EPA Finalizes TRI PFAS Reporting Rule

/in , , /by

On October 31, EPA published its final rule, Changes to Reporting Requirements for PFAS and to Supplier Notifications for Chemicals of Special Concern which modifies the requirements for TRI reporting. These new requirements take effect November 30, 2023, and will apply for the reporting year beginning January 1, 2024; first reports with these requirements will be due July 1, 2025. The rule puts forth two significant changes to the current reporting requirements.

The first change to the reporting requirements is that all PFAS presently subject to TRI reporting will be added to the TRI list of Chemicals of Special Concern (“COSC List”). In addition, in the future, any PFAS added to the TRI list of toxic chemicals will automatically be added to the COSC list without the Agency having to go through a separate rulemaking process as was previously required. Furthermore, all PFAS on the COSC list will be held to the same reporting standard as all other chemicals on the COSC list. This means that all PFAS will be excluded from the de minimis exemption, which had excused quantities of PFAS present in mixtures at less than 1 percent (0.1 for PFOA) from contributing to reporting thresholds. In addition, facilities will no longer be able to report these substances on Form A (the less extensive of the reporting forms) and will not be able to report quantities using ranges. Under the requirements previously in place, Form A could be used for PFAS reporting if each of the following criteria has been met:

  • The reportable chemical substance is not a PBT.
  • The reportable chemical substance was not manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in excess of 1,000,000 lbs.
  • If the total reportable amount of the chemical substance released did not exceed 500 lbs.

Under the new requirements, no one will be able to report PFAS manufacture, processing, use, and releases on Form A. However, Form A can still be used to meet the reporting requirements for PFAS during the 2023 reporting year; beginning in 2024, PFAS will need to be reported using the more extensive Form R.

The second change to the TRI reporting requirements eliminates the de minimis exemption under the supplier notification requirements for all COSC, including PFAS. This change also goes into effect for the 2024 reporting year. The de minimis exemption for supplier notification meant that raw material suppliers were not required to notify their customers of the presence of PFAS in mixtures below specific concentrations (1 percent for non-carcinogens and 0.1 percent for carcinogens or, in the present case, 1 percent for PFAS and 0.1 percent for PFOA). Eliminating the de minimis exemption for reporting will add notification requirements on suppliers of products containing COSC and include such information on their SDSs. Consequentially, facilities will have more information about their processing, use, and/or release of PFAS, and downstream manufacturers will likely have more information to report to EPA for TRI.

EPA Finalizes TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for PFAS

/in , , /by

EPA has finalized its Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (“PFAS”) rule. The rule offers none of the customary TSCA reporting exemptions, such as the di minimus threshold exemption, article exemption, and research and development exemption. Although industry members voiced significant concerns over the proposed rule, the scope of the rule remains expansive. A summary of the final rule is detailed below.

Who does the final rule apply to?

40 CFR § 705.10 identifies the entities that are covered under the rule. The rule, which Congress mandated through the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act, applies to all entities that have manufactured and/or imported a PFAS for commercial purposes, including those present in a mixture and in an article since January 1, 2011. Those who have only processed, distributed in commerce, used, and/or disposed of PFAS are not subject to this rule.

Which PFAS must be reported under the final rule?

EPA has identified PFAS subject to the rule by a structural definition rather than a list of substance identities (40 CFR § 705.5). However, EPA will provide a public list of substances that meet this definition on its CompTox Chemical Dashboard. The definition of PFAS using a structural definition is as follows:

  • R-(CF2)-CF(R’)R’’, where both the CF2 and CF moieties are saturated carbons;
  • R-CF2OCF2-R’, where R and R’ can either be F, O, or saturated carbons; and
  • CF3C(CF3)R’R’’, where R’ and R’’ can either be F or saturated carbons.

This differs from the proposed rule, which defined PFAS as “a substance that includes the following structure: R-(CF2)–C(F)(R′)R″, in which both the CF2 and CF moieties are saturated carbons and none of the R groups (R, R′ or R″) can be hydrogen.”

