Manufacturer Request for Risk Evaluation of OTNE

/in , ,

On November 20, 2020, EPA received a manufacturer request for risk evaluation for the chemical substances in the octahydro-tetramethyl-naphthalenyl-ethanone chemical category (OTNE).  These substances are used as fragrance ingredients.  The three manufacturers, International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc., Privi Organics USA Corporation, and DRT America, Inc., sent the request through the OTNE Consortium.

The risk evaluation request applies to four chemicals within OTNE.  The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) considers two of the chemicals to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals.  While completing the risk evaluation for the OTNE chemical, EPA is not allowed to consider costs or other non-risk factors (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii)).  The request for evaluation also includes possible conditions of use for EPA to identify.

EPA has until no later than June 5, 2021 to either grant or deny the request to conduct the risk evaluation for the OTNE chemicals.  In order for EPA to grant the request, it must meet all of the requirements listed under 40 CFR 702.37(e)(6)(ii).  These conditions are that the request constitutes conditions of use that warrant inclusion in a risk evaluation, EPA has all the necessary information to conduct the risk evaluation, and all the remaining criteria of 40 CFR 702.37 are met, such as manufacturers paying fees to support the risk evaluations.

EPA Changing Systematic Review Approach

/in , ,

In February 2021, EPA announced the Agency’s commitment to strengthening science used in chemical risk evaluations.  EPA stated the Agency will continue to update its systematic review approach and its broader efforts to review the first 10 TSCA risk evaluations.  The first 10 TSCA risk evaluations were complete in January 2021.  Following the review of their 2018 systematic review approach by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS), EPA stated they will never use that particular systematic review again.

NAS recommendations included:

  • Engaging in ongoing cross-sector efforts to develop and validate new tools and approaches.
  • Incorporating components of existing hazard assessments approaches.
  • Creating a handbook to assist with incomplete and hard to follow documentation.
  • Using standard descriptors for the strength of evidence.

EPA stressed that the NAS report was based on earlier EPA practices, and part of the reason for updating the systematic review approach is to ensure the review of the first 10 TSCA risk evaluations are done in accordance with Executive Orders and other directives from the Biden Administration.  The Agency’s goals from the review are that:

  • All Agency actions meet statutory obligations,
  • Be guided by the best available science,
  • Ensure the integrity of Federal decision-making, and
  • Protect human health and the environment.

EPA has begun the process of creating a TSCA systematic review protocol in collaboration with the Agency’s Office of Research and Development.  The new review protocol will incorporate approaches from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program, as recommended by NAS.  EPA expects to publish and take comments on the new review protocol later this year.

Proposed TSCA Fee Rule Changes

/in ,

On December 18, 2020, EPA signed a proposed rule revision for TSCA fees to defray costs for activities under TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6.  This revision proposes updates to the 2018 fees rule and requires EPA to review the fees every three years with ability to adjust the fees.  This adds three new fee categories of a Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture or Import Notice, a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import, and an additional fee associated with test orders.

The Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture or Import Notice covers EPA costs of reviewing bona fide notices.  The 2018 Fee Rule did not have any fees associated with reviewing the notices.  The cost is proposed as 500 dollars, and 90 dollars for small businesses.

The Notice of Commencement (NOC) of Manufacture or Import requires those who submit premanufacture notices to provide notice to the EPA within 30 days of when the chemical substance is first manufactured or imported.  Unlike the new Bona Fide Fee proposal, the NOC fees already existed under the 2018 Fee Rule, but fell under other categories, such as premanufacture notices.  The new proposal will have NOC fees as their own category and are proposed as 500 dollars, and 90 dollars for small businesses.

The new proposed fee associated with test orders applies to recipients who fail to follow terms or conditions of an original order.  Under the 2018 Fee Rule, the recipient had the option to redo the testing and submit new data without paying additional costs from the original test order.  The proposed fee with require payment for the original test order and any resubmitted data.  The new fee for resubmitted data is proposed to be equal to the cost of reviewing the initial data.

EPA is also proposing exemptions to some fee triggering activities:

  • an exemption for research and development activities on fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations,
  • an exemption for entities manufacturing less than 2,500 lbs. of a chemical subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation fee;
  • an exemption for manufacturers of chemical substances produced as a non-isolated intermediate on fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations;
  • and exemptions for manufacturers of a chemical substance subject to an EPA-initiated risk evaluation if the chemical substance is imported in an article, produced as a byproduct, or produced or imported as an impurity

Two other notable proposed changes are:

  • EPA proposes a volume-based fee allocation for EPA-initiated risk evaluation fees in any situation that does not involve a consortium.
  • EPA proposes export-only manufacturers to pay fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations.

