EPA has issued its second round of Test Orders under its National PFAS Testing Strategy. The test orders require companies to conduct and submit testing on trifluoro (trifluoromethyl) oxirane (HFPO) (CASRN 428-59-1), a PFAS substance used in making plastics. According to EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) database, more than 1,000,000 points of HFPO are manufactured each year. EPA has concluded, using existing hazard and exposure data, that HFPO may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, finding that exposure may result in neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, and cancer. The Tier 1 testing will address human health from exposure via inhalation and hydrolysis. Tier 2 testing, if required, will look at reproductive toxicity, developmental neurotoxicity, and carcinogenicity.

The companies that are subject to the test order include The Chemours Company, DuPont De Nemours Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, and 3M Company. These companies are required to submit the results of testing data to EPA within 415 days of the effective date of the order. All data produced from this test order will subsequently be published on EPA’s website.

On November 25, 2022, EPA released an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for public comment as part of its development of a rule to collect information about PFAS. The IRFA follows the Agency’s June 2021 proposed rule, which would require all manufacturers and importers of PFAS in any year since 2011 to report information related to chemical identity, categories of use, volumes manufactured and processed, byproducts, environmental and health effects, worker exposure, and disposal. In the proposed rule, EPA certified that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). In response to public comments from the June 2021 proposed rule and additional data sources on PFAS-containing imports, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel and prepared the IRFA to investigate further the burdens the proposed rule would place on small businesses.

EPA significantly increased its cost estimates for the proposed rule, stating social costs would be approximately $875 million, from the original $10.8 million estimate, and Agency costs would be approximately $1.5M,  from the originally estimated $948,078.  The IRFA anticipates that in order to report years of production and importation data, small businesses would be expected to pay the lion’s share of these costs, $863.5 million, not the originally anticipated $1.8 million. Additionally, the IRFA details the percentage of small firms that will be impacted by the rule, finding that approximately 93% of manufacturers and 97.3% of article importers affected by the proposed rule are small businesses. The total number of small businesses expected to be impacted is 127,794.

In the IRFA, EPA proposed and requested comment on a variety of regulatory flexibility alternatives, including:

• Exemptions for businesses with less than $12 million in sales.
• Exemptions for businesses with less than $6 million in sales.
• Exemptions for article importers with less than $6 million in sales.
• Exemptions for article importers with less than $2 million in sales.
• Limiting the scope of PFAS subject to the rule to a finite list of PFAS, removing the structural definition. (Although EPA expressed concern over the Agency’s inability to list substance identities based on CBI claims.)
• Exemption for reporting thresholds of either 2,500 lbs. per year or 25,000 lbs. per year.
• Allow for small businesses, providing a six-month deferral of data submission.
• Simplified reporting forms for R&D substances manufactured in volumes less than 10 kg. per year — including limiting reporting to company information, generic chemical name, and production volume.
• Simplified reporting forms for article importers– excluding requiring information on existing environmental and health effects data, environmental release and disposal data, or occupational exposure data.
• Exemptions for R&D substances, byproducts, impurities, recyclers, and intermediates. (However, EPA stated that these exemptions would limit the Agency’s ability to achieve its goal of better understanding the entire scope of existing information on PFAS.)

The Agency also requested information and comment on items pertaining to CBI, including treatment of chemical identity claims, notice prior to publication on the public TSCA Inventory, and the generic naming of PFAS. These issues were not included in the IRFA and the Updated Economic Analysis. Regarding the treatment of CBI claims, EPA sought to clarify language related to an entity’s knowledge of a specific chemical identity stating:

[A]n entity that does not have knowledge of a specific chemical identity must initiate a joint submission with its supplier or other manufacturer. In these cases, the secondary submitter would be responsible for providing the specific chemical identity and for asserting and substantiating any CBI claims concerning the specific chemical identity. See, e.g.,40 CFR 711.15(b)(3); 711.30(c).

Regarding notice prior to publication on the public TSCA Inventory, EPA sought to clarify that if a submitter reports a PFAS substance by a specific chemical identity and does not assert CBI, that chemical identity will be published on the public Inventory without notice to the submitter. Importantly, EPA requested comment on aligning this provision with the language in the proposed CBI Procedures rule indicating that persons who previously made a CBI claim for the same specific chemical identity will not receive prior notice before the specific chemical identity is moved to the public Inventory. Lastly, EPA clarified that generic names must sufficiently identify the chemical as a PFAS; for example, under TSCA Section 14(c)(1)(C), a generic name for a PFAS that does not contain “fluor” would be rejected as insufficient.

On December 5, 2022, EPA released a proposed rule which, if implemented, will automatically designate PFAS on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) to the list of Lower Threshold Chemicals of Special Concern (“Chemicals of Special Concern”). The chemicals on this list have profiles that are categorized as persistent bioaccumulative toxic and are referred to as PBT chemicals. Currently, only 16 PBT Chemicals of Special Concern are on this list. Chemicals of Special Concern are subject to different reporting requirements than the other chemicals that are subject to TRI reporting. PBTs on the TRI chemical list have reporting thresholds that are either 10 pounds or 100 pounds, several orders of magnitude lower than most other TRI-listed chemicals. (Reporting thresholds for TRI chemicals are usually set at 10,000 pounds or 25,000 pounds.) Another characteristic of Chemicals of Special Concern is that they are ineligible for the de minimus exemption.

The de minimus exemption allows facilities to avoid reporting small concentrations of most TRI chemicals.  The exemption applies to threshold determinations such as release and waste management calculations. The Agency’s rationale is that eliminating the de minimus exemption for PFAS will give it a more complete picture of the releases and waste management practices for these substances. Use of the de minimus exemption, EPA believes, has allowed significant quantities of PFAS to avoid TRI reporting.

The rule further proposes removing the de minimus exemption for purposes of Supplier Notification Requirements for all chemicals on the list of Chemicals of Special Concern. Supplier notifications require that suppliers of products that contain one or more of the EPCRA section 313 chemicals notify their customers that the substance(s) is present. (EPCRA section 313 chemicals are those for which EPA is required to establish an inventory of routine toxic chemical emissions from manufacturing.) Suppliers are currently exempt from this requirement when the chemical is in an article or part of a consumer product.

As with PFAS, the Agency is concerned that significant quantities of chemicals of special concern can be overlooked by reporting facilities by using the de minimus exemption. The de minimus exemption threshold for non-PBT TRI-listed chemicals is 1% percent; for carcinogens, the threshold is .01%. EPA provided the following example:

“If a mixture or trade name product contains 0.9% of a listed PFAS and 100,000 pounds of the product is purchased, the supplier need not provide notification, and the purchaser could be unaware of and not account for 900 pounds of PFAS. The impact of this exemption for the PBT chemicals with 10-pound reporting thresholds is even greater. Using the same 100,000-pound example, if mercury [a PBT with a reporting lower threshold] were present at 0.9%, then that same 900 pounds would be 90 times the mercury reporting [i.e., the threshold for mercury reporting for nonexempt releases is 10 pounds].”

EPA considered including a small quantity exemption instead of a de minimus exemption for supplier notification purposes. However, the Agency ultimately decided against this option. The Agency has concerns that this type of exemption would not provide adequate information to facilities receiving multiple shipments over the course of a year. The facilities would have insufficient information to address TRI reporting requirements that may apply to them based on the total aggregated quantity received. Without this data on the TRI-listed chemical, EPA is not confident the receiving facility would have sufficient data to fulfill its TRI reporting obligations.