EPA Updates Safer Choice Program’s Ingredients List

/in , ,

On July 21, 2025, EPA added 18 chemicals to the Safer Chemicals Ingredients List (SCIL).  The move may signal that the agency plans to continue the Safer Choice program, despite earlier speculation that the Trump administration might transition it to the private sector.

With the update, there are now 983 chemicals on the SCIL.  The list is designed to help manufacturers find safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals.  Products that meet the criteria of the Safer Choice program are eligible to carry the “Safer Choice” label.  The SCIL can be found here.

The voluntary program was targeted for elimination by the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” initiative.  However, industry groups such as the American Cleaning Institute urged the Trump administration to retain it.

In a press release announcing the update, EPA states that the additions “support[] Administrator Zeldin’s commitment to transparency, innovation and safer chemistry.”  The agency also notes that using existing SCIL-listed chemicals can help companies avoid delays tied to the approval of new substances—an acknowledgment of industry concerns about the backlog in EPA’s review process.

“Without an approval from EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act, new chemistries don’t make it to market, which simultaneously holds back the manufacturing and innovation sectors and keeps older chemistries in regulation,” the release states.

The 18 additions represent a variety of functional classes, including emollients, polymers, and surfactants.  All but one are either verified or expected to be of low concern based on experimental and modelled data.

The exception, sodium polyphosphates, is only allowed as an oxidant stabilizer due to possible hazards.  Its “yellow triangle” designation indicates that it is one of the safest chemicals available for its function, but that its function is in need of safer chemistry innovation.

Last year, EPA expanded the Safer Choice program by introducing sustainable packaging criteria and a Safer Choice Cleaning Service certification.  More on that update can be found here.

California Proposes Listing Microplastics as an SCP Candidate Chemical

/in , ,

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has proposed to designate microplastics as a “candidate chemical,” a move that could lead to future regulation of products that contain or generate microplastics under the state’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) program.

Adding microplastics to the SCP candidate chemical list would not in itself create new regulatory requirements.  However, it would allow SCP to evaluate specific types of products containing microplastics for possible designation as a “priority product,” which could ultimately result in restrictions or other regulatory measures.

“Microplastics are pervasive, persistent, and increasingly linked to potential risks to human health, wildlife and the environment,”  DTSC stated in a June 20 press release.  “They have been found in nearly every corner of the planet, including oceans, soil, indoor air, and even on the highest mountain peaks.”

The press release also highlights the “economic burden” of microplastic pollution, noting that “healthcare costs linked to plastic-associated chemicals are projected to exceed $144 billion by 2025” in California.

A technical document accompanying the proposal defines microplastics as “plastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger particles.”

The document acknowledges the “structural heterogeneity and complexity of different plastic polymers,” but argues that microplastics still constitute a “chemical” under SCP’s governing regulations.

The proposal was foreshadowed by SCP’s most recent priority products work plan, released in 2024 and discussed in a previous blog post.  For the first time, the work plan identified products containing or generating microplastics as a consumer product category warranting evaluation for priority products.

Comments on the proposal will be accepted through August 4 via CalSAFER.

DOD Requests Information on Chemicals Undergoing TSCA Risk Evaluation

/in ,

Last month, the Defense Department (DOD) issued a request for information (RFI) seeking input on critical military uses of 11 chemicals currently undergoing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation.

The “ability to identify critical applications earlier in the TSCA Section 6 risk evaluation process will allow [DOD] to investigate the availability of alternatives, inform industry and interagency engagement, and better manage chemicals critical to national defense,” the RFI states.

DOD will likely use the information it collects to help ensure that critical applications are protected in any future TSCA risk management rule.

The 11 chemicals include 1,3-Butadiene, 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,2-Dichloroethane, D4, and seven phthalates: BBP, DBP, DCHP, DEHP, DIBP, DIDP, and DINP.  Some, like DIDP, have finalized risk evaluations.  For others, such as D4, EPA has yet to release a draft.

The RFI focuses on identifying specific DOD applications that require these substances and their industrial criticality.  It asks for details such as annual usage quantities, whether viable alternatives exist, and which TSCA condition of use best matches each application.

According to the RFI, DOD currently relies on safety data sheets (SDSs) for chemical ingredient data, which contain limited information.  As a result, DOD “lacks visibility in tracking upstream applications to understand the implications of developing regulatory drivers, such as TSCA.”

Responses to the RFI were due June 20, but DOD will consider late comments to the extent practicable.  The department also stated that it “will continue to issue RFIs to consider additional TSCA chemicals.”

Phthalates DBP and DEHP Present an Unreasonable Risk, EPA Drafts Say

/in , ,

EPA has preliminarily determined that dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) present an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment in separate draft risk evaluations released on June 5, 2025, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Both chemicals are primarily used as plasticizers for polyvinyl chloride (PVC), according to EPA.  Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule data indicates that 1–10 million pounds of each was manufactured or imported into the US in 2019, the most recent year with available information.