EPA Proposes Non-Consent-Order SNURs for 13 Chemical Substances

/in , ,

On October 16, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule that would establish Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 13 chemical substances for which premanufacture notices (PMNs) have been approved during the two years since the statute was amended. A total of 6 SNURs were proposed for these 13 substances. Unlike other recent SNURs enacted after TSCA was amended, the 13 chemical substances are not also subject to consent orders. Indeed, all previously proposed and final SNURs for PMNs under amended TSCA were for substances for which EPA had previously negotiated orders under TSCA Section 5(e).

The proposed SNURs would require that persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process any of the 13 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use submit a “Significant New Use Notice” to EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. And, consistent with the SNUR regulations at 40 CFR § 721.25, the proposed rule states that persons may not commence the manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice and decided on the notice, and the person has taken any actions as are required as a result of that determination. Comments on the proposed SNURs are due November 15, 2018.

EPA Publishes Direct Final Rules for 29 Significant New Use Rules

/in , ,

On August 27, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two direct final rules promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The first direct final rule promulgates SNURs for ten chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN). 83 Fed. Reg. 43527. The second direct final rule promulgates SNURs for 19 chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. 83 Fed. Reg. 43538. All 29 chemical substances are subject to consent orders issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA Section 5(e). The rules require persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that new use.

The covered chemicals vary, but include several substances intended for use as coatings additives. The requirements for each of the substances differ, but may include limitations on the uses of the substance, hazard communication, personal protective equipment use, and the submission of certain toxicity testing data. Both direct final rules will be effective on October 26, 2018.

EPA Publishes Final Reporting Requirements for TSCA Mercury Inventory

/in

On June 27, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final “Reporting Requirements for the TSCA Mercury Inventory” Rule. As required under section 8(b)(10)(D) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA finalized reporting requirements for regulated entities to provide information to assist in the preparation of an “inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States.”

The requirements apply to any person who manufactures (including imports) mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process. The reporting requirements apply to “mercury” as both “elemental mercury” and “a mercury compound.” EPA provides a list of these compounds in the final rule. Reporting requirements vary based on whether the entity is manufacturing mercury, manufacturing a mercury added product, or intentionally using mercury in a manufacturing process, other than the manufacture of a mercury compound or a mercury-added product. EPA will collect data through the Mercury Electronic Reporting (MER) application of its CDX system.

Based on the inventory of information collected, the Agency is directed to “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury; and . . . recommend actions, including proposed revisions of Federal law or regulations, to achieve further reductions in mercury use.” EPA stated in the final rule that it is not making such identifications or recommendations at this time.

EPA will use data from the 2018 reporting year for the 2020 mercury inventory. The 2018 reporting year is from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, and the submission deadline for the 2018 reporting year is July 1, 2019.

Sherwin-Williams to Remove Paint-Removal Products Containing Methylene Chloride

/in

Sherwin-Williams is phasing out the use of paint-removal products containing methylene chloride by the end of this year. Both Lowe’s and Home Depot have also announced they will phase out paint removal products that contain methylene chloride. These actions are likely a response to EPA’s forthcoming rulemaking on the substance.

In January, 2017, EPA proposed prohibiting the consumer and commercial paint stripping used for methylene chloride. On May 10, 2018, EPA announced it was working on sending the finalized rulemaking to Office of Management and Budget “shortly.”

Systematic Review for TSCA Risk Evaluations

/in ,

On May 31, 2018 EPA released  Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations.  The document presents a detailed description of EPA’s approach to the Risk Evaluations required by the Lautenberg amendments to TSCA.

The announcement by the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) explains that “[it] will guide EPA’s selection and review of studies in addition to providing the public with continued transparency regarding how the Agency plans to evaluate scientific information.”  In the document OPPT explains that the Agency intends to apply systematic review principles in the development of the risk evaluations required by the amended statute. The Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations will serve as internal guidance for this process.  The document describes OPPT’s plan for identifying, evaluating and integrating evidence for the TSCA risk evaluation process.

The document includes chapters on scoping and problem formulation, integration of systematic review principles into TSCA risk evaluations, and appendices on strategy for assessing the quality of data supporting TSCA risk evaluations and data quality criteria for each of the categories of information considered in the evaluation (e.g., physical/chemical property data, occupational exposure and release data).  The Agency notes that this document is not necessarily applicable to risk assessments developed to support other EPA’s statutes or programs.  EPA invites the public to provide input on this document at www.regulations.gov, docket# EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0210.

For the risk evaluations, OPPT will first conduct scoping and problem formulation to develop an analytical framework.   Problem formulation will describe the exposure pathways, receptors and health endpoints that OPPT expects to consider in the risk evaluations.

The Agency will use “systematic review“ for problem formulation and the other stages of the risk evaluation process.  The Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations explains that the risk evaluation process will rely on the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine’s definition of systematic review:  “a scientific investigation that focuses on a specific question and uses explicit, pre-specified scientific methods to identify, select, assess, and summarize the findings of similar but separate studies.”  OPPT reports that key elements of systematic review include:

  • A clearly stated set of objectives defining the research question,
  • Developing a protocol that describes the specific criteria and approaches that will be used throughout the process,
  • Applying the search strategy in a literature search,
  • Selecting the relevant papers using predefined criteria,
  • Assessing the quality of the studies using predefined criteria,
  • Analyzing and synthesizing the data using the predefined methodology, and
  • Interpreting the results and presenting a summary of findings.

