EPA Grants Petition to Address PFAS Created by Plastic Fluorination

/in , , , ,

On July 10, 2024, EPA granted a citizen petition from environmental groups encouraging EPA to take Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6 action for three PFAS substances produced during the fluorination of plastic containers.

The petition alleges that the three PFAS—PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA—pose a variety of serious human health hazards, even at extremely low exposures.  The petition cites EPA’s December 2023 response to significant new use notices filed by Inhance Technologies (“Inhance”), a fluorination company, for substances including PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA.  As discussed in a previous blog post, EPA found that Inhance’s production of the three PFAS presents an unreasonable risk and ordered Inhance to stop producing the chemicals under TSCA section 5, which allows EPA to regulate new substances and significant new uses.

Inhance challenged EPA’s order.  In March, the Fifth Circuit ruled that EPA could not regulate Inhance under TSCA section 5 because Inhance’s fluorination process had been in place for decades; a blog post on the verdict can be found here.  However, the court noted that EPA is free to regulate Inhance’s fluorination process under section 6, which allows EPA to restrict existing substances.  Unlike section 5, section 6 requires EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis that considers a substance’s benefits and what the economic consequences of regulation would be.

In its letter granting the petition, EPA said that the agency will initiate “an appropriate proceeding under TSCA Section 6 associated with the formation” of the three PFAS during plastic container fluorination.  As part of the proceeding, “EPA intends to request information, including the number, location, and uses of fluorinated containers in the United States; alternatives to the fluorination process that generates PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA; and measures to address risk from PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA formed during the fluorination of plastic containers.”

EPA Proposes to Restrict Use of N-Methylpyrrolidone

/in , ,

Multiple occupational uses of n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) would be banned and others would be restricted under a proposed rule published by EPA on June 14, 2024.  The proposed rule follows EPA’s 2020 determination that NMP presents an unreasonable risk to human health due to health effects including fetal death and reduced fertility.

According to the proposed rule, NMP is a widely used solvent with applications in the manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries, “semiconductors, polymers, petrochemical products, paints and coatings, and paint and coating removers.”  2020 Chemical Data Reporting rule data indicates that total annual production ranged from 100–250 million pounds from 2016 to 2019, EPA says.

The proposed rule would ban the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of NMP for industrial and commercial use in lubricants, anti-freeze products, automotive care products, and cleaning products, among others.  All industrial and commercial uses not prohibited would be subject to a workplace chemical protection program (WCPP) to minimize direct dermal contact with NMP through incorporation of the hierarchy of controls.  Where controls are insufficient, EPA proposes to require implementation of a PPE program.

The proposed rule would also implement prescriptive controls for certain industrial and commercial uses, such as capping the allowed concentration of NMP in industrial and commercial paints and stains at 45%. Similar concentration maximums would apply to a handful of consumer products, including adhesives.

Although no consumer products would be banned, EPA proposes to implement container size limitations and labelling requirements for some consumer uses, including paint removers, paints, automotive care products, and cleaning products.

EPA proposes that the bans take effect under a staggered schedule, varying from one to two years after publication depending on whether an entity is a manufacturer, processor, distributor, or user of NMP.  Private entities subject to WCPP requirements would have one year to establish the program, and consumer product container size limitations and labelling requirements would also take effect after one year.

Comments on the proposed rule are due on July 29, 2024.

EPA Proposes to Request Unpublished Studies for 16 Chemicals

/in , ,

On March 26, 2024, EPA published a proposed rule that would require manufacturers of sixteen chemical substances to submit a wide breadth of unpublished studies to the Agency.

If finalized, the rule would amend the list of chemicals subject to health and safety reporting located at 40 CFR 716.120 by adding the following:

  • 4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloraniline) (CASRN 101–14–4)
  • 4-tert-octylphenol(4-(1,1,3,3- Tetramethylbutyl)-phenol) (CASRN140– 66–9)
  • Acetaldehyde (CASRN75–07–0)
  • Acrylonitrile (CASRN 107–13–1)
  • Benzenamine (CASRN 62–53–3)
  • Benzene (CASRN 71–43–2)
  • Bisphenol A (CASRN 80–05–7)
  • Ethylbenzene (CASRN 100–41–4)
  • Naphthalene (CASRN 91–20–3)
  • Vinyl Chloride (CASRN 75–01–4)
  • Styrene (CASRN 100–42–5)
  • Tribomomethane (Bromoform) (CASRN 75–25–2)
  • Triglycidyl isocyanurate; (CASRN 2451–62–9)
  • Hydrogen fluoride (CARN 7664– 39–3)
  • N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-pphenylenediamine (6PPD) (CASRN 793– 24–8)
  • 2-anilino-5-[(4-methylpentan-2-yl) amino]cyclohexa-2,5-diene-1,4-dione (6PPD-quinone) (CASRN 2754428–18– 5).

