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.

EPA Proposes SNURs for Flame Retardants

/in , ,

EPA has proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) for three flame retardants under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The three flame retardants are tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), and triphenyl phosphate (TPP).  All three substances are currently undergoing TSCA risk evaluations.  The proposed significant new uses are manufacture (including import) or processing for any use, except for those uses being considered in the risk evaluations.  In the Federal Register notice, EPA explained that significant new uses would encompass the following categories:

  • Manufacture and processing for uses that have ceased;
  • Manufacture and processing for uses that have not yet ceased but for which all manufacture and processing has ceased; and
  • Manufacture and processing for uses for which EPA has no information demonstrating that the use has previously commenced in the United States.

The Agency sought public comment on its description of the significant new uses for the chemicals identified, including specific documentation of ongoing uses not identified by the Agency in the risk evaluation scope documents.

EPA noted that “The issuance of a SNUR is not a risk determination itself, only a notification requirement for ‘‘significant new uses,’’ so that the Agency has the opportunity to review the [Significant New Use Notification] for the significant new use and make a TSCA section 5(a)(3) risk determination.”  In other words, “Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination under TSCA section 5 before the manufacture (including import) or processing for the significant new use can commence.”

In its discussion of the significant new use determination, EPA explained that the Agency considered information about the toxicity or expected toxicity of these substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four factors listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2):

  • The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance,
  • The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance,
  • The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance and
  • The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

According to the Federal Register Notice, current uses of TCEP are as follows:  TCEP is imported into the United States and processed for commercial use in paints and coatings, for industrial or commercial use in polymers for use in aerospace equipment and products, and for commercial use as a laboratory chemical.

EPA found that TBBPA is currently manufactured (including imported) in the United States. It is processed as a reactant or intermediate to create other flame retardants; incorporated into formulation, mixture, or reaction products; and incorporated into articles. The Agency noted that the predominant uses for TBBPA are as a reactive flame retardant in electrical and electronic products and as an additive flame retardant in electrical and electronic products. In addition, epoxy resin containing TBBPA can be used in adhesives, laminate for aviation and automobile interiors and building/ construction materials.

The Agency reported that TPP is manufactured (including imported) in the United States.  It is processed as a reactant; incorporated into formulation, mixture, or reaction products; and incorporated into articles.  Commercial uses include in plastic and rubber products and in paints and coatings. The chemical is also used in lubricants and greases.  In addition, consumer uses were reported in foam seating and bedding products.

Comments can be viewed in docket EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0012 at regulations.gov.

Environmental Group Petitions for Review of EPA’s New Confidential Business Information Rule

/in , ,

On June 29, 2023, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a non-profit organization, filed a petition in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting a review of EPA’s recently finalized rule Confidential Business Information Claims Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (88 FR 37155).  As described in a previous Verdant Law blog post, the final rule implements new requirements for the assertion and treatment of TSCA confidential business information (CBI) claims in light of the Lautenberg Amendments to TSCA.

In a non-binding statement of issues filed August 21, EDF listed the following as preliminary issues to be raised in the petition: whether the final rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law because…

  1. It would allow submitters to assert CBI claims to shield the information from the public that TSCA makes categorically ineligible for CBI protection;
  2. It would not require substantiation or EPA review of a CBI claim that was asserted before a chemical’s commercialization for specific chemical identity once the chemical is commercialized;
  3. It unlawfully adopts a regulatory definition of “health and safety study” that is narrower than the TSCA definition, denying TSCA-mandated public access to important information on chemicals;
  4. The Agency purports to give itself unlawfully broad discretion through its regulations where TSCA imposes a duty upon the Agency; or because
  5. It reduces the transparency previously required under EPA’s CBI review procedures without adequate justification.

Briefs have not yet been filed, and EDF did not file a memorandum detailing its positions, so no additional information on EDF’s positions is currently available.

Audit Finds EPA’s New Chemicals Program Lacks Sufficient Guidance

/in ,

On August 2, 2023, EPA’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) released a report on its audit of EPA’s New Chemicals Program. The audit identified recordkeeping and quality assurance issues with the program as administered by EPA’s New Chemicals Division (“NCD”). The audit, which began in October 2021, was conducted in response to several internal complaints submitted to OIG.