Reporting threshold

There is no reporting threshold or de minimis level for PFAS reporting. The traditional TSCA reporting exemptions, such as byproducts and impurities, and low volume exemptions, are not being upheld under this rule and require reporting.

Reporting standard

40 CFR § 705.15 states that the reporting standard that applies to this rule is information “known or reasonably ascertainable” by the manufacturer. This means “all information in a person’s possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know” (See 40 CFR 704.3). Under this standard, the manufacturer must evaluate not only their current level of knowledge regarding substances that are manufactured or imported, including those in articles, but also any additional information that a reasonable person, similarly situated, would be expected to know, possess, or control.

To obtain the necessary information for reporting, EPA expects the manufacturer/importer to conduct a reasonable inquiry into their own organization and potentially make inquiries outside the organization. According to the Agency, this may require “phone calls or email inquiries to upstream suppliers or downstream users or employers or other agents of the manufacturer, including persons involved in the research and development, import or production, or marketing of the PFAS.”

If data is unknown or not reasonably ascertainable, the submitter should, if possible, submit reasonable estimates. If manufacturers or importers need additional information for reporting, but suppliers are unwilling to provide that information, they can send a request for information through EPA’s reporting tool.

What information must be reported?

The scope of information required is vast. Data elements are detailed at 40 CFR §705.15 and include:

  • Chemical-specific information for all PFAS manufactured each year since January 1, 2011, including PFAS incorporated in mixtures.
  • Categories of use, including information on the sector, industrial processing, commercial and consumer use, and product categories.
  • Concentrations of each PFAS used in consumer and commercial products.
  • Manufactured amounts.
  • Byproduct identification.
  • Environmental and health effects data – which must be submitted according to OECD Harmonized Templates for Reporting Chemical Test Summaries.
  • Worker exposure data.
  • Disposal data.

Reporting on PFAS in Articles

Articles importers are subject to the reporting rule. The fact that there is no de minimis concentration threshold makes the scope of this mandate expansive. Because the known and reasonably ascertainable standard applies to this rule, importers must go beyond simply reviewing the SDSs for the imported articles. To demonstrate compliance with the rule, importers will need to survey their suppliers about the presence of PFAS in all of the articles they have imported since January 1, 2011. However, the rule does not mandate any product testing for article importers.

The rule does exempt some data elements from reporting for PFAS imported in articles, such as byproduct identification, worker exposure data, and disposal data.

R&D exemptions to the reporting requirements

Manufacturers and importers of R&D PFAS substances are subject to the reporting rule.  The reporting requirements are reduced where volumes are below 10 kilograms annually.

Electronic reporting

All information must be submitted electronically through CDX (see 40 CFR § 705.35). A new tool, the Chemical Information Submission System (“CISS”), will be added to the CDX module “Submission for Chemical Safety and Pesticide Program” (“CSPP”). Reporting will be submitted through the CISS, which the Agency is currently developing, and will be live prior to the opening of the reporting period.

CBI claims

PFAS manufacturers reporting under this rule may claim CBI consistent with TSCA section 14, but they must make the CBI claim with their submission for this rule. CBI claims submitted for other reporting requirements will not be considered. See 40 CFR § 705.30 for details.

Reporting timeline

Manufacturers and importers will have one year from the effective date of this rule, November 13, 2023, to collect the data necessary for reporting and an additional six months to submit their reports; reports will be due May 13, 2023. Small manufacturers (as defined in 40 CFR 704.3) will have an additional six months to report, making their reporting deadline November 13, 2024.

Recordkeeping requirements

Manufacturers and importers subject to this rule must maintain records of all documents and information reported to EPA for five years, beginning on the last day of the information submission period.

CPSC Publishes Request for Information Regarding PFAS in Consumer Products

/in , /by

On September 20, 2023, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published a request for information (RFI) in the Federal Register for information on PFAS in consumer products. The RFI requests information from all stakeholders, including “consumers, manufacturers and importers, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and researchers.”