EPA proposed to prioritize five of the listed chemicals (underlined above) for TSCA section 6 risk evaluation in December 2023.  The proposed rule also includes 10 chemicals EPA is considering including in its December 2024 initiation of prioritization.  The last substance, a 6PPD transformation product, was included as a result of EPA’s decision to grant a citizen’s petition on 6PPD.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 716.10 and 716.50, the requested information would include studies on health and safety, environmental effects, physical-chemical properties, exposure, and degradation.  Copies of unpublished studies, lists of known unpublished studies not in the submitter’s possession, and lists of ongoing studies would all be required.  Copies of each study previously listed as ongoing would also be required upon completion, regardless of the study’s completion date.

Studies previously submitted to EPA pursuant to a requirement under TSCA would be exempted from the request.  However, EPA proposes not to apply the typical exemption for persons manufacturing one of the 16 substances only as an impurity.

In addition to current manufacturers (including importers), persons who have manufactured or proposed to manufacture a listed substance within the past ten years would be required to submit the requested information.  Comments on the proposed rule are due on May 28, 2024.

Fifth Circuit TSCA Ruling: Established Process Not a “New Use”

/in , , ,

A decades-old manufacturing process cannot constitute a significant new use under TSCA, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on March 21, 2024, in the case Inhance Techs. v. EPA.

Inhance Technologies LLC (“Inhance”) has strengthened plastic containers using the same fluorination process since 1983.  Unbeknownst to Inhance and EPA until March 2022, the fluorination process resulted in the creation of multiple PFAS chemicals that were included in a significant new use rule (SNUR) for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate substances, which took effect in September 2020.

When EPA detected PFAS in a container manufactured by Inhance, it issued the Texas-based company a notice of violation of the SNUR because Inhance had not filed significant new use notices (SNUNs) for the PFAS created during the fluorination process.  EPA instructed Inhance to stop or change the fluorination process so that it no longer created PFAS.  Inhance filed two SNUNs in December 2022 but continued fluorinating plastic containers using the same process.  Following review of the SNUNs, in December 2023, EPA issued two orders under TSCA sections 5(e) and 5(f) prohibiting Inhance from manufacturing or processing PFAS through their fluorination process.  In response, Inhance successfully petitioned the Fifth Circuit for expedited review and a stay pending appeal, stating that the company would be forced to shut down if the orders were put into effect.

Inhance argued that EPA’s orders were unlawful for three reasons.  First, Inhance argued that its fluorination technology could not be understood as a “new” use under TSCA because it had been ongoing for over thirty years before EPA finalized the SNUR.  Second, Inhance argued that the PFAS created during the fluorination process constituted impurities, which are exempted from the scope of the SNUR.  Finally, Inhance argued that EPA’s interpretation of the SNUR as applying to all industries is a “reinterpretation” for which Inhance had not received fair notice.

In the end, the court did not address Inhance’s second and third points, finding the first argument sufficient to vacate EPA’s orders.  Though the statute does not define “new,” the court found Inhance’s interpretation, “not previously existing,” more compelling than EPA’s interpretation, “not previously known to the EPA,” for multiple reasons.  But ultimately, the court just did not think EPA’s interpretation was sensible, stating that it “lacks intuitive force.”  Inhance could not have been expected to submit its fluorination process as an ongoing use during the rulemaking process for the SNUR because it did not know that it created PFAS at that time, the court said.

Writing on behalf of the three-judge panel, Judge Cory T. Wilson concluded by stating that EPA is not powerless to regulate Inhance’s fluorination process.  TSCA section 6 allows for regulation of all chemical substances, unlike section 5, which only applies to new substances and significant new uses.  However, unlike section 5 rulemaking, section 6 requires EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, which takes into account the substance’s benefits and economic considerations.  The court stressed that this requirement indicates that Congress wanted EPA to give more thoughtful consideration to the impact of its regulations on preexisting manufacturing processes.

Judge Wilson was joined by Chief Judge Priscilla Richman and Judge James E. Graves Jr., who concurred in the judgment only.

Consent Agreement Reached in Ultium Cells and General Motors TSCA Enforcement Action

/in , ,

The U.S. EPA Environmental Appeals Board ratified a consent agreement for EPA’s TSCA enforcement action against Ultium Cells and General Motors Company on November 20, 2023. In February 2023, Ultium Cells and General Motors Company (collectively referred to as Respondents), voluntarily disclosed potential TSCA violations to the Agency under EPA’s Incentives for Self-Policing: Discover, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations (Audit Policy).  In their disclosure, the companies reported that they may have imported three substances that were not listed on the TSCA Inventory.

