EPA Releases Final Scope Document for Manufacturer-Requested Risk Evaluation of D4

/in , ,

On March 7, 2022, EPA published the final scope of the risk evaluation for octamethylcyclotetra-siloxane (D4). This risk evaluation may affect producers of goods comprised of and/or utilizing the following: adhesives, sealants, synthetic rubber, electrical equipment, appliances, paint, ink/toner, aircraft maintenance components, automotive care components, cleaning products, fabrics/textile products. This is not intended to serve as an exhaustive list. The publication of this risk evaluation originated from a request made by the American Chemistry Council’s Silicones Environmental, Health, and Safety Center (SEHSC). The scoping document addresses conditions of use, exposures, hazards, and potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.

Conditions of Use

Conditions of use for D4 risk evaluation can be sub-divided into the following life cycle stages: manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, industrial use, commercial uses, consumer uses, and disposal. EPA’s evaluation will address each of the aforementioned life cycle stages. Notably, processing is the most nuanced of these stages. Specifically, the processing stage is comprised of three subcategories: processing as a reactant; incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product; and repackaging.

Exposures

In the forthcoming risk evaluation, EPA will evaluate human and environmental exposures as well as releases into the environment resulting from these conditions of use identified in the scoping document. The evaluation will contemplate the physical and chemical properties of D4; environmental fate and transport processes, exposure pathways, and potential human and environmental receptors; releases to the environment; environmental exposures (both aquatic and terrestrial); occupational exposures; consumer exposures; and general population exposures.

Hazards

Regarding environmental hazards, EPA will assess the following potential hazard effects of D4 to aquatic and terrestrial organisms including: absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (collectively referred to as “ADME”), developmental, gastrointestinal, mortality, neurological, nutritional, metabolic, reproductive, and respiratory. The scoping document notes that D4 can degrade into dimethylsilanediol (DMSD) under certain environmental conditions. Accordingly, EPA has indicated that it may factor toxicity information regarding DMSD into its risk evaluation.

With respect to human health hazards, EPA intends to examine the relation of D4 exposure to the following: ADME, cancer, endocrine, gastrointestinal, hematological, immunology, hepatic, mortality, neurological, nutritional/metabolic, ocular/sensory, renal, reproductive, developmental, respiratory, and skin/connective tissue. The scope of EPA’s assessment of the human health hazards of D4 may also contemplate hazards associated with exposure to DMSD as mentioned above.

Potentially Exposed or Susceptible Subpopulations (PESS)

In accordance with the requirement of TSCA section 6, the following groups will be considered potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations in the D4 risk evaluation: children, women who may become pregnant, workers, occupational non-users (ONU), consumers, bystanders, fence line communities, and indigenous and native populations. Environmental justice considerations will also be factored into the PESS analysis. These considerations will follow the best practices discussed within EPA’s Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis.

PIP (3:1) Compliance Date Extended to October 31, 2024

/in ,

On January 6, 2021, EPA issued a rule limiting manufacturing, importing, processing, and distribution of products containing phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)).  That rule was scheduled to take effect on February 5, 2021, with a March 8, 2021, compliance date.  After this date, companies would be prohibited from processing and distributing PIP (3:1) and PIP (3:1)-containing products unless there was an applicable exclusion.  Furthermore, after the compliance date, the rule prohibited the release of PIP (3:1) into water during manufacturing, processing, and distribution.  This final rule also required commercial users to follow existing regulations and best practices to prevent the release of PIP (3:1) and products containing PIP (3:1) into water.  On March 8, 2022, the effective compliance date of the rule was extended to October 3, 2024.

The March 2022 extension applies to the following consumer and commercial goods: cellular telephones, laptop computers, electronic devices, and industrial and commercial equipment used in various sectors including transportation, life sciences, and semiconductor production.  Notably, this is not an exhaustive list of the goods affected by the rule.  This extension follows the publication of the initial rule in January 2021, no action assurance issued in March 2021, and the September 2021 extension which expired on March 8, 2022.  These milestones are discussed in greater detail below.