The requested information falls into three categories:

  1. Use or potential use of PFAS in consumer products, including information about the definition of PFAS, identification of specific PFAS potentially used or present in consumer products, and information about which PFAS or consumer products CPSC should prioritize in future assessments, among other information;
  2. Potential human exposures to PFAS associated with consumer products use, including information about the potential for exposure and risk from the presence of PFAS in consumer products, among other information; and
  3. Potential adverse human health effects informed by toxicological data, including reports that could inform whether individual PFAS or categories of PFAS have the potential for adverse human health effects, and information on additional data sources that CPSC should consider.

The Federal Register notice also announced the availability of a contract report that CPSC commissioned to characterize the use of PFAS in consumer products, identify PFAS regulations and restrictions, and summarize recent hazard, exposure, and risk assessments on PFAS. The contract report ultimately identified 863 PFAS with reported use or detection in consumer products. The RFI instructs reporting entities to consider information already available to CPSC in the contract report when reporting information.

CPSC does not explicitly state what it plans to do with the collected data in the RFI but states that the contract report “identif[ies] possible next steps.” The next steps identified by the contract report include research (such as developing a consensus on the definition of PFAS), new regulations, and consumer awareness.

The RFI comes after Minnesota, Maine, and other states passed regulations limiting the use of PFAS in consumer products. CPSC will accept the requested information through November 20, 2023.

PFAS Class Action Brought Against Sports Drink Company

/in /by

A consumer class action lawsuit has been filed against Biosteel Sports Nutrition, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the company’s BioSteel Blue Raspberry flavored sports drink contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). Defendant’s products are marketed as healthy sports drinks, using language such as “clean, quality ingredients,” “designed with sustainability in mind,” “no artificial flavors/colors,” and “good for you and the environment.” The product packaging additionally claims that the product is “highly regarded for its premium ingredients and zero sugar formula.”

Plaintiffs claim that based on this language, they believed the product to be a healthy sports drink, but the presence of PFAS directly contradicts Biosteel Sports Nutrition’s marketing claims. The suit alleges violations of the New York General Business Law § 349, et seq., which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in business, violations of New York General Business Law § 350, et seq. prohibiting false advertising, breach of express warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment.

On August 4, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff’s testing of its product was insufficient to demonstrate that PFAS substances are present in its products. The motion claims the testing allegations are “devoid of any details regarding the methodology or sample used.” Additionally, according to Biosteel Sports Nutrition, this information was not within the complaint or the amended complaint.

EPA Requests Information on Addressing PFAS in the Environment for the Superfund Program

/in , , /by

EPA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking, Addressing PFAS in the Environment, asking for public input, which the Agency will use to develop future per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Agency asked for information on the potential future hazardous substance designation of a number of PFAS, categories of PFAS, and several PFAS precursors.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Future Hazardous Substance Designation of Seven PFAS

EPA had previously proposed designating PFOA and PFOS and their salts and structural isomers as hazardous substances under CERLA. The present notice requested feedback as to whether the agency should initiate action designating an additional seven PFAS and their salts and structural isomers or a subset thereof as CERCLA hazardous substances as well. The seven PFAS being considered for designation are:

  • Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), CASRN 375–73–5
  • Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), CASRN 355–46–4
  • Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), CASRN 375–95–1
  • Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO–DA), CASRN 13252–13–6
  • Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) CASRN 375–22–4
  • Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) CASRN 307–24–4
  • Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) CASRN 335–76–2

EPA asked interested parties to submit information on whether any of these compounds may present substantial danger to public health or welfare or the environment. Such information could include data on mobility, persistence, and prevalence.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Future Hazardous Substance Designation of Precursors to PFOA, PFOS, and PFAS

The Agency is also considering initiating action that would designate certain PFAS precursors as hazardous substances under CERCLA. To make this determination, EPA requested information to help the Agency identify compounds that degrade to these PFAS through environmental processes such as biodegradation and hydrolysis.