The consent agreement identifies the following TSCA violations:

  • Section 5(a)(1). Failure to submit a PMN at least 90 days before manufacturing (importing) new chemical substances for non-exempt commercial purposes.
  • Section 13(a)(1)(B). Failure to submit proper [import] certifications under section 13 of TSCA prior to importing new chemical substances.
  • Section 15(2). Processing and use of new chemical substances that Respondents knew or had reason to know were manufactured, imported, processed, or distributed in commerce in violation of TSCA Section 5.

Following their disclosure, in March 2023, Respondents filed premanufactures notices (PMNs) on the three substances at issue.

EPA assessed civil penalties of more than $650,000.  The companies received Audit Policy credit for the PMN and Import Certification violations, and a substantial portion of the 15(2) counts.  However, penalties were assessed for continued processing and use of the chemical substances during the time after the companies submitted PMNs for the substances, but before the PMNs cleared EPA review.

Under the terms of the consent agreement, the companies were allowed to import, process, use, and distribute the chemical substances at issue while EPA finalizes a TSCA section 5(e) Consent Order for the substances under the condition that they follow the requirements of the Compliance Plan specified by the agreement.  Requirements of the Compliance Plan include no release to water and respiratory protection with an APF of at least 1000.

Oral Arguments in Case Challenging TSCA Test Order

/in ,

On December 1, 2023, a panel of the DC Circuit Court heard oral arguments in Vinyl Institute v EPA.  The case marks the first legal challenge of EPA’s authority to administer Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 4 test orders since Congress granted EPA the authority in the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments.

The case revolves around an avian reproduction study mandated by EPA’s March 2022 test order for 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, a solvent currently undergoing TSCA risk evaluation.  The Vinyl Institute alleges that EPA failed to adequately demonstrate why the study is necessary, while EPA argues that the order met statutory requirements and is supported by substantial evidence.  Also at issue in the case is a TSCA section 19(b) motion filed by the petitioner to make additional submissions to the test order’s administrative record.

Oral arguments focused on the level of detail required in the test order’s statement of need.  The Vinyl Institute’s attorney argued that the statement of need was composed of conclusory statements that did not sufficiently explain EPA’s reasoning.  For example, he said that it is not possible to identify one of the studies cited by EPA in its explanation.  This received pushback from one judge, who said that he seemed to be asking for a level of specificity that may not be required by law.  EPA’s attorney argued that the test order is not statutorily required to be an “exhaustive decisional document,” and said that EPA is not obligated to explain why it believes certain existing studies were inadequate to fill the data need addressed by the order.  In response, one judge implied that the attorneys’ interpretations of the standard for test orders fall on the extreme ends of a spectrum—on one end, EPA would be required to list every piece of information in examined in its decision-making process, and on the other, EPA could simply say “take our word for it”—and said that the standard is probably located between them.

The attorneys also offered competing interpretations of Congress’s intent when it granted EPA the ability to administer test orders.  EPA’s attorney argued that the reason Congress gave EPA the authority to administer test orders was to make it easier for EPA to obtain necessary information, and that requiring high levels of detail in test orders would burden EPA and undermine that intent.  By contrast, the Vinyl Institute’s attorney said that Congress put in place “numerous guardrails to ensure that [EPA’s] test order authority is not abused.”

Because the avian reproduction study is currently in progress, one judge remarked that a ruling in the petitioner’s favor would need to be delivered before summer 2024 to avoid mootness.  Neither attorney had time to address the section 19(b) motion.

A previous Verdant Law blog post on the case, written prior to merits briefing, can be found here.

EPA Proposes to Revise Rules for PBTs DecaDBE and PIP (3:1)

/in , ,

On November 24, 2023, EPA released a proposed rule to revise the final rules for decabromodiphenyl ether (“decaBDE”) and phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (“PIP (3:1)”), two persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances (PBTs) subject to regulation under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Section 6(h) of TSCA (as amended by the Lautenberg Amendments in 2016) required EPA to take expedited action to complete TSCA section 6(a) rules on certain PBTs.  In January 2021, EPA released final rules for decaBDE, PIP (3:1), and three other PBTs.  The final rules for decaBDE and PIP (3:1) generally prohibit their manufacture, processing, and use beginning in March 2021, though the rules contained phased-in prohibitions and exclusions for certain uses; EPA has extended certain phased-in prohibitions for PIP (3:1) multiple times since.