In January 2021, EPA released risk management rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) intended to mitigate exposure to five chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT).  The five chemicals listed under this rule are decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE); phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)); 2,4,6-tris (tert-butyl) phenol (2, 4, 6-TTBP); hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD); and pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP).  The rules were designed to either limit or prohibit manufacturing, importing, processing, and distributing the aforementioned chemicals.  Following the publication of these rules, EPA received numerous comments from manufacturers and processors of PIP (3:1) asserting that the March 8, 2021, compliance date did not provide stakeholders with enough time to find viable chemical substitutes.  Consequently, on March 8, 2021, EPA provided a no action assurance letter on enforcement of the rule.  The no action assurance expired on September 4, 2021.  Subsequently, on September 17, 2021, EPA issued a short-term extension of specific compliance deadlines for the processing and distribution of PIP (3:1) and articles containing PIP (3:1) to March 8, 2022. On March 8, 2022, a further extension was granted, which moved the compliance deadline to October 31, 2024.

OIG to Audit EPA New Chemicals Review

/in , ,

EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has informed the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) that it will audit EPA’s process for conducting reviews of new TSCA chemicals (i.e., substances submitted to the Premanufacture Notification (PMN) and PMN exemption processes).  This is a self-initiated audit to accomplish OIG’s oversight plan for fiscal year 2022, to address ensuring safe use of chemicals, and to address complaints from the OIG Hotline.  OIG seeks to determine the extent EPA is following records-management requirements, quality-assurance requirements, and employee performance standards.  OIG will also be looking at how EPA manages human health and environmental risks for approving new chemicals under TSCA.

OIG has asked OCSPP to assist in expediting the audit by providing all materials, handbooks, and anything related to the review of new chemicals; the resource allocations for chemical review from fiscal years 2018 through 2021; scopes of work for any contracts related to chemical review; any guidance they have received on chemical review; and new chemicals review program organization charts before and after the October 2020 reorganization.

OIG notes authority under the Inspector General Act of 1078, as amended, to have timely access to their requests and personnel.  In addition to the Inspector General Act, in its request, OIG references EPA Manual 6500 and statements from Administrator Michael S. Regan.

EPA Announces Improvements to the TSCA Risk Evaluation Process  

/in , ,

On December 20, 2021, EPA released a draft TSCA Systematic Review Protocol. In its announcement on the new Protocol, the Agency explained that the Protocol will strengthen EPA’s approach to reviewing and selecting the scientific studies that are used to inform TSCA Risk Evaluations and ensure that EPA has the best tools under TSCA to protect human health and the environment.  The draft protocol comprises nearly 700 pages.

The draft Protocol notes that EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) applies systematic review principles in the development of its Risk Evaluations of existing chemicals.  It provides specific systematic review approaches which they use for identifying and evaluating evidence for the hazard and exposure assessments that support Risk Evaluations. OPPT added that the draft Protocol responds to key recommendations received from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

The Protocol was developed in response to NASEM’s critique that EPA had not previously documented how TSCA prioritization and problem formulation relate to the TSCA Systematic Review.  The Protocol aligns the TSCA prioritization and scoping processes with the steps of the Protocol.  In addition, the Protocol defines how EPA’s systematic review efforts will identify data gaps and data needs in the Risk Evaluations process.  OPPT explains that identifying these data gaps and data needs will provide the Agency with the information it needs “to strategically exercise TSCA authorities to require testing or information collection for use in TSCA prioritization and Risk Evaluation.”

The Protocol reports that for the 20 high-priority substances currently undergoing Risk Evaluation and substances undergoing manufacturer-requested Risk Evaluation, EPA has implemented a new, unified literature search process.  This process, as described in the Protocol, uses chemical identifiers to maximize the capture of relevant literature, which in turn provides consistency and efficiency to the literature search.  In addition, OPPT announced that the Protocol includes new methods to reduce bias and improve evaluation through the use of calibration exercises and data evaluation training for reviewers.  This is a response to NASEM recommendations, SACC comments, and public comments.

