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.

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.

 

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.