The New Chemicals Program reviews whether new chemicals or significant new uses of existing chemicals pose an “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). According to the report, NCD did not have finalized, up-to-date guidance for recordkeeping or for many of the steps in the new chemicals review process, contrary to EPA protocol.  OIG stated that these issues resulted from insufficient staff resources, which prevented NCD from both conducting the chemical reviews within statutory time frames and finalizing guidance for the activities composing the review process. The report also found frequent technical issues with NCD’s TSCA Confidential Business Information systems.

Some of the complaints to OIG alleged that staff were pressured to focus on deadlines rather than chemicals’ potential risks during the new chemical review process. However, OIG found no evidence of this; for example, the report notes that NCD employees were not evaluated on the speed at which they reviewed chemicals.

OIG made the following four recommendations to EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (“OCSPP”) based on its findings:

  1. Develop a plan to regularly review NCD’s guidance documents,
  2. Develop a plan to periodically assess the effectiveness of NCD’s recordkeeping system,
  3. Develop a plan to identify the root causes of the technical issues, and
  4. Conduct periodic reviews of NCD’s workload.

OCSPP’s response, which was included in the report, agreed with each of OIG’s recommendations and proposed corrective actions in line with the recommendations.

This audit was not the first to find issues with EPA’s implementation of TSCA provisions. A 2019 GAO report identified similar issues, such as insufficient guidance and resources, with the new chemicals review process. In 2020, OIG found that EPA had missed deadlines on existing chemical risk evaluations and that EPA’s ability to meet future deadlines was at risk. EPA has since proposed a fee adjustment designed to increase TSCA fee collections. Most recently, in February 2023, GAO determined that EPA had missed most TSCA deadlines for reviewing new and existing chemicals.  In general, EPA agreed in part or in full when recommendations were made in these reports and corrective actions have been completed or are pending.

EPA Releases Framework for Addressing New PFAS and New Uses Under TSCA

/in , ,

EPA has released the Framework for Addressing New PFAS and New Uses of PFAS. This document details the Agency’s planned strategy for evaluating Premanufacture Notices  (“PMNs”) for new PFAS compounds and Significant New Use Notices (“SNUNs”) for “new uses” of existing PFAS to ensure they do not pose harm to human health and the environment.

The Agency states that new PFAS substances present challenges for regulators, as there is frequently limited information available to assess their potential risks accurately. Many PFAS compounds are known to persist in the environment, bioaccumulate, and be toxic (known as “PBT”); the framework aims to qualitatively evaluate PFAS based on how likely they truly are to become PBTs in the body and environment.

The framework distinguishes between PFAS uses that may result in environmental releases and potential exposures and those that don’t. For example, PFAS applications that are deemed to have negligible exposure and minimal environmental release, such as in the closed systems used in the manufacture of electronics. EPA generally anticipates allowing the compounds to enter commerce after exposure data is provided.

The framework calls for more comprehensive testing, including toxicokinetic data, for PBT PFAS compounds that are expected to have a low but greater than negligible potential for environmental release and exposure. If initial testing raises concerns about exposure levels and risks, EPA will mandate further testing and risk mitigation before permitting manufacturing. This comprehensive testing would encompass physical-chemical properties, toxicity, and fate analysis. For example, uses of PFAS in spray-applied stain guards inherently involve releases into the environment. If required testing finds potential hazards, EPA has the authority under TSCA section 5 to demand additional testing and risk mitigation strategies or prohibit manufacturing entirely.

If EPA determines a new chemical substance poses an unreasonable risk, lacks sufficient risk information, or involves substantial production with potential exposure, it must issue a section 5(e) order for human health and environmental protection, which may include testing requirements. If PFAS data suggests it’s a PBT chemical and EPA anticipates exposures, the substance or significant new use could be deemed to present an unreasonable risk, therefore requiring either a section 5(f) order or an immediately effective proposed rule under TSCA section 6(a). The section 5(f) order applies to the submitter, while the 6(a) rule covers all users. For a SNUN, the 6(a) rule typically targets the specified new use. The chart below further details the possible EPA determinations and related actions following their review.