In addition, the Protocol includes a description of the evidence integration process.  A step that was not part of the 2018 TSCA systemic review document. This addition was also made in response to recommendations by the NASEM and the SACC. OPPT explains that the Protocol’s evidence integration approach relies on methods related to those in EPA’s IRIS Handbook.

The draft protocol will undergo peer review by at a meeting of the SACC on April 19-21, 2022.  OPPT noted that the agency will use this feedback to further improve the document. The date, time for the public peer review virtual meeting will be announced on the SACC website.

Ending Inventory Correction for Substances Listed to the Initial TSCA Inventory

/in , ,

On February 24, 2022, EPA announced that is revoking the process for correcting the substance identities of substances that were incorrectly described when they were listed on the initial TSCA Inventory in 1978.  Guidelines for Inventory correction were published in 1980 when the Agency recognized that a number of the substances reported to the initial Inventory had been unintentionally, incorrectly described.  Starting on April 26, 2022, companies will be required to submit a premanufacture notice (PMN) in order to request a change to the chemical identity of a substance listed on the Inventory.  Until that time, EPA will continue to accept correction requests that meet the 1980 guidelines.

In its announcement, EPA noted that the 1980 guidelines did not identify a time period during which corrections to the Inventory could be submitted.  However, EPA stated they never intended for the correction period to be indefinite, noting that companies have had more than 40 years since the 1980 publication of the revised TSCA Inventory to make corrections.

EPA stated they will continue to initiate Inventory corrections for substances that it determines were unintentionally misidentified.  For those cases, EPA may request information from a company to support an Inventory correction in lieu of requiring a PMN.  The announcement noted that the revocation will not affect regular maintenance of the Inventory which does include updates to substance identity nomenclature.

EPA Extends Submission Deadline for Health and Safety Studies on 50 Chemicals

/in , ,

EPA is allowing manufacturers and importers additional time to submit unpublished health and safety studies’ data for 50 chemicals.  The new deadline for 20 of the 50 chemicals is December 1, 2021, updated from September 27, 2021.  The new deadline for the remaining 30 chemicals is January 25, 2022.  The 20 chemicals in the first group fall into the category of high priority for risk evaluation – note that EPA explains that being classified as high priority does not necessarily mean that a chemical is high risk.  These chemicals are currently undergoing Risk Evaluation under TSCA.  The Health and Safety studies will help EPA prepare scoping documents that identify the hazards, exposures, conditions of use of the chemicals, and potential exposures to them.

The 30 chemicals in the second group are organohalogen flame retardants.  These chemicals are being evaluated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is a member of TSCA’s Interagency Testing Committee.

Additional information on the reporting requirements for the 50 chemicals can be found here and additional information on initial addition of the chemicals to the list here.

EPA Releases Final Scope Documents Under New Policy

/in , ,

On August 31, 2021, EPA released Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) final scope documents for diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and diisononyl phthalate (DINP).  The final scope documents are the first to implement the Agency’s new policy for considering exposure to the chemicals from media that are regulated outside of TSCA including air and water, including drinking water.  In a press release on the path forward for risk evaluations, the Agency noted that the previous administration’s “…approach to exclude certain exposure pathways also resulted in a failure to consistently and comprehensively address potential exposures to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, including fence-line communities (i.e., communities near industrial facilities).”  Both risk evaluations were requested by the manufacturer, ExxonMobil, through the American Chemistry Council’s High Phthalates Panel (ACC HPP).

The scope documents for these risk evaluations includes the following information: the conditions of use, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (PESS), hazards, and exposures that EPA plans to consider, along with a description of the reasonably available information and science approaches EPA plans to use in the risk evaluations, a conceptual model, an analysis plan, and the plan for peer review of the draft risk evaluation for this category of chemical substances.