Request for Public Input Regarding Potential Designation, or Designations, of Categories of PFAS as Hazardous Substances

Additionally, EPA is considering initiating action that would designate groups or categories of PFAS as CERCLA hazardous substances. These groups or categories would be based on characteristics that determine risk to human health and the environment, such as chemical structure, physical and chemical properties, mode of toxicological action, and precursors or degradants. To inform its decision-making, the Agency solicited the following information:

  • Published scientific literature that can inform whether categories of PFAS could or could not be designated as hazardous substances. This could include findings on the similarities or differences of a specific characteristic among PFAS. Also useful would be data on the relationship between different characteristics, such as the relationship between chemical structure and specific chemical, physical, or toxicological properties.
  • Other information that could inform EPA’s determination of whether to designate one or more categories of PFAS as hazardous substances.
  • Information that would contribute to economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits, including impacts on small entities, associated with a potential rulemaking designating categories of PFAS as hazardous substances. (Although CERCLA section 102(a) precludes EPA from taking cost into account in the designation of a hazardous substance, the Agency is requesting this information to help the Agency understand the potential costs and benefits associated with any potential future regulatory action.)

The deadline for submitting comments was extended from June 12 to August 11, 2023, during which period over 600 comments were submitted. The comments can be reviewed here.

Minnesota Passes Legislation Requiring Reporting on Intentionally Added PFAS

/in /by

This June, Minnesota became the latest state to pass legislation that will require manufacturers to report intentionally added PFAS in consumer products. It also bans intentionally added PFAS in certain product categories. The legislation will require manufacturers with intentionally added PFAS in consumer products to report the following information to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”):

  • A brief description of the product, including a universal product code (UPC), stock-keeping unit (SKU), or other numeric code assigned to the product.
  • The purpose for which PFAS are used in the product, including in any product components.
  • The amount of each PFAS, identified by its Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN), in the product, reported as an exact quantity determined using commercially available analytical methods or as falling within a range approved for reporting purposes by MPCA.
  • The name and address of the manufacturer and the name, address, and phone number of a contact person for the manufacturer.
  • Any additional information requested by the commissioner as necessary.

Manufacturers will need to submit this information to MPCA on or before January 1, 2026. Furthermore, manufacturers must then receive approval from the Agency before they can sell, offer for sale, or distribute products at issue for sale within the state.

If MPCA does not receive this information and believes a product contains intentionally added PFAS, the Agency can mandate the manufacturer of the product to conduct testing for PFAS. If product testing reveals there are no intentionally added PFAS in the product, the manufacturer must submit a certificate of compliance to MPCA attesting to this fact and including the supporting testing results and any other relevant information. If testing confirms there are intentionally added PFAS in the product, the manufacturer must provide testing results and additional information outlined in the legislation to the Agency.

The legislation bans intentionally added PFAS in a number of products. Such products include:

  • Carpets and rugs
  • Fabric treatments
  • Textile furnishings
  • Upholstered furniture
  • Cleaning products
  • Cookware
  • Cosmetics
  • Dental floss
  • Menstrual products
  • Children’s products
  • Ski wax

The bans on these products will have staggered effective dates between January 1, 2025, and January 1, 2032. The legislation does caveat that MPCA will permit the sale of products with intentionally added PFAS only in instances where the commissioner has determined there is a currently unavoidable use. Product categories that fall under a currently unavoidable use are not detailed in the legislation, but it does specifically state that none of the above product categories are eligible for a currently unavoidable use exemption.

EPA Releases Framework for Addressing New PFAS and New Uses Under TSCA

/in , , /by

EPA has released the Framework for Addressing New PFAS and New Uses of PFAS. This document details the Agency’s planned strategy for evaluating Premanufacture Notices  (“PMNs”) for new PFAS compounds and Significant New Use Notices (“SNUNs”) for “new uses” of existing PFAS to ensure they do not pose harm to human health and the environment.