Determination Related Action
In the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation of risk from the substance or significant new use, the substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable risk. EPA must issue an order under TSCA section 5(e).
There is insufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation of risk from the substance or new use. EPA must issue an order under TSCA section 5(e).
The substance or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk. EPA must take action under TSCA section 5(f).
The substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and there may be significant or substantial human and/or environmental exposure (exposure-based). EPA must issue an order under TSCA section 5(e).
The substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. EPA notifies the submitter of its decision and publishes its findings in the Federal Register.

 

EPA Finds TCE as a Whole Chemical Substance an Unreasonable Risk to Human Health

/in ,

Earlier this year, EPA announced the final revision to the risk determination for trichloroethylene (TCE) risk evaluation issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). EPA found that TCE presents unreasonable risks to the health of workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and bystanders. The risks identified include adverse human health effects unrelated to cancer, such as neurotoxicity and liver effects, from acute and chronic inhalation and dermal exposures to TCE and risks for cancer from chronic inhalation and dermal exposures to TCE. The revised risk determination supersedes the conditions of use (“COU”) specific “no unreasonable risk” determinations that the EPA previously issued in its 2020 TCE risk evaluation.

TCE is a volatile organic compound (“VOC”) used mostly in industrial and commercial processes. Consumer uses include cleaning and furniture care products, arts and crafts, spray coatings, and automotive care products like brake cleaners. EPA determined that 52 of the 54 COUs evaluated drive the unreasonable risk determination.

EPA states that it used the whole chemical risk determination approach for TCE because there are benchmark exceedances for multiple COUs spanning across most aspects of TCE’s life cycle, from manufacturing (including import), processing, commercial use, consumer use, and disposal for health of workers occupational non-users (workers nearby but not in direct contact with this chemical), consumers, and bystanders. EPA holds that this approach is appropriate because the health effects associated with TCE exposures are “severe and potentially irreversible,” including developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and cancer. EPA notes that the revised risk determination for TCE does not reflect an assumption that workers always and appropriately wear personal protective equipment (PPE). EPA states that as it moves forward with a risk management rulemaking for TCE, it will “strive for consistency with existing OSHA requirements or best industry practices when those measures would address the identified unreasonable risk.

Additionally, EPA stated it is conducting a screening-level approach to assess potential risks from the air and water pathways for several of the first 10 risk evaluation chemicals, including TCE. The goal of the screening approach is to evaluate the surface water, drinking water, and ambient air pathways for TCE that were excluded from the 2020 risk evaluation and to determine if there are risks that were unaccounted for in that risk evaluation. EPA expects to describe its findings regarding the chemical-specific application of this screening-level approach in its proposed risk management rule for TCE.

TSCA Enforcement Action Taken Over Failure to Comply with PFAS SNUR

/in , , ,

In December 2022, two separate lawsuits were filed against Inhance Technologies USA regarding its alleged production of certain PFAS substances in violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). These lawsuits are important as they raise novel questions of TSCA interpretation and enforcement.

The first lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).  The second case is a citizen suit filed by the non-profit organizations Center for Environmental Health (“CEH”) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (“PEER”). U.S. v. Inhance Technologies LLC, U.S. Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:22-cv-05055; Center for Environmental Health v. Inhance Technologies USA, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:22-cv-03819. It is rare that EPA pursues TSCA enforcement actions in federal court. Similarly, the citizen suit provision of TSCA is exercised infrequently.

Defendant Inhance Technologies USA (“Inhance”) is a Texas-based corporation that treats plastic containers, including high-density polyethylene (HDPE), using a fluorination process. Inhance is the principal supplier of post-mold fluorination services in the United States.