In light of new information and the Agency’s reinterpretation of the directive in TSCA section 6(h)(4) to “reduce exposures to the substance to the extent practicable,” EPA is proposing revisions to the final rules for decaBDE and PIP (3:1).  For decaBDE, the proposed revisions include:

  • Requiring a label on existing plastic shipping pallets containing decaBDE,
  • Requiring use of PPE for certain activities involving decaBDE,
  • Prohibiting releases to water during the manufacturing, processing, and commercial distribution of decaBDE and decaBDE-containing products,
  • Extending the current compliance extension for the processing and distribution in commerce of decaBDE-containing wire and cable insulation for use in nuclear power generation facilities, and
  • Requiring export notification for decaBDE-containing wire and cable for nuclear power generation facilities.

The proposed revisions to the PBT rule for PIP (3:1) include:

  • Narrowing the exclusion of prohibition for PIP (3:1) use in lubricants and greases to only include use in aerospace and turbine applications,
  • Replacing the exclusion from prohibition for motor and aerospace vehicle parts containing PIP (3:1) with phased-in prohibitions,
  • Excluding from prohibition the processing and commercial distribution of PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing products for use in wire harnesses and circuit boards, and
  • Requiring PPE during manufacturing and processing of PIP (3:1).

In the proposed rule, EPA states that the Agency is not reconsidering the final rules for the other three PBTs–2,4,6-TTBP, HCBD, and PCTP–subject to final rules in January 2021.

According to EPA, decaBDE is a flame retardant that is used in textiles, plastics, adhesives, and polyurethane foam, and PIP (3:1) is a flame retardant, a plasticizer, and an anti-compressibility and anti-wear additive used in lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and in the manufacture of other compounds.

EPA Orders Plastic Fluorination Company to Stop Producing PFAS

/in , , ,

Inhance Technologies LLC (“Inhance”) must stop producing PFAS substances created during its fluorination of high-density polyethylene plastic containers, according to two orders issued by EPA on December 1, 2023.

EPA first became aware of PFAS contamination in fluorinated plastic containers in late 2020.  In March 2022, EPA issued a Notice of Violation to Inhance for creating these PFAS in alleged violation of a significant new use rule (SNUR) for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) substances.  The Texas-based company submitted significant new use notices for nine such substances in December 2022 but has continued fluorinating containers nonetheless.

Three of these significant new use notices are addressed in the first order, which was issued under section 5(f) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  EPA determined that these substances—PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA—present an unreasonable risk due to their persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity that can only be prevented by prohibiting their manufacture.

The second order, issued under TSCA section 5(e), addresses the six remaining PFAS: PFuDA, PFDoA, PFTrDA, PFTeDA, PFHxDA and PFODA.  EPA determined that these substances may present an unreasonable risk, and the order prohibits their manufacture until certain testing be submitted to and evaluated by the Agency.

In response to the orders, which take effect February 28, 2024, Inhance stated that “the company will pursue all legal options to protect its customers, suppliers, and employees and to ensure the continued operations of this environmentally critical technology.”

The orders are likely to impact ongoing litigation between EPA and Inhance.  In December 2022, EPA sued Inhance for allegedly violating the LCPFAC SNUR.  Inhance has maintained that its fluorination process is legal, arguing that any PFAS present after fluorination are unintended impurities exempt from the SNUR.  More information on that case can be found in a previous Verdant Law blog post.

Fluorination, or the treatment of plastic with fluorine gas, makes containers less permeable.  According to an EPA press release, Inhance fluorinates up to 200 million containers per year.

EPA Proposes TCE Ban

/in ,

EPA has released a proposed rule, which, if implemented, would ban the use of trichloroethylene (“TCE”). The substance has numerous industrial, commercial, and consumer applications, including uses in vapor and aerosol degreasing and as lubricants, greases, adhesives, and sealants. Earlier this year, in its final revision to the TCE risk evaluation conducted under section 6(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), EPA concluded that TCE presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health due to both its carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects including liver and kidney toxicity, and neurotoxicity. The risk evaluation found these effects resulted from both acute and chronic exposures and through all types of exposures, including inhalation and dermal exposure. TSCA section 6(a) requires EPA to impose restrictions on the manufacture, including import, processing, and distribution of substances that present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.

The ban would apply to all manufacturing, import, processing, and distribution in commerce of TCE for all industrial and commercial uses. The rule would go into effect one year following the effective date of the final rule for consumer products and most commercial uses. Some commercial and industrial uses would have longer phaseout timelines and set exemption periods. (The difference between phaseouts and exemptions is that phaseouts are active timelines for the elimination of use, whereas the exemptions do not require current action to eliminate the use of TCE by a certain date; presumably, a determination will be made prior to the exemption period ending that will clarify if the exemption is to be extended or if a phaseout period will be established.)