Some of these conditions of use were identified in the manufacturer request as circumstances on which EPA was requested to conduct a risk evaluation. EPA identified other conditions of use from information reported to EPA through Chemical Data Reporting (CDR), published literature, and consultation with stakeholders for both uses currently in production and uses whose production may have ceased

EPA plans to evaluate releases to the environment as well as human and environmental exposures resulting from the conditions of use of these substances that EPA plans to consider in the risk evaluation.  In addition to including occupational exposure, consumer and bystander exposure, and PESS, the scope of the risk evaluations will include general population exposures.  Specifically, EPA plans to evaluate general population exposure to the substances via the oral route from drinking water, surface water, groundwater, ambient air, soil, fish ingestion, and human breast milk; via the inhalation route from air and drinking water; and via the dermal route from contact with drinking water, surface water, groundwater and soil.

In addition to considering the data and information sources provided by the ACC HPP submissions, EPA conducted a comprehensive search to identify and screen multiple evidence streams (i.e., chemistry, fate, release and engineering, exposure, hazard) to inform the development of these scoping documents.

Confidential Status Change of TSCA Chemicals

/in ,

The confidential business information status of chemicals on the TSCA Inventory is scheduled for change, removing the confidential chemical identity status for 390 chemicals.  This will move the chemicals to the public portion of the TSCA Inventory.  During the 2012, 2016, and 2020 reporting periods, one or more manufacturers reported these chemicals as non-confidential, which is a result of at least one of these manufacturers not reporting a previous confidential chemical as confidential.

EPA recognizes that some manufacturers may have simply been in error for not reporting their chemicals as confidential.  However, EPA states that for each of the 390 chemicals, there is independent reporting based and EPA validated reasons to include the chemicals on the list.  EPA intends to move these chemicals from the confidential chemical identity status of the TSCA Inventory to the public portion sometime during the summer of 2021.

EPA also recognizes stakeholder interest in the status change for these chemicals and has given June 30, 2021 as a deadline for interest, questions, or concerns regarding the change.

ITC Submits New Priority Testing List

/in ,

The TSCA Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) submitted a report to EPA on April 13, 2020 listing an additional 39 chemicals on the priority testing list.  Within the 39 chemicals, 15 are already designated as high-priority substances and 24 are organohalogen flame retardants.  The priority testing list currently has five other high-priority substances and six organohalogen flame retardants.  The high-priority substance list contains substances with the most demand for evaluation from a risk-based screening process.

ITC also recommended the 15 high-priority substances be added to TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule in order for EPA to obtain unpublished health and safety studies.  The report states the high-priority substances may present an unreasonable risk for the health of people and/or the environment.  The risk evaluation process has already begun for each of these high-priority substances.

The 24 organohalogen flame retardants were added to the priority testing listing after the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted to ask the ITC to add the chemicals.  In addition, CPSC granted a petition to begin rulemaking for additive, nonpolymeric organohalogen flame retardants under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act

EPA is currently seeking public comments on the revisions to the priority testing list and any information relevant to the listing.  The comment period is open until May 28, 2021.

Manufacturer Request for Risk Evaluation of OTNE

/in , ,

On November 20, 2020, EPA received a manufacturer request for risk evaluation for the chemical substances in the octahydro-tetramethyl-naphthalenyl-ethanone chemical category (OTNE).  These substances are used as fragrance ingredients.  The three manufacturers, International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc., Privi Organics USA Corporation, and DRT America, Inc., sent the request through the OTNE Consortium.

The risk evaluation request applies to four chemicals within OTNE.  The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) considers two of the chemicals to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals.  While completing the risk evaluation for the OTNE chemical, EPA is not allowed to consider costs or other non-risk factors (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii)).  The request for evaluation also includes possible conditions of use for EPA to identify.

EPA has until no later than June 5, 2021 to either grant or deny the request to conduct the risk evaluation for the OTNE chemicals.  In order for EPA to grant the request, it must meet all of the requirements listed under 40 CFR 702.37(e)(6)(ii).  These conditions are that the request constitutes conditions of use that warrant inclusion in a risk evaluation, EPA has all the necessary information to conduct the risk evaluation, and all the remaining criteria of 40 CFR 702.37 are met, such as manufacturers paying fees to support the risk evaluations.