According to the Complaints, Inhance has been in violation of the Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate (“LCPFAC”)  Significant New Use Rule (“SNUR”) that requires manufacturers to file a Significant New Use Notice (“SNUN”) for any manufacturing (including importing) or processing of an LCPFAC for which there were no ongoing uses as of January 21, 2015. See 40 CFR 721.10536. This includes substances that are typically exempt byproducts under TSCA and LCPFACs that are imported as part of articles. Inhance allegedly violated two SNUR requirements.  The complaints assert that Inhance failed to submit a SNUN for LCPFAC substances formed during the fluorination of plastic containers at least 90 days prior to the manufacture of these substances. The second violation charged is the company’s manufacture of these substances before completion of the requisite 90-day SNUN review period.

Inhance received warning of its violation of the LCPFAC Rule by the Plaintiffs of each lawsuit months prior to litigation. The lawsuits follow a March 2022 letter EPA sent to the HDPE industry. EPA issued the letter, first “to remind industry of this issue to help prevent unintended PFAS formation and contamination,” and second, to “emphasize the requirement under TSCA as it related to PFAS and fluorinated polyolefins.” In its letter, EPA reminded the industry of the SNUR, highlighting that while LCPFAC chemical substances are byproducts of the fluorination process from the chemical and commercial standpoint, these substances are not eligible for the byproducts exemption in 40 CFR § 721.45(e). The Agency letter further encouraged the industry to pursue alternative fluorination processes which are less likely to foster unintentional PFAS creation. EPA’s lawsuit is its first enforcement matter against the HDPE industry following the Agency’s warnings.

In March 2022, EPA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV), requesting that Inhance provide the Agency with additional information on changes the company may have made to the HDPE fluorination process that would eliminate PFAS production. The NOV stated that if no changes to the manufacturing process had been made, Inhance would need to immediately cease manufacturing PFAS and submit a SNUN to the Agency for review. Agency review of the information submitted by the company confirmed that the company was producing substances that are subject to the LCPFAC Rule.

In September 2022, Inhance notified EPA that it intended to submit a SNUN for its fluorination processes, but that it was unwilling to cease its fluorination processes before or during the EPA SNUN review period. Inhance has consistently maintained that it believes its operations are in full regulatory compliance.

EPA’s lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2022, with the non-profit lawsuit following about a week behind. The Complaints allege a variety of TSCA violations, namely the following:

  • Section 5(a)(1) of TSCA, which states no person may manufacture or process a chemical substance for a significant new use unless (1) that person submits a Significant New Use Notice (“New Use Notice”) to the EPA; (2) the EPA reviews that notice; and (3) the EPA makes a determination on that use under Section 5(a)(3) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2604(a)(3). 15 U.S.C. § 2604(a)(1).
  • Title 40 C.F.R. § 721.25 prescribes similar requirements for any person seeking to engage in a significant new use of a chemical substance.
  • Section 15 of TSCA, which states that it is a prohibited act to fail or refuse to comply with any requirement of TSCA or any rule promulgated under TSCA. 15 U.S.C. § 2614.
  • Under 40 C.F.R. § 721.35, it is a violation of Section 15 of TSCA to fail to comply with any provision of Title 40, Part 721 of the regulations implementing TSCA.

Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 15(a) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2616(a)) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201) for Inhance to cease production of all products using the PFAS forming fluorination process. To resume production, Inhance must demonstrate to EPA that it has altered its production process to eliminate PFAS production.

Case Update

In April 2023, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit brought by CEH and PEER. Shortly after CEH and PEER filed their lawsuit, Inhance filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing that the lawsuit was inappropriate under TSCA’s diligent prosecution bar. DOJ filed an amicus brief supporting Inhance’s motion to dismiss. For the CEH and PEER lawsuit to proceed, the organizations would have needed to demonstrate that DOJ was not diligently prosecuting the case. The court granted Inhance’s motion stating that “[n]othing in the eight days between when DOJ filed its lawsuit and when the Plaintiffs filed theirs suggests that [DOJ] was not diligently prosecuting the case.”

On June 13, the court presiding over the DOJ lawsuit scheduled oral arguments for August 23, 2023.