TSCA section 6(g) allows EPA to grant an exemption from a requirement of a rule banning or restricting a chemical substance for a specific condition of use of a chemical substance if the Administrator finds that the specific condition of use is critical or essential and has no technically and economically feasible safer alternative. The phaseout and exemptions in the proposed rule are narrow in scope. They include the following:

  • An 8.5-year phaseout for the manufacture and processing of TCE as an intermediate in the manufacturing of hydrofluorocarbon134a (HFC-134a). HFC-134a is essential to the operation of refrigeration and air conditioning systems.
  • A 10-year phaseout for the manufacture and use of TCE as a solvent for closed-loop batch vapor degreasing for rayon fabric scouring for end use in the production of rocket booster nozzles. This exemption is limited to production by federal agencies and their contractors.
  • A 10-year TSCA Section 6(g) exemption for the manufacture and processing of TCE as a processing aid for battery separator manufacturing, battery separators are used to prevent short-circuiting in lithium-ion batteries.
  • A 50-year TSCA Section 6(g) exemption for the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of TCE as a laboratory chemical for essential laboratory activities such as those associated with ongoing environmental cleanup projects under the CERCLA program and other EPA authorities, and some research and development activities being conducted by U.S. Federal Agencies including NASA.

The rule would also require strict workplace controls for those working with TCE for the uses allowed by the proposed rule.  These workplace controls would be detailed in EPA’s proposed  Workplace Chemical Protection Program (“WCPP”). To further reduce worker risks, the proposed rule would prohibit the disposal of TCE to industrial pre-treatment, industrial treatment, or publicly owned treatment works.

Under this rule, manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors (excluding retailers) of TCE and TCE-containing products must provide downstream notification of the TCE prohibition. EPA is asking for comments on timeframes for downstream notification and recordkeeping requirements. EPA is proposing a two-month period for manufacturers and a six-month period for processors and distributors to make the required SDS changes. This notification will be provided through Safety Data Sheets (“SDS”). The suggested SDS language is stated within the proposed rule.

Violations of the rule will be subject to TSCA section 16, which permits civil and criminal penalties, including a civil penalty of up to $46,989 per day for each violation of TSCA or TSCA rules. Comments on the proposed rule are due December 15, 2023.

EPA Proposes Changes to TSCA Risk Evaluation Procedures

/in ,

On October 30, 2023, EPA published a proposed rule altering the procedures for chemical risk evaluations under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The proposed rule revises the existing 2017 framework, which was adopted one year after Congress passed amendments to TSCA requiring EPA to evaluate whether existing chemicals that have been identified as “high priority” present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

The rulemaking includes the following proposed changes:

  • The clarification that EPA will include all conditions of use (i.e., circumstances under which the chemical is “intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of”) in the scope of a risk evaluation.
  • The inclusion of all exposure pathways in the scope of a risk evaluation. EPA previously excluded exposure pathways covered under other EPA statutes in its risk evaluations for the first ten chemicals.
  • The removal of the definitions for “best available science” and “weight of the scientific evidence.” Though TSCA requires EPA to use the best available science and make decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence at 15 U.S.C. 2625, EPA argues that the codification of these definitions inhibits the Agency’s ability to adapt to changing science.
  • The requirement that EPA make a single determination on whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk. EPA initially made separate risk determinations for each condition of use in its risk evaluations for the first ten chemicals but later issued revised “whole substance” determinations.
  • The cessation of the consideration of “assumed” personal protective equipment (PPE) use when calculating exposure reduction due to PPE.
  • The addition of “overburdened communities” to the list of examples of potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.
  • A number of alterations to the process and requirements for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations.

The above changes would apply to all risk evaluations initiated on or after the date of the final rule.  For risk evaluations in progress on the date of the final rule, EPA expects to apply the changes “only to the extent practicable.”

The proposed clarification that EPA includes all conditions of use in the scope of a risk evaluation stems from the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA. In the case, petitioners successfully challenged EPA’s exclusion of “legacy uses and associated disposals”—such as the use and future disposal of asbestos in previously installed insulation—from the scope of risk evaluations. Several of the other proposed changes would codify existing EPA practices introduced in 2021, including the requirement that risk evaluations end with a single determination rather than use-by-use determinations.

EPA requests public comments on all aspects of the proposed rulemaking. Comments are due on December 14, 2023.