Court Vacates EPA Test Order, Citing Incomplete Evidence in Public Record

/in , ,

On August 28, 2024, the D.C. Circuit issued an order in Vinyl Institute v. EPA, a case challenging a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) test order issued in March 2022.  The mandate signals that neither party intends to appeal the court’s July 5 ruling, which found EPA’s justification for the test order inadequate.

The test order, which required an avian reproduction study of 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, was vacated and remanded to EPA.  However, the panel noted several places in which additional EPA materials would have satisfied TSCA’s “substantial evidence” standard if they were included in the public record, suggesting that EPA would not necessarily be required to perform additional analyses to justify future test orders as long as the analyses were included in the record.

For example, the court ruled that EPA’s “conclusory statements” in the public record on why vertebrate testing was necessary were inadequate, but also said that other documents showed that EPA considered new approach methodologies (as required by TSCA).  However, the court ruled that these documents—although covered by EPA’s brief—were not part of the administrative record that was available to the public, and that therefore “they are not part of the record subject to our review.”

According to the decision, not all studies referenced in the statement of need accompanying the test order were explained or even identified.  Nor did EPA publicly explain why those studies’ findings could not be used to fill the data gap, the court said.

“EPA should have explained why it could not extrapolate mammalian chronic exposure data to avian chronic exposure in its Statement of Need description of reasonably available information,” Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote.  “Identifying close but ultimately inapplicable studies and explaining, in the record, why it could not extrapolate other potentially relevant findings could constitute substantial evidence.”

However, the court upheld EPA’s decision to issue a test order rather than pursuing a rule or consent agreement, agreeing with EPA that timeliness in acquiring the data was sufficient justification. EPA initiated the risk evaluation for 1,1,2-Trichloroethane in December 2019 but has yet to issue a report on its findings.

Judge Henderson also agreed that EPA was not required to demonstrate that exposure may exist at potentially toxic levels before issuing a test order.  That would “reverse[]…TSCA’s allocation of burdens,” the decision states.

Judge Henderson was joined in full by Judge Florence Pan and in part by Judge Justin Walker.  A previous blog post on the case, written after the December 2023 oral argument, can be found here.

Court Finds EPA’s Transparency in New Chemicals Disclosures Reviewable

/in , , , ,

EPA’s alleged failure to disclose certain information submitted to its New Chemicals Program is subject to judicial review under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the D.C. District Court ruled on August 20, 2024.

In Environmental Defense Fund v. Regan,  No. 1:20-cv-00762-LLA, five environmental organizations allege that EPA engages in a pattern or practice of violating TSCA’s disclosure requirements for premanufacture notices (PMNs) and applications for test marketing exemptions (TMEs).  The suit’s 10 counts include allegations that EPA failed to publish timely and complete notices of receipt of PMNs; failed to make health and safety studies, safety data sheets, and other information contained in PMN submissions available for examination; and failed to disclose information claimed as confidential business information when it facially did not qualify as confidential.

EPA moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the plaintiffs are barred from seeking relief under TSCA for most of their claims.  While TSCA’s citizen suit provisions allow persons to compel the agency to perform nondiscretionary duties, EPA argued that the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions “do not impose a date-certain deadline” on EPA.  The agency also argued that judicial review under the APA would be inappropriate because the claims concern activities that are interlocutory in nature and too minor to meet the APA’s threshold for “agency action.”

The court denied EPA’s motion.  Even in instances where TSCA does not set an explicit deadline, the court said that it is sometimes apparent that activities must be taken in relation to other events.  Three of the plaintiffs’ 10 counts were found to fall in this category.  For example, TSCA directs EPA to provide immediate notice of TME applications for public input and requires EPA to make a determination on each application within 45 days.  Since “[n]otice must precede comment” and “comment must precede the EPA’s decision,” “[t]he only logical conclusion” is that notice is required prior to expiration of the 45-day period, the court held.