DBP’s unreasonable risk finding was based on risks to workers from 20 conditions of use (COUs), risks to consumers from four COUs, and risks to the environment from one COU.  For the other 19 COUs, the draft risk evaluation did not identify an unreasonable risk.

DEHP’s unreasonable risk finding was based on risks to workers from 13 COUs and risks to the environment from 20 COUs.  The draft risk evaluation did not identify unreasonable risk from the remaining 23 COUs, including all evaluated consumer uses.

The drafts follow the “single determination” approach established by the Biden administration’s framework rule for risk evaluations, which provides an overall risk determination instead of separate determinations for each COU.  In March, EPA announced it would reconsider the framework rule and asked the D.C. Circuit to hold a consolidated lawsuit challenging it in abeyance.  The court granted the request on April 30.

Both drafts also incorporate findings from EPA’s first-of-its-kind cumulative risk assessment (CRA) for six phthalates as a class.  The CRA focuses on phthalate syndrome, a collection of adverse effects on the developing male reproductive system.

“By taking into account cumulative exposure and risk…EPA is confident that it is not underestimating the risk of DEHP and is reflecting the best available science,” the DEHP draft states.

EPA released the draft CRA in January alongside the agency’s draft risk evaluation for the phthalate DCHP, which also incorporated its findings.

Comments on the draft DBP and DEHP risk evaluations are due August 4, 2025.  EPA will hold a virtual public meeting of the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) on August 4–8 to review the drafts, as well as documents that relate to all five phthalates currently undergoing risk evaluation.

EPA’s press release for DBP and DEHP notes that draft risk evaluations for two more phthalates, BBP and DIBP, will be released in July 2025.  More on the CRA and EPA’s schedule for phthalate reviews can be found here.

Irene Hantman Presents on TSCA Developments at A&WMA ACE 2025

/in ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman presented at the Air & Waste Management Association’s (A&WMA’s) 118th annual conference and exhibition (ACE) on June 11, 2025, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Ms. Hantman’s “TSCA 2025” presentation covered recent regulatory developments under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Topics included the framework rule for new chemicals, litigation over EPA’s risk management rule for trichloroethylene, and the section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule.

In addition to outlining TSCA developments, Ms. Hantman provided a window into real-world compliance by discussing engagement with EPA regarding a significant new use rule (SNUR).  Throughout the presentation, she also touched on how TSCA implementation may continue to evolve under the current Trump administration.

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

Scientists Critique EPA’s Draft Evaluation of Phthalate DCHP

/in , ,

A collection of scientists, academics, and clinicians have called for “extensive revisions” to EPA’s draft risk evaluation for dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP), arguing that the assessment “failed to incorporate the best available science and makes a number of scientifically unsupported assumptions.”

The May 9 comments were submitted by the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California San Francisco.  The commenters raise a number of methodological concerns with EPA’s December 2024 draft, which preliminarily determined that nine of 24 evaluated conditions of use for DCHP raised concerns, all involving occupational exposures.

A central criticism is EPA’s reliance on central tendency estimates, rather than high-end exposure scenarios, for many conditions of use. This approach, the commenters argue, “sets a dangerous precedent that risks to more highly exposed individuals can be dismissed or downplayed without scientific support.”

The commenters also object to EPA’s blanket exclusion of human epidemiology studies from its dose-response assessment, justified by uncertainties over exposures and testing methods.  That rationale “demonstrates a bias against environmental epidemiology, rather than a thoughtful approach to evidence evaluation that is consistent with best practices in systematic review,” according to the comments.

The group additionally claims that EPA failed to conduct an up-to-date literature search, omitting certain studies conducted since 2019.  As a result, they argue that the draft overlooks newer evidence linking DCHP to liver toxicity.

Alongside the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation, DCHP is also part of EPA’s first-ever cumulative risk assessment for a group of six phthalates. A blog post on that effort, published prior to the January 2025 draft, can be found here.

EPA Again Delays PFAS Reporting Rule

/in , ,

On May 13, 2025, EPA issued an interim final rule delaying implementation of the PFAS reporting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), citing technical difficulties.

The submission period is now scheduled to begin on April 13, 2026, instead of July 11, 2025.  It will close on October 13, 2026, with an alternate deadline of April 13, 2027, for small manufacturers reporting exclusively as article importers.

The rule states that the delay will “ensure that the project team has adequate time to complete development and testing” of the Central Data Exchange (CDX) reporting tool.  EPA also notes that it will give the agency time to consider reopening elements of the PFAS reporting rule in light of Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, issued by the Trump administration.

This is the second delay to the rule’s implementation.  In September 2024, EPA postponed the original November 2024 start date, also citing incomplete software development.  At the time, the agency attributed the delay to reduced funding.

Congress has since appropriated additional funds for TSCA’s information technology infrastructure in the FY2025 Continuing Resolution, passed just two days before EPA issued the May 13 rule.

