lethality.  According to the complaint, eBay has distributed over 5,600 items in violation of the rule.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to prevent eBay from further selling products violating the CAA, FIFRA, and TSCA.  The complaint additionally requests civil penalties for each of the CAA violations, which could amount to $5,580 per violation.

Environmental Groups Call on FDA to Revoke Approval of Fluorinated Plastic for Food Contact

/in , ,

A coalition of environmental and health groups led by the Environmental Defense Fund have petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revoke approval of fluorinated polyethylene as an indirect food additive.  According to the petition, manufacture of fluorinated polyethylene produces PFAS, including harmful perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids if water or oxygen is present.

FDA approved fluorinated polyethylene as an indirect food additive—a substance that comes into contact with food, but is not intended to be added directly to food—in 1983.  Since then, according to the petition, the dangers of even minimal exposures to PFAS have become clear, and studies have demonstrated that fluorinated polyethylene results in PFAS migration into food.

The petitioners argue that the substance can no longer be considered “safe” as defined at 21 CFR 170.3(i), which requires “reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the conditions of its intended use.”  The Agency must consider the following factors when determining whether this safety standard is met:

  • The probable consumption of the substance and any substance formed in or on food because of its use.
  • The cumulative effect of the substance in the diet, taking into account any chemically or pharmacologically related substance or substances in the diet.
  • Safety factors which, in the opinion of experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of food ingredients, are generally recognized as appropriate.

The petitioners also claim that revoking approval for fluorinated polyethylene is the logical consequence of a previous FDA statement on the substance.  In a 2021 public letter to manufacturers, distributors, and users of fluorinated polyethylene food contact articles, the Agency stated that its regulations “[do] not authorize fluorination of polyethylene containers in the presence of water, oxygen, or gases other than nitrogen.”  The petition, however, alleges that all nitrogen gas contains water and oxygen as impurities.  “If FDA is serious about its claim that no oxygen or water may be present in the nitrogen gas, then the agency has effectively determined that the 1983 approval should be revoked,” the petitioners state.

The petition comes after a July 2022 FDA request for information on food contact uses of fluorinated polyethylene due to PFAS concerns.

DOD and FAA Approve Use of a PFAS-Free Fire Suppressant

/in , ,

This September, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced the approval of the first PFAS-free foam for firefighting activities at military installations.  The approval is an important step in phasing out the use of PFAS-containing aqueous film forming foams (AFFFs), which are used to extinguish liquid fires.

The day after the foam received DOD approval, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notified airports that they could use it.  FAA is not currently requiring exclusive use of the PFAS-free foam, however.

The transition away from PFAS-containing foams is required by section 322 of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.  Among other deadlines, the act prohibits DOD from purchasing fire-fighting foams containing more than 1 part per billion PFAS beginning October 1, 2023.

DOD issued a performance specification for PFAS-free (also known as fluorine-free) foams in January of this year.  According to DOD’s announcement, several other fluorine-free foams are currently being tested for conformance with the specifications.

 

 

EPA Sued Over Delayed Risk Evaluations

/in , , ,

Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against EPA for failing to complete risk evaluations for 22 substances that may cause harm to humans and the environment.

Under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is required to conduct risk evaluations on “high priority” existing substances to determine whether they pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.  Section 6(b)(4)(G) requires EPA to complete risk evaluations “as soon as practicable, but not later than 3 years after” they are initiated, with a one-time six-month extension possible.

According to the complaint, EPA missed this statutory 3.5-year deadline for 22 ongoing risk evaluations which were initiated in 2019 and early 2020.  Plaintiffs allege that this delay harms their members, staff, and children by prolonging their exposure to substances with serious health risks and by depriving them of information about their exposures.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia set deadlines for EPA to complete the risk evaluations.

The case is Community In-Power and Development Association v. EPA, No. 1:23‑cv‑02715-DLF.

Environmental Group Petitions for Review of EPA’s New Confidential Business Information Rule

/in , ,

On June 29, 2023, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a non-profit organization, filed a petition in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting a review of EPA’s recently finalized rule Confidential Business Information Claims Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (88 FR 37155).  As described in a previous Verdant Law blog post, the final rule implements new requirements for the assertion and treatment of TSCA confidential business information (CBI) claims in light of the Lautenberg Amendments to TSCA.

In a non-binding statement of issues filed August 21, EDF listed the following as preliminary issues to be raised in the petition: whether the final rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law because…

  1. It would allow submitters to assert CBI claims to shield the information from the public that TSCA makes categorically ineligible for CBI protection;
  2. It would not require substantiation or EPA review of a CBI claim that was asserted before a chemical’s commercialization for specific chemical identity once the chemical is commercialized;
  3. It unlawfully adopts a regulatory definition of “health and safety study” that is narrower than the TSCA definition, denying TSCA-mandated public access to important information on chemicals;
  4. The Agency purports to give itself unlawfully broad discretion through its regulations where TSCA imposes a duty upon the Agency; or because
  5. It reduces the transparency previously required under EPA’s CBI review procedures without adequate justification.

Briefs have not yet been filed, and EDF did not file a memorandum detailing its positions, so no additional information on EDF’s positions is currently available.

EPA Launches New Interface for the Chemicals and Products Database

/in ,

EPA has released a beta version of ChemExpo, a free, publicly available web application that allows users to explore and visualize data on how chemicals are used in commerce.