For the seven remaining allegations—which all concerned the availability of information submitted with a new chemical notification, and for which a deadline for agency disclosure to interested parties could not be ascertained from the statutory structure—the court was unconvinced by EPA’s argument that the APA could not offer relief.  The APA’s definition of agency action has been interpreted expansively by the courts, and the fact that the challenged activities are merely “interim steps” is not dispositive, the decision states.  Importantly, as part of this analysis, the court held that TSCA section 5(b) creates a “freestanding right to information” submitted as part of a new chemical notification.

Judge Loren L. AliKhan also granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the administrative record, rejecting EPA’s arguments that the claims should be understood as “failures to act” rather than actions—meaning that they would not have an administrative record.  However, she did not go so far as to agree with the plaintiffs on the merits.

According to EPA, since the case was filed in 2020, the agency has made “substantial and ongoing improvements to its practices for preparing and publishing public notices and public files as part of its ongoing commitment to improving the administration and transparency” of its New Chemicals Program.

In addition to the Environmental Defense Fund, the plaintiffs include the Center for Environmental Health, the Environmental Health Strategy Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club.

EPA Proposes Risk Management Rule for 1-Bromopropane

/in , ,

On August 8, 2024, EPA published a proposed rule to restrict use of the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) (CASRN 106-94-5).  The proposed rule is the result of the agency’s revised 2022 determination that 1-BP presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health due to effects including neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, and carcinogenicity.

According to EPA, 1-BP is used in a wide variety of applications, including “vapor degreasing, aerosol degreasing, adhesives and sealants, and in insulation.”  Data from the Chemical Data Reporting rule shows that annual production of the substance, also known as n-propyl bromide, increased from 15.4 to 25.8 million pounds between 2012 and 2015.  This increase was because 1-BP is “an alternative to ozone-depleting substances and chlorinated solvents,” according to a 2020 EPA risk evaluation.

Under the proposed rule, all consumer uses of 1-BP would be banned except for use in insulation.  EPA is also proposing to prohibit four industrial and commercial uses, including use in adhesives and sealants, dry cleaning solvents, and automotive care products.  EPA estimates that these banned uses represent about 3% of the current annual production of 1-BP.

Other industrial and commercial uses would be subject to a workplace chemical protection program (WCPP), which would implement an inhalation exposure concentration limit for 1-BP of 0.05 ppm as an eight-hour time weighted average.  Use of chemically resistant gloves would also be required for uses including manufacturing, processing, and disposal.

Notably, in an effort to protect fenceline communities, EPA is proposing to prohibit owners or operators from increasing releases of 1-BP to outdoor air to comply with WCPP requirements.

EPA is proposing staggered compliance dates for the prohibited uses, which would become effective in six months for manufacturers, nine months for processors, and in 12 months for distribution to retailers.  Non-federal entities subject to the WCPP would be required to conduct baseline airborne exposure testing within six months and ensure that the inhalation exposure limit is met within nine months.

1-BP was added to the Toxics Release Inventory list of reportable chemicals in 2015 and became the first addition to the list of hazardous air pollutants in 2022.  More on 1-BP’s addition to the list can be found in a previous blog post.

Comments on the proposed rule are due September 23, 2024.

EPA Proposes to Designate Five Substances as High Priority

/in , , ,

On July 25, 2024, EPA published a notice proposing to designate a new batch of existing chemicals as high priority substances under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  TSCA section 6 requires EPA to continually designate existing chemicals as “high-priority” based on factors including hazard and exposure potential.  Once a high priority designation is made, EPA is required to conduct a risk evaluation and regulate the chemical if it is found to present an unreasonable risk.

If the notice is finalized as proposed, EPA would immediately initiate risk evaluations for the following five substances:

  • Vinyl Chloride (CASRN 75-01-4)
  • Acetaldehyde (CASRN 75-07-0)
  • Acrylonitrile (CASRN 107-13-1)
  • Benzenamine (CASRN 62-53-3)
  • 4,4’-methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA) (CASRN 101-14-4)

According to an EPA press release, vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen linked to liver, brain, and lung cancer in exposed workers.  In the release, EPA stated that vinyl chloride’s health hazards helped motivate the passage of TSCA in 1976.