Once implemented, the PFAS reporting rule will require all persons who manufactured or imported PFAS for commercial purposes from 2011–2022 to report information to EPA.  More on its requirements can be found here.

Court Blocks Prop 65 Acrylamide Warning for Food Products

/in , ,

On May 2, 2025, the District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning requirement for dietary acrylamide constitutes unconstitutional compelled speech, granting a permanent injunction barring its enforcement in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:19-cv-02019.

The court acknowledged that the entirety of the warning requirement—which included a notice of possible exposure to acrylamide and a reference to findings by one of several organizations regarding its cancer risks—was literally true. However, the court held that the warning was nonetheless “misleading and controversial,” and therefore unconstitutional, because it ignored a “vigorous scientific debate” over whether acrylamide’s cancer findings in rodents can be extrapolated to humans.

“[M]isleading statements about acrylamide’s carcinogenicity do not directly advance” California’s interest in “preserving the health of its citizens,” the ruling states.  “Accordingly, Prop 65’s warning requirement as to acrylamide in food fails intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

The court also rejected California’s arguments that the warning was not compelled because businesses are exempted if they can demonstrate that the chemical does not pose a significant risk at the product’s exposure levels.  Because businesses relying on the exemption “run the risk of incurring substantial costs in defending against enforcement actions,” the court held that the exemption does not offer a true “reprieve from Prop 65’s warning requirement.”

The court had previously enjoined a Prop 65 warning for dietary acrylamide in 2021. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) subsequently revised the warning language and weakened it further following a 2023 Ninth Circuit decision striking down a similar Prop 65 warning for glyphosate.

That Ninth Circuit decision provided the basis for much the court’s ruling, including its position that a literally true disclosure can still be misleading in context.  A blog post on that case can be found here.

Environmental Groups Urge EPA to Block Motiva Chemical Applications

/in , ,

Environmental groups are urging EPA to deny 17 new chemical applications submitted by Motiva Enterprises for production at its refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, arguing that the new chemicals would endanger nearby residents who already experience disproportionately high exposures to pollution.

Joint comments on the premanufacture notices (PMNs) were submitted by Community In-Power and Development Association and Earthjustice on March 26.  The groups argue that at minimum, there is sufficient cause for EPA to conclude that the chemicals “may present” an unreasonable risk—triggering the agency’s duty under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit or restrict them.

The comments claim that the publicly available versions of the PMNs provide evidence of carcinogenicity and other serious health harms, even though Motiva “unlawfully withheld and redacted critical information” from the submissions.  These hazards are compounded by high estimated production volumes, which the groups say exceed 450 million pounds annually across the 17 chemicals.

Much of the focus is on Port Arthur, “one of the nation’s most severely polluted communities.”  Decades of chemical exposures have led to elevated rates of cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses, especially in the predominantly Black neighborhoods adjacent to the Motiva plant and other industrial facilities, according to the comments.  EPA should treat these neighborhoods as a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation” under amended TSCA, the comments argue.

The groups also point to what they call “Motiva’s long history of malfunctions, accidents, and other chemical incidents” at the Port Arthur site, arguing that future incidents are “reasonably foreseen” and therefore fall within the “conditions of use” EPA must consider in evaluating the PMNs.

All 17 PMNs were submitted by Motiva in January 2025.  Most are generically described as “Hydrocarbon, processed.”

Apple Moves to Dismiss Watch Band PFAS Suit

/in ,

A proposed class action alleging that Apple Watch bands contain PFAS should be dismissed for lack of standing, Apple told the District Court for the Northern District of California on April 14, 2025.

The plaintiffs in Cavalier v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-713, claim that a published study detected PFHxA (a type of PFAS) and “significantly elevated levels of fluorine” in Apple Watch bands, despite Apple’s “health and environmental promises to the contrary.”  The complaint alleges violations of California’s unfair competition law and false advertising law, as well as various fraud claims.

In its motion to dismiss, Apple argues that the plaintiffs failed to link the study results—which were anonymized—to specific Apple products.  “The [study] does not show that Apple Watch bands contain PFAS generally, nor that the particular Watch bands purchased by Plaintiffs contain PFAS,” the motion states, alleging that the complaint fails to plead an injury in fact.

Apple also objects to the plaintiffs’ characterization of PFHxA as “a dangerous form of PFAS that pose significant harms to people and the environment.”  Apple argues that the plaintiffs “provide no evidence” that PFHxA in particular has adverse health effects, and contends that they attempt to “blur the distinctions among PFAS chemicals and create a toxic scare where none exists.”

In addition, Apple argues that its advertising claims—which include statements like “[t]he ultimate device for a healthy life”—are vague and nonspecific and cannot serve as the basis for the plaintiffs’ fraud claims.

The suit is one of several recent cases targeting consumer products alleged to contain PFAS, as plaintiffs increase scrutiny of so-called “forever chemicals” in everyday items.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for July 31, 2025.