EPA Issues Draft Risk Evaluation for Flame Retardant TCEP

/in , , ,

EPA has preliminarily determined that tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) presents an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment, according to its draft risk assessment of the flame retardant released on December 14, 2023.  Animal testing data revealed that exposure to TCEP may increase risk of kidney cancer and other cancers, and could harm neurological and reproductive systems, the draft states.

According to EPA, domestic production of TCEP has decreased by about 99 percent since 2014.  However, the agency notes that TCEP is still used in paints, coatings, and in certain aerospace applications, and that previously-manufactured products containing TCEP—such as fabrics, certain types of foam, and construction materials—may still be in use.  The draft also states that “TCEP may still be found in a wide range” of imported goods.

Because TCEP is mixed into materials rather than being chemically bonded, it can leach out of products, EPA said.  Infant and child exposure from mouthing consumer products containing TCEP was determined to present an unreasonable risk.  The agency also found unreasonable risk of health effects for breastfed infants, people who handle TCEP at work, people who inhale TCEP dust off consumer products, and people who eat TCEP-contaminated fish.

EPA determined that TCEP presents an unreasonable risk to the environment due to studies on chronic exposures in fish and sediment-dwelling organisms.  The draft identified a number of ways by which TCEP can enter the environment, including manufacturing processes, air emissions, and leaching from products and landfills.  Although TCEP is not considered bioaccumulative, it is persistent in the environment, EPA said.

The draft risk evaluation is open for public comment and will undergo peer review by independent scientific and technical experts starting in March 2024.  If EPA still concludes that TCEP presents an unreasonable risk after public comment and peer review, the Toxic Substances Control Act requires the agency to take steps to mitigate its risks.

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.

Irene Hantman Presents on EPA’s Audit Policy and TSCA Audits at PSX 2023

/in ,

Verdant Law is pleased to report that Irene Hantman gave a presentation on EPA’s Audit Policy and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) audits on October 18 in Boston at PSX 2023.  PSX is the Product Stewardship Society’s annual conference, and its website can be found here.  Ms. Hantman serves on the Conference Planning Committee for PSX and looks forward to next year’s conference in Denver.

The presentation covered the incentives for the self-disclosure of violations provided by EPA’s audit policy, the conditions that must be met to qualify for audit policy penalty mitigation, and the benefits and risks of TSCA audits.  Ms. Hantman discussed important considerations for companies conducting audits, such as compliance with the 21-day self-disclosure deadline and understanding the 5-year statute of limitations that applies to most TSCA violations.  Ms. Hantman also highlighted the role of negotiations with EPA during an audit, for example, to avoid triggering penalties for repeat violations.

Particular attention was given to the New Owner Audit Policy, which allows new owners to get a clean baseline following the purchase of a facility.  Ms. Hantman covered the additional benefits to new owners of conducting TSCA audits, which include the opportunity to seek indemnification from the seller for breach of reps and warranties, the opportunity to submit an insurance claim if the new owner purchased deal insurance, and further reduced economic penalties under the New Owner Audit Policy.

Also presenting was Ashish P. Deshmukh, PhD, Principal at Ramboll, who spoke about the particulars of audit processes and how product stewards can prepare for TSCA audits.  The presentation was moderated by Robert DeMott, PhD, Principal Toxicologist at Ramboll.

If you have questions about the topics of the presentation, please contact Ms. Hantman.

EPA Finalizes TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for PFAS

/in , ,

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.

DOJ Files Lawsuit Against eBay for Environmental Violations

/in , , , ,

On behalf of EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the online retailer eBay for selling and distributing “hundreds of thousands of products” that allegedly violate the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

DOJ first alleges that eBay violated the CAA by selling or causing the sale of over 343,000 automotive aftermarket defeat devices.  These devices, which are often advertised as vehicle power enhancers, “can cause motor vehicles to emit hundreds to thousands of times more pollution than a motor vehicle with properly functioning emission controls,” the complaint says.  DOJ alleges that each aftermarket defeat device sold, offered for sale, or caused to sell by eBay constitutes a violation of CAA section 203(a)(3)(B), which forbids selling or offering to sell a motor vehicle part that bypasses an emission-related element of design.

Second, the complaint alleges that eBay committed a series of FIFRA violations by selling or distributing a minimum of 23,000 unregistered, misbranded, or restricted use pesticide products.  DOJ also alleges 8,074 violations of a Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order (SSURO) issued by EPA in 2020 (and amended in 2021), which identified some of these allegedly unlawful pesticide products.  Among the products sold in alleged violation of the SSURO was an insecticide containing dichlorvos, which DOJ characterizes as highly dangerous, and a “disinfection card” claiming to protect users from COVID-19 when worn around their neck.