EPA Proposes Ban on Perchloroethylene

/in ,

Using its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has released a proposed rule to ban the use of perchloroethylene (“PCE”) for most commercial and industrial uses. (PCE is also referred to as perc and tetrachloroethylene.) PCE is used in a number of applications and industries, including petroleum manufacturing, aerosol degreasing, and dry cleaning.

The proposed rule follows the Agency’s assessment of the risk to human health presented by the substance. EPA conducted a risk evaluation of the substance under TSCA section 6(b). That assessment determined that PCE, as a whole chemical substance, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health as PCE exposure causes a variety of adverse health effects. PCE is a known carcinogen; it also causes neurotoxicity, including impaired visual and cognitive function. Various other health effects were noted by the risk evaluation, including central nervous system depression, kidney and liver effects, immune system toxicity, and developmental toxicity.

Under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is required to address, by rule, any unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment found during a TSCA risk evaluation. Section 6(a) also requires the Agency to identify actions necessary to ensure the chemical does not continue presenting an unreasonable risk by either a) implementing “a requirement [either] prohibiting or otherwise restricting the manufacturing, processing, or distribution in commerce of such substance or mixture,” or b) “limiting the amount of such substance or mixture which may be manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce.” To meet these requirements, EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacture, import, processing, and distribution of PCE for a number of commercial and consumer uses, such as in dry cleaning, spot-cleaning operations and degreasing. The prohibition allows a 10-year phaseout period.

The Agency will still permit limited use of PCE for some uses, particularly those which help its efforts in addressing climate-damaging hydrofluorocarbons (an initiative happening under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020). PCE will also be used in uses that are important for national security applications or to meet other critical national needs. In these cases, EPA would require the implementation of a PCE workplace chemical protection program. The chemical protection program would include requirements to meet an inhalation exposure concentration limit and prevent direct dermal contact. The Agency has also put forward prescriptive requirements for laboratory use, recordkeeping, and downstream notification.

EPA will permit certain time-limited exemptions from the ban for certain critical or essential emergency uses of PCE when no alternative is technically or economically feasible safer alternative is available.

EPA Finalizes TSCA CBI Rule

/in , ,

On June 7, 2023, EPA finalized a rule (88 Fed. Reg. 37155) that puts forth new and amended requirements for parties asserting confidential business information (“CBI”) claims under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). The new rule details specific procedures for the regulated community to submit and support CBI claims and for the Agency to review CBI claims and communicate their determinations to submitters. Additionally, the rule reorganizes existing provisions of the CBI regulations.

The following are the most substantial changes to procedures for submitting and supporting CBI claims under TSCA:

Substantiation Requirements Applicable at Time of Submission

The rule requires that confidentiality claims be asserted and substantiated at the time of submission; substantiation data requires submissions of supporting statements and certification, including but not limited to asserting that the party has taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of the information, and a reasonable basis to believe that the information is not readily available through reverse engineering. (40 CFR 703.5(a)).

Supporting Statement and Certification

Certification of CBI claims is required at the times the statements are submitted.  Submitters will be required to answer a number of questions, many or all of which have been used for some time in EPA’s CBI substantiation templates and certain CDX submissions (e.g., CDR).  Submitters should note that certifications are submitted under penalty of perjury; any knowing and willful misrepresentation is subject to criminal penalty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Electronic Reporting

The final rule mandates that short of very limited exceptions, all CBI claims must be submitted electronically. This requirement is detailed in 40 CFR 703.5(f). Parties should be particularly conscious of this with TSCA Section 8(e) reporting, notifications under TSCA Section 12(b), and polymer exemption notices under TSCA Section 5 because this rule is the first mandating these types of reporting are to be done electronically.

Requirement to Report Health and Safety Information Using Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) Harmonized Templates

Under the final rule, health and safety information must be provided using OECD harmonized templates. This is in addition to existing requirements that require submitters to provide a full study report. According to the Federal Register notice, the Agency will elaborate on instructions for including OECD harmonized template files (e.g., currently acceptable file types and IUCLID software versions). This requirement can be found at 40 CFR 703.5(g).