The Agency states that new PFAS substances present challenges for regulators, as there is frequently limited information available to assess their potential risks accurately. Many PFAS compounds are known to persist in the environment, bioaccumulate, and be toxic (known as “PBT”); the framework aims to qualitatively evaluate PFAS based on how likely they truly are to become PBTs in the body and environment.

The framework distinguishes between PFAS uses that may result in environmental releases and potential exposures and those that don’t. For example, PFAS applications that are deemed to have negligible exposure and minimal environmental release, such as in the closed systems used in the manufacture of electronics. EPA generally anticipates allowing the compounds to enter commerce after exposure data is provided.

The framework calls for more comprehensive testing, including toxicokinetic data, for PBT PFAS compounds that are expected to have a low but greater than negligible potential for environmental release and exposure. If initial testing raises concerns about exposure levels and risks, EPA will mandate further testing and risk mitigation before permitting manufacturing. This comprehensive testing would encompass physical-chemical properties, toxicity, and fate analysis. For example, uses of PFAS in spray-applied stain guards inherently involve releases into the environment. If required testing finds potential hazards, EPA has the authority under TSCA section 5 to demand additional testing and risk mitigation strategies or prohibit manufacturing entirely.

If EPA determines a new chemical substance poses an unreasonable risk, lacks sufficient risk information, or involves substantial production with potential exposure, it must issue a section 5(e) order for human health and environmental protection, which may include testing requirements. If PFAS data suggests it’s a PBT chemical and EPA anticipates exposures, the substance or significant new use could be deemed to present an unreasonable risk, therefore requiring either a section 5(f) order or an immediately effective proposed rule under TSCA section 6(a). The section 5(f) order applies to the submitter, while the 6(a) rule covers all users. For a SNUN, the 6(a) rule typically targets the specified new use. The chart below further details the possible EPA determinations and related actions following their review.

Determination Related Action
In the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation of risk from the substance or significant new use, the substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable risk. EPA must issue an order under TSCA section 5(e).
There is insufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation of risk from the substance or new use. EPA must issue an order under TSCA section 5(e).
The substance or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk. EPA must take action under TSCA section 5(f).
The substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and there may be significant or substantial human and/or environmental exposure (exposure-based). EPA must issue an order under TSCA section 5(e).
The substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. EPA notifies the submitter of its decision and publishes its findings in the Federal Register.

 

New Jersey Reaches Historic Settlement with Solvay Polymers over PFAS Contamination

/in , /by

On June 28, 2023, New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) announced a proposed settlement with Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC (“Solvay”) over the company’s discharge of PFAS and other hazardous substances from its West Deptford facility.  According to a press release from New Jersey’s Office of Attorney General (NJOAG), the $392.7 million proposed settlement is the “largest single-site natural resource damages and remediation case in New Jersey history.”

In the 2020 complaint that led to the proposed settlement, NJDEP alleged that PFAS discharges and emissions from Solvay’s West Deptford facility had caused “widespread soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water contamination.”  In particular, NJDEP asserted that levels of PFNA­—a type of PFAS—detected in surface water and public drinking water near the facility were higher than levels reported “anywhere else in the world.”  According to NJDEP, Solvay and the facility’s previous owner knew or should have known about the dangers posed by PFAS but “failed to disclose the impact of their use and releases of PFAS into the environment to the Department and the surrounding community.”

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Solvay would be required to reimburse NJDEP for previous remediation efforts, pay claims for natural resource damages, and fund additional remedial activities to be undertaken by NJDEP and the company.  Solvay would be responsible for identifying and remediating contaminated natural resources and wells and providing regular reports of its remedial activities to NJDEP.  Funds allocated to NJDEP would primarily be used to address PFAS in drinking water systems.