Finally, eBay is being sued under TSCA for violating a 2019 rule prohibiting the manufacture, processing, and distribution of products containing methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal.  The TSCA section 6(a) rule was the result of EPA’s determination that those uses pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health due to methylene chloride’s acute human lethality.  According to the complaint, eBay has distributed over 5,600 items in violation of the rule.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to prevent eBay from further selling products violating the CAA, FIFRA, and TSCA.  The complaint additionally requests civil penalties for each of the CAA violations, which could amount to $5,580 per violation.

EPA Releases Draft Supplement for 1,4-Dioxane

/in , , ,

In July 2023, EPA announced the release of a draft supplement to the Risk Evaluation for 1,4-dioxane for public comment and peer review.  1,4-dioxane is solvent used to manufacture other chemicals such as adhesives and sealants.  It is also used as a processing aid and laboratory chemical. In addition, some manufacturing processes, such as the process used for making commercial and consumer dish soaps, result in the chemical being present as a byproduct.

The draft supplement focuses on air and water exposure pathways that were not included in the 2020 Risk Evaluation.  The 2020 Risk Evaluation focused on health risks to workers, consumers, and the general public, but not from drinking water, the air, or exposure where 1,4-dioxane is present as a byproduct.  The omission was identified by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) as an oversight.  The SACC informed EPA that failure to assess the risks posed to the general population from exposure to the chemical may present a risk to human health – with an emphasis on drinking water as an exposure pathway.

The draft supplement identified cancer risk estimates higher than 1 in 10,000 for 1,4-dioxane present as a byproduct and higher than 1 in 1 million for general population exposure scenarios associated with 1,4-dioxane in drinking water sourced downstream of release sites and in air within 1 km of releasing facilities.

The draft supplement did note that the risk estimates include inherent uncertainties and the overall confidence in specific risk estimates fluctuates.  However, the document also stated that the information is beneficial in helping the Agency make a determination on whether the chemical poses an unreasonable risk to people with occupational exposure, through sources of drinking water, and breathing air near release sites.

EPA Settles with Kyocera After Self-Disclosure of TSCA Violations

/in ,

On September 5, 2023, EPA signed a consent agreement with Kyocera International, Inc. (“Kyocera”) over three alleged violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Kyocera’s civil penalty was reduced to $105,937 because of EPA’s audit policy, which rewards companies that “voluntarily discover, promptly disclose and expeditiously correct” violations with reduced fines.

The alleged violations, which pertain to six unnamed chemicals (Chemicals A, B, C, D, E, and F), are as follows:

  1. Importation of Chemical A at least 12 times, Chemical B at least 21 times, and Chemical C at least 18 times without first filing a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an exemption to PMN requirements, in violation of TSCA section 5(a)(1);
  2. Failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements for Chemical D and E’s polymer exemptions to PMN requirements, in violation of TSCA section 5(a)(1); and
  3. Importation of Chemical A at least 12 times, Chemical B at least 21 times, and Chemical C at least 18 times without submission of proper certifications prior to the importation, and importation of Chemical F three times without providing a positive TSCA certification statement for each import, in violation of TSCA section 13(a)(1)(B).

The electronics manufacturer corrected the alleged violations by ceasing importation of Chemicals A, B, C, and D, submitting low-volume exemptions to PMN requirements for Chemicals B and C (which were granted by the Agency), and complying with the polymer exemption requirements for Chemical D. Under the terms of the settlement, EPA gave Kyocera permission to release its self-imposed quarantined stocks of Chemicals B, C, and D.

Kyocera self-disclosed the violations on June 23, 2021, with supplemental information provided in March 2023. The company disclosure and subsequent corrective action satisfied all of EPA’s audit policy conditions except the requirement that the violations be uncovered by “systematic discovery” and was therefore eligible for a 75% reduction in the gravity-based portion of the civil penalty.

The consent decree comes after a June 30, 2022, EPA Inspector General report which found that eDisclosure, EPA’s violation self-disclosure system, “does not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the EPA’s screening process is effective and that significant concerns . . . are identified and addressed.” EPA agreed with all four of the report’s recommendations and proposed corrective actions, including the development of national guidance and eDisclosure-specific training for EPA staff who monitor eDisclosure submissions.

EPA Sued Over Delayed Risk Evaluations

/in , , ,

Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against EPA for failing to complete risk evaluations for 22 substances that may cause harm to humans and the environment.

Under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is required to conduct risk evaluations on “high priority” existing substances to determine whether they pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.  Section 6(b)(4)(G) requires EPA to complete risk evaluations “as soon as practicable, but not later than 3 years after” they are initiated, with a one-time six-month extension possible.

According to the complaint, EPA missed this statutory 3.5-year deadline for 22 ongoing risk evaluations which were initiated in 2019 and early 2020.  Plaintiffs allege that this delay harms their members, staff, and children by prolonging their exposure to substances with serious health risks and by depriving them of information about their exposures.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia set deadlines for EPA to complete the risk evaluations.

The case is Community In-Power and Development Association v. EPA, No. 1:23‑cv‑02715-DLF.