Maintenance and Withdrawal of Confidentiality Claims

EPA is requiring that, going forward, company contact information be kept up to date through CDX. When contacting a submitter concerning confidentiality claims, EPA will contact the submitter either through CDX directly or using the contact information provided by the submitter in CDX. When a confidentiality claim is being reviewed, a notice of the review and opportunity to substantiate or re-substantiate the confidentiality claim will be sent to the submitter using the information provided in CDX. Often, this will be done by sending the submitter an email from a CDX account notifying them that a document is available for download from CDX, which is why it is particularly important to have up-to-date information within the CDX platform. The details of this requirement are within 40 CFR 703.5(h).

EPA has also detailed the process for voluntarily withdrawing confidentiality claims submitted either in CDX or by other means. (40 CFR 703.5(i)). For CDX-submitted claims, the submitters must remove confidentiality markings, revise their documents, and resubmit these documents in CDX. For submissions not originally submitted through CDX, there is now a process for withdrawing the CBI claims through CDX using document-identifying details.

EPA Releases Chemical Data Reporting National Review

/in , ,

EPA has released its first-ever Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) National Review (“Review”), which provides a comprehensive analysis of data submitted to the Agency during the 2020 CDR reporting cycle. The report presents information about chemicals that were manufactured and imported into the US from 2016 through 2019. In its press release on the Review, the Agency stated that the document will assist stakeholders in evaluating and understanding information about the types, quantities, and uses of chemicals produced domestically or imported into the U.S.

Manufacturers and importers of chemical substances listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) Inventory are required to report data to the EPA every four years if they manufacture or import substances at or above specific thresholds unless the chemical has been exempted from the reporting requirement. Typically reporting is required when an entity manufactures or imports 25,000 pounds or more of a chemical during any year in the reporting period at any single site. Companies must report how chemicals are processed or used (industrial processing and use data), and whether they are used in commercial or consumer products (commercial and/or consumer use data) in addition to manufacturing and import volumes.

According to EPA, the CDR database is the most comprehensive source of basic screening-level, exposure-related information on chemicals that is available to the Agency. EPA uses the database to screen and prioritize chemicals for further review.

The Review summarizes data from the most recent CDR reporting cycle data (2020), covering activities from 2016 to 2019, and provides trend data for reporting over the past decade. During this reporting period, more than 7.2 trillion pounds of chemicals were manufactured or imported at 5,238 sites.

The Review provides interactive trend analysis, including an interactive map of CDR sites and characteristics of the communities in which these sites are located.  It also includes maps displaying CDR reporting sites by state, and figures with production volumes. In addition, the Review contains informational charts and figures to increase understanding of a variety of CDR data elements, such as analyses of chemical use information. Environmental justice tools from EPA’s EJScreen, the Agency’s environmental justice mapping tool, are also contained in the document.

The Review’s key findings include:

  • Of the more than 8,000 chemicals reported for the 2020 CDR reporting cycle, about 54% were manufactured domestically, and 46% were imported. This is a 10% increase in imported chemicals from the 2016 CDR.
  • Two industry sectors manufactured and imported the bulk of the volume reported to the 2020 CDR: petroleum and coal products manufacturing (64%) and chemical manufacturing (14%). Although it produced less volume than the petroleum and coal products sector, the chemical manufacturing sector produced the majority of chemicals (84%) reported to the 2020 CDR and represented nearly half (43%) of all sites.
  • 180 PFAS were reported by 57 sites for a total production volume of about 678 million pounds.
  • Of the 37 Chemicals undergoing Risk Evaluation, 33 chemicals were reported to the 2020 CDR; that is, they were manufactured or imported at above threshold volumes (2,500 lbs.) in at least one year during the reporting cycle. Thirty-four Risk Evaluation chemicals were reported in both the 2012 and 2016 reporting cycles.
  • Total production volume for the 33 TSCA Risk Evaluation chemicals was about 38 billion pounds. The volume was reported across 254 sites.
  • The number of sites that manufactured and/or imported TSCA Risk Evaluation Chemicals has increased by 40% over the past 10 years, while the manufactured and imported volumes have generally remained consistent.