Following problem formulation, OPPT will develop a protocol to specify the criteria, methods for data collection, data evaluation and data integration.

Data will be collected under a defined literature search strategy designed to collect information to evaluate the full life cycle of the chemical substance including exposure, human health hazard, and environmental hazard.  OPPT will use a comprehensive chemical-specific literature search of the open literature to identify relevant data.  OPPT will also use data that are submitted by the public and peer reviewers.  In addition, OPPT will search its internal databases for relevant data submitted under TSCA.  The Agency notes that data submitted under TSCA will be used in the risk evaluation whether or not they are claimed as confidential business information (CBI).  However, CBI data will be used in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the information.

Factors for inclusion in the evaluation include whether the data contain information on: 

  • Environmental fate, transport, partitioning and degradation behavior across environmental media of interest,
  • Environmental exposure of ecological receptors to the chemical substance and/or its degradation products and metabolites,
  • Environmental exposure of human receptors to the substance and/or its degradation products and metabolites,
  • Scenarios resulting in releases of the substance into the environment that would expose ecological or human receptors,
  • Quantitative estimates of worker exposures and of environmental releases from occupational settings for the substance, and
  • Human health and environmental hazards.

OPPT explains that the evaluation stage will assess the quality of individual studies.   For this process the Agency will use the criteria identified in the data quality criteria appendices to the Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations.  The appendices specify criteria for evaluating data on:

  • Physical and chemical properties,
  • Occupational exposure and release,
  • Fate,
  • Consumer, general population, and environmental exposure,
  • Ecological hazards,
  • Animal and in vitro toxicity, and
  • Epidemiology.

The data will then be integrated to evaluate and synthesize multiple evidence streams.  Data integration includes analysis and synthesis of the evidence and development of weight of evidence conclusions.  As part of this process OPPT will document any underlying assumptions that are used to support the risk evaluation.

TSCA requires that EPA make decisions about these data based on the weight of the scientific evidence.  OPPT reports that under TSCA, the weight of the scientific evidence is defined as “a systematic review method, applied in a manner suited to the nature of the evidence or decision, that uses a pre-established protocol to comprehensively, objectively, transparently, and consistently identify and evaluate each stream of evidence, including strengths, limitations, and relevance of each study and to integrate evidence as necessary and appropriate based upon strengths, limitations, and relevance.”   This approach presents the significant issues, strengths, and limitations of the data and the uncertainties that require consideration, in addition to highlighting the major points of interpretation.

OPPT explains that the last step of the systematic review process will be to develop a summary of findings.  The findings summarize the evidence, describe the methods used to weigh evidence, and articulate the basis for the conclusion(s), recommendation(s), and any uncertainties.  Both exposure assessment and hazard assessment will be discussed.

TSCA Fees Rule — Release of Supplemental Information and Comment Period Extension

/in

On April 24, 2018, EPA released for public comment a supplemental analysis on the definitions of small business size and their effect on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) user fee collection. In the proposed fees rule EPA released in February, small businesses can quality for reduced fee amounts. For the supplemental analysis, EPA requested comment on:

  • Whether an employee-based size standard (how many people are working there) would be more appropriate than a revenue-based size standard (how much revenue comes in), and what that employee level should be (note: the revenue level standard is already in the proposed rule);
  • Whether either size standard should vary from industry to industry for any reason;
  • What other factors and data sources the Agency should consider, besides inflation, when developing the size standard; and
  • What should the new TSCA section 5 fee amounts be if EPA changes the size standard?

EPA is also extending the comment period for the proposed TSCA fees rule until May 24, 2018. This is meant to give interested parties more time to comment on both the rule and the supplemental analysis.

EPA Issues Draft TSCA Inventory With “Active” Substance Designations

/in

Under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Reset Rule, manufacturers and importers were required to report all chemical substances that were active in commerce in the ten year “look-back period” ending June 21, 2016. Based on the information it received, the EPA published a draft version of the TSCA Inventory that contains 38,304 substances with “active” designations.

The draft Inventory designates as active those substances:

  • Substances notified under the 2012 and 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule;
  • Those substances EPA received notices of commencement (NOCs) since June 21, 2006; and
  • Substances reported via notices of activity (NOAs) before the February 7, 2018 Inventory Reset reporting deadline.

Substances listed as “active” in the draft Inventory include 30,972 on the public inventory and 7,332 on the confidential inventory. There are approximately 48,000 substances that have not been reported as active.

“Active” designations may grow in the coming months. The Inventory Reset Rule allows processors to report any substances that did not get reported as active by manufacturers or importers until October 5, 2018. In addition EPA has established a process to “activate” substances that are designated inactive.

Download the draft “active” Inventory here.