The press release noted that the other four substances are probable human carcinogens and that some pose other types of hazards, such as respiratory and reproductive harms.  All five substances are used to make plastic; vinyl chloride is mostly used to make polyvinyl chloride, better known as PVC.

EPA announced that it was beginning the process of prioritizing these chemicals in December 2023.  In that announcement, EPA also stated that that it “expects to initiate prioritization on five chemicals every year, which will create a sustainable and effective pace for risk evaluations.”

Comments on the notice are due October 23, 2024.

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 decision 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 Finalizes Changes to TSCA Risk Evaluation Procedures

/in , ,

On May 3, 2024, EPA published a final rule amending the procedures for chemical risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The final rule is largely unchanged from the proposed rule, discussed in a previous Verdant Law blog post.

A key change in the final rule is the requirement that risk determinations end in a single risk determination rather than use-by-use determinations.  EPA previously referred to this approach as a “whole chemical” approach.  However, to address concerns that a single determination of unreasonable risk would mislead the public into believing that all uses present an unreasonable risk, EPA will no longer use the term “whole chemical.”  EPA additionally committed to “identify[ing] the conditions of use that significantly contribute” to the single determination.

Another important change reverts an EPA interpretation of TSCA to a previous interpretation.  EPA proposed that risk evaluations consider all conditions of use in 2017, but determined that the agency had discretion over conditions of use in the final regulation.  However, due to the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA, the final rule now mandates the inclusion of all conditions of use in risk evaluations.

Other changes include the removal of the definitions of “best available science” and “weight of the scientific evidence” to allow the agency greater “flexibility to quickly adapt to and implement advancing scientific practices”; EPA’s decision to no longer assume use of personal protective equipment when calculating occupational exposure; and identification of “overburdened communities” as a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.

The final rule, effective July 2, 2024, will apply to ongoing risk evaluations “only to the extent practicable.”

EPA Publishes Proposed Consent Decrees for Overdue Risk Evaluations

/in , , ,

EPA would be required to complete overdue risk evaluations by new deadlines if two proposed consent decrees, announced by EPA on April 26, 2024, are adopted.

Section 6(b)(4)(G) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to complete risk evaluations within three years of initiation, with a six-month extension possible.  EPA has missed this 3.5-year deadline for 22 ongoing risk evaluations.  Twenty of these risk evaluations were initiated in December 2019 as a result of amended TSCA’s requirement that EPA designate 20 existing substances as “high-priority,” which automatically initiated risk evaluations.  The other two, which concern the substances DIDP and DINP, were requested by manufacturers.

The proposed consent decrees would resolve two consolidated lawsuits against the agency.  The first, brought by environmental groups, challenges EPA’s failure to complete all 22 overdue risk evaluations; a previous blog post on that case can be found here.  The American Chemistry Council filed the second, which only concerns the two manufacturer-requested risk evaluations.

Under the proposed consent decrees, linked here and here, EPA would be required to complete:

  • Draft risk evaluations for at least seven of the substances, including 1,3-butadiene, by December 31, 2024;
  • Final risk evaluations for DIDP, DINP, TCEP, formaldehyde, and 1,1-dichloroethane by December 31, 2024;
  • Final risk evaluations for seven of the remaining substances, including 1,3-butadiene, by December 31, 2025; and
  • Final risk evaluations for the remaining 10 substances by December 31, 2026.

Under the proposed decrees, EPA could file a motion to extend a deadline if the agency deems it necessary.  The proposed consent decrees also include a provision automatically extending these deadlines if the agency undergoes a lapse in appropriations.

Since the first lawsuit was filed in September 2023, EPA has completed draft risk evaluations for TCEP (more on that here) and formaldehyde.  However, EPA has yet to release draft risk evaluations for any of the other 22 overdue evaluations.

Comments on the proposed consent decrees are due May 28, 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.