The settlement comes after a 2019 NJDEP directive for Solvay and four other chemical manufacturers responsible for “significant contamination of New Jersey’s natural resources” to provide financial compensation for PFAS-related contamination and information on their PFAS use and emissions.  NJDEP’s 2020 complaint argued that Solvay did not fully comply with the directive.  According to NJOAG, Solvay is the first company identified by the directive to reach a proposed settlement with NJDEP.

A formal notice of the proposed settlement was published in the New Jersey Register on August 7, 2023.  Public comments on the proposal will be accepted through October 6, 2023.

TSCA Enforcement Action Taken Over Failure to Comply with PFAS SNUR

/in , , , /by

In December 2022, two separate lawsuits were filed against Inhance Technologies USA regarding its alleged production of certain PFAS substances in violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). These lawsuits are important as they raise novel questions of TSCA interpretation and enforcement.

The first lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).  The second case is a citizen suit filed by the non-profit organizations Center for Environmental Health (“CEH”) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (“PEER”). U.S. v. Inhance Technologies LLC, U.S. Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:22-cv-05055; Center for Environmental Health v. Inhance Technologies USA, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:22-cv-03819. It is rare that EPA pursues TSCA enforcement actions in federal court. Similarly, the citizen suit provision of TSCA is exercised infrequently.

Defendant Inhance Technologies USA (“Inhance”) is a Texas-based corporation that treats plastic containers, including high-density polyethylene (HDPE), using a fluorination process. Inhance is the principal supplier of post-mold fluorination services in the United States.

According to the Complaints, Inhance has been in violation of the Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate (“LCPFAC”)  Significant New Use Rule (“SNUR”) that requires manufacturers to file a Significant New Use Notice (“SNUN”) for any manufacturing (including importing) or processing of an LCPFAC for which there were no ongoing uses as of January 21, 2015. See 40 CFR 721.10536. This includes substances that are typically exempt byproducts under TSCA and LCPFACs that are imported as part of articles. Inhance allegedly violated two SNUR requirements.  The complaints assert that Inhance failed to submit a SNUN for LCPFAC substances formed during the fluorination of plastic containers at least 90 days prior to the manufacture of these substances. The second violation charged is the company’s manufacture of these substances before completion of the requisite 90-day SNUN review period.

Inhance received warning of its violation of the LCPFAC Rule by the Plaintiffs of each lawsuit months prior to litigation. The lawsuits follow a March 2022 letter EPA sent to the HDPE industry. EPA issued the letter, first “to remind industry of this issue to help prevent unintended PFAS formation and contamination,” and second, to “emphasize the requirement under TSCA as it related to PFAS and fluorinated polyolefins.” In its letter, EPA reminded the industry of the SNUR, highlighting that while LCPFAC chemical substances are byproducts of the fluorination process from the chemical and commercial standpoint, these substances are not eligible for the byproducts exemption in 40 CFR § 721.45(e). The Agency letter further encouraged the industry to pursue alternative fluorination processes which are less likely to foster unintentional PFAS creation. EPA’s lawsuit is its first enforcement matter against the HDPE industry following the Agency’s warnings.

In March 2022, EPA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV), requesting that Inhance provide the Agency with additional information on changes the company may have made to the HDPE fluorination process that would eliminate PFAS production. The NOV stated that if no changes to the manufacturing process had been made, Inhance would need to immediately cease manufacturing PFAS and submit a SNUN to the Agency for review. Agency review of the information submitted by the company confirmed that the company was producing substances that are subject to the LCPFAC Rule.

In September 2022, Inhance notified EPA that it intended to submit a SNUN for its fluorination processes, but that it was unwilling to cease its fluorination processes before or during the EPA SNUN review period. Inhance has consistently maintained that it believes its operations are in full regulatory compliance.

