TSCA Test Order Issued for PFAS NMeFOSE

/in , ,

On March 20, 2024, EPA issued a test order for a PFAS known as NMeFOSE (CASRN 24448-09-7).  The order, issued under section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, requires 3M Co. and Wacker Chemical Corp. to conduct tiered testing on NMeFOSE.

NMeFOSE was selected for testing as a representative of a group of similar PFAS.  Although existing information on NMeFOSE was deemed insufficient, EPA “identified hazards for acute toxicity and specific target organ toxicity.”  NMeFOSE is expected to break down into a highly toxic PFAS known as PFOS, which also drove concerns.

In a press release, EPA stated that NMeFOSE “has been used widely in products, including clothing and carpet treatments as well as furniture coatings.”  The press release also noted that NMeFOSE can accumulate and that the PFAS has been found in the air and in biosolids.  No Chemical Data Reporting manufacturing information is available for the substance.

The first round of tests, which focus on physical and chemical properties, are due 365 to 390 days after the order’s effective date of March 25, 2024.  Subsequent testing will include assessments of NMeFOSE’s environmental fate, in vivo health effects, and reproductive toxicity, with specific testing requirements contingent on earlier results.

The order is the fourth issued under EPA’s National PFAS Testing Strategy.  The most recent prior order was for HFPO-DAF in August 2023.

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

/in , ,

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

The consent agreement identifies the following TSCA violations:

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

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

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

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

EPA Issues SNUR to Keep Inactive PFAS Out of Commerce

/in , , , ,

Inactive PFAS chemicals can no longer reenter commerce without EPA approval under a final significant new use rule (SNUR) issued by EPA on January 11, 2024.

The 329 PFAS subject to the SNUR are currently designated as inactive on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory and are not subject to an existing SNUR.  (An inactive designation indicates that a substance has not been manufactured, imported, or processed since 2006, with a handful of exceptions addressed below.)  To identify these chemicals, EPA applied the same definition of PFAS the Agency used in its TSCA section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule issued in October 2023, discussed in a previous Verdant Law blog post.

The SNUR requires companies to notify EPA via a significant new use notification at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of any of these substances.  Upon receiving notification, EPA will assess whether the new use may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment and take appropriate action, if necessary, as required under TSCA section 5.

Import and processing of inactive PFAS-containing articles are exempt from the SNUR.  Covered PFAS also fall outside the scope of the SNUR when they are manufactured, imported, or processed:

  • As impurities;
  • As byproducts not for commercial use purposes;
  • In small quantities solely for R&D;
  • For test marketing purposes;
  • For use as a non-isolated intermediate; or
  • Solely for export from the United States.

To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing.  Because the above uses do not result in an active designation on the TSCA Inventory, EPA could not conclude that there are no ongoing uses for these activities.

Oral Arguments in Case Challenging TSCA Test Order

/in ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/in , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA 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.