ChemExpo will serve as a user-friendly interface for EPA’s Chemicals and Products Database (CPDat).  According to EPA, CPDat maps “more than 49,000 chemicals to a set of terms categorizing their usage or function in 16,000 consumer product types (e.g., shampoo, soap) based on what chemicals they contain.”  EPA characterizes this data, which is curated from public documents, as addressing important gaps in the exposure information needed to evaluate chemicals’ safety under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The ChemExpo team welcomes comments and feedback on the beta, particularly regarding functionality and usability.

Better Business Bureau Challenge Results in Clarifying Disclosure in Antimicrobial Toilet Seat Advertising

/in , ,

Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs develops self-regulatory industry programs and resolves disputes on issues including advertising and privacy.  According to BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (NAD) case decisions “represent the single largest body of advertising law in the country.”

A recent NAD case concerned antimicrobial claims made by Ginsey Industries, Inc. (“Ginsey”) on its Clorox-branded toilet seats.  Bemis Manufacturing Company challenged elements of these claims (though not the product’s antimicrobial efficacy).  During the challenge, Ginsey voluntarily committed to add a disclosure acknowledging that the product does not protect uses against bacteria and remove an “antimicrobial checkmark image inside the Clorox chevron logo.”

NAD additionally recommended that Ginsey modify its website to display the disclosure statement more conspicuously and work with retailers to do the same with their websites.  In response, the company stated that while it disagrees that “further modifications to its online product listings are necessary to protect consumers,” it would comply with NAD’s decision.

EPA Faces Lawsuit for Classifying Water Filtration System as a Pesticide Product

/in , ,

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will be tasked with determining whether EPA’s Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) enforcement actions against Berkey, a water filters brand, were arbitrary and capricious in the case Shepherd v. Regan.  The case concerns seven Stop Sale, Use and Removal Orders (SSUROs) issued by EPA against third-party distributors and manufacturers of Berkey water filtration products due to their alleged use of silver as an unregistered antimicrobial pesticide.

The complaint does not deny the presence of silver in Berkey products.  However, the plaintiffs say that they are unaware of any instances where a Berkey-authorized entity claimed that the silver in their products was “used for any purpose other than to protect the filter itself.”  This is significant because articles treated with a FIFRA-registered pesticide for the purpose of protecting the article are exempt from FIFRA under the treated articles exemption at 40 CFR 152.25.

The plaintiffs argue that the orders were the result of an unlawful reinterpretation of a 2007 notice, which clarified EPA’s position that equipment that uses electrodes to emit ions for pesticidal purposes is a “pesticide,” rather than a “device,” under FIFRA.  The complaint alleges that EPA reinterpreted this notice without opportunity for public comment to “now apply to the presence of inert silver in water filters.”

In its response, EPA argues that the plaintiffs—which do not represent Berkey itself—lack standing.  The Agency also characterizes the 2007 notice referenced in the complaint as a “straw man” with no bearing on the case.  EPA does not believe there is any ambiguity regarding the distinction between “pesticides” and “devices,” arguing that EPA has excluded water filters containing pesticidal substances from its interpretation of “devices” since 1975.

EPA focuses on claims made by the SSURO recipients, which allegedly advertised that Berkey filters removed viruses and pathogenic bacteria.  The Agency has long held that such public health claims make a product ineligible for the treated article exemption, EPA says.  Combined with knowledge of the presence of silver in the products, and no pesticide registration, EPA argues that it had “reason to believe” (the requirement for issuance of an SSURO) that the substances were sold in violation of FIFRA.

Canada Bans Many Single-Use Plastics

/in ,

Canada has enacted the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations, SOR/2022-138, prohibiting the manufacture, import, export, and sale of many single-use plastics (SUPs).  The ban will cover the following six types of SUPs by the end of 2025:

  • Checkout bags;
  • Cutlery;
  • Foodservice ware containing expanded polystyrene foam, extruded polystyrene foam (commonly known by the trademark Styrofoam), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), carbon black, or an oxo-degradable plastic;
  • Ring carriers (defined as plastic items “formed in the shape of a series of deformable rings or bands that are designed to surround beverage containers in order to carry them together”);
  • Stir sticks; and
  • Straws.

For ring carriers, the prohibition on manufacture and import takes effect on June 20, 2023, and sale will be prohibited on June 20, 2024.  Manufacture and import of the other five types of SUPs will be prohibited on December 20, 2023, and sale of these items will be prohibited on December 20, 2023.

All six types of SUPs are subject to a temporary exemption for manufacture, import, and sale for the purpose of export; this exemption will be repealed on December 20, 2025.  In the meantime, the regulations institute recordkeeping requirements for persons who manufacture or import SUPs for the purpose of export.

Flexible SUP straws are not subject to the manufacture and import prohibitions for SUP straws, but alternative provisions apply.  For example, retail stores will only be allowed to sell flexible SUP straws if a customer requests straws and the straws are “not displayed in a manner that permits the customer to view the package without the help of a store employee.”

The regulations are the latest in a series of steps taken by Canada to move away from the use of SUPs.  In 2020, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released a report on the sources, environmental fate, occurrence, and health effects of plastic pollution, which concluded by stating that “action is needed to reduce macroplastics and microplastics that end up in the environment” in accordance with the precautionary principle.  In 2021, manufactured plastic items were added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

More information on the regulations can be found in an ECCC guidance document.