EPA’s lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2022, with the non-profit lawsuit following about a week behind. The Complaints allege a variety of TSCA violations, namely the following:

  • Section 5(a)(1) of TSCA, which states no person may manufacture or process a chemical substance for a significant new use unless (1) that person submits a Significant New Use Notice (“New Use Notice”) to the EPA; (2) the EPA reviews that notice; and (3) the EPA makes a determination on that use under Section 5(a)(3) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2604(a)(3). 15 U.S.C. § 2604(a)(1).
  • Title 40 C.F.R. § 721.25 prescribes similar requirements for any person seeking to engage in a significant new use of a chemical substance.
  • Section 15 of TSCA, which states that it is a prohibited act to fail or refuse to comply with any requirement of TSCA or any rule promulgated under TSCA. 15 U.S.C. § 2614.
  • Under 40 C.F.R. § 721.35, it is a violation of Section 15 of TSCA to fail to comply with any provision of Title 40, Part 721 of the regulations implementing TSCA.

Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 15(a) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2616(a)) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201) for Inhance to cease production of all products using the PFAS forming fluorination process. To resume production, Inhance must demonstrate to EPA that it has altered its production process to eliminate PFAS production.

Case Update

In April 2023, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit brought by CEH and PEER. Shortly after CEH and PEER filed their lawsuit, Inhance filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing that the lawsuit was inappropriate under TSCA’s diligent prosecution bar. DOJ filed an amicus brief supporting Inhance’s motion to dismiss. For the CEH and PEER lawsuit to proceed, the organizations would have needed to demonstrate that DOJ was not diligently prosecuting the case. The court granted Inhance’s motion stating that “[n]othing in the eight days between when DOJ filed its lawsuit and when the Plaintiffs filed theirs suggests that [DOJ] was not diligently prosecuting the case.”

On June 13, the court presiding over the DOJ lawsuit scheduled oral arguments for August 23, 2023.

European Chemicals Agency Releases Proposal Banning PFAS

/in , /by

On February 7, The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) proposed a ban on per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as part of the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (“REACH”) regulation. The ban, which would include about 10,000 PFAS substances, could greatly impact US companies that export virtually any product to the European Union (“EU”). These companies will need to examine whether their products contain PFAS before exporting products to the EU.

The proposed ban is the EU’s largest-ever chemicals prohibition. It is intended to achieve the EU’s goal of a non-toxic environment by 2050. ECHA proposes banning chemicals, mixtures, and articles with 25 parts per billion (ppb) or more of a particular PFAS or 250 ppb of a combination of PFAS. ECHA defined PFAS as “Any substance that contains at least one fully fluorinated methyl (CF3-) or methylene (-CF2-) carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I attached to it).” According to ECHA, this definition encompasses more than 10,000 PFAS. The proposal explains that this definition is aligned with the definition of PFAS published in 2021 by the OECD. Excluded from the scope of the proposed ban are PFAS substances that are fully degradable as they do not fulfill the underlying concern of high persistence. The ban would begin 18 months following the finalization of the restriction, which is anticipated for some time in 2025.

The initial regulation will include a variety of exemptions with phase-out periods of five or 12 years. Pesticides (referred to as biocides in the EU), along with human and veterinary medicines, would also be exempted from the restriction. PFAS used in specialized fire-fighting suppressants, called aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), are also exempt as they are being phased out through a separate restriction.

The proposed regulation would supersede existing regulations that allow PFAS in products such as food packaging, pesticides (referred to as biocides in the EU), and human and veterinary medicines. PFAS used in firefighting suppressants (aqueous film-forming foam) used largely by airports, fire departments, and military bases, are being phased out through a separate restriction.

Affected businesses may need to evaluate thousands of products for the presence of PFAS, ranging from camping gear to mobile phones. The ban is likely to have a significant impact on any US company selling products in the EU.

ECHA will accept public comments on the proposal until September 2023. EU companies, working through their trade associations, are already commenting on the proposed ban suggesting a longer phase-out period of 32 months instead of the proposed 18 months and additional exemptions where alternatives are not yet available. The final restriction is expected in 2025.