CEH Sues Chemical Company over CDR Import Reporting Omissions

/in , , ,

The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has sued AOC, LLC, a resins and specialty materials company, alleging that it failed to report imports under EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.  The Toxic Substances Control Act citizen suit is the latest of several complaints filed by CEH against chemical importers for alleged CDR violations.

CEH’s complaint, filed June 20, 2024, alleges that AOC imported hundreds of thousands of pounds of phthalic anhydride, neopentyl glycol, and dicyclopentadiene during the 2020 CDR reporting period.  However, despite the imports greatly exceeding CDR’s 25,000-pound threshold, the complaint claims that no evidence of the imports were found in EPA’s CDR database.

“CDR reporting is an essential tool for tracking the production and use of toxic substances,” the complaint states. “AOC’s failure to report large chemical imports under the CDR rule weakens the ability of EPA and local communities to evaluate and protect against serious threats to health.”

The complaint does not say how CEH identified the alleged imports.  However, the organization stated that it uncovered a previous violation through a “search of publicly available data” on chemical imports.

CEH filed similar complaints against three importers in June 2021.  A CEH notice also prompted the Chevron Phillips Company to disclose numerous violations concerning 24 chemicals in July 2021, according to a CEH press release.

Update

On October 30, 2024, CEH announced that it had filed additional suits against Entegris, Inc. and Lubrizol Corp. for alleged 2020 CDR reporting period violations.  According to the complaints, Entegris failed to report cobalt sulfate and phosphoric acid imports and Lubrizol failed to report 2-propylheptanol and di-(2-ethylhexyl)amine imports.

The press release also announced that CEH reached a settlement with AOC.  “[AOC’s] diligent response to CEH’s concerns is to be commended,” CEH attorney and former EPA official Bob Sussman said.

California Sues ExxonMobil for Deceptive Marketing on Plastic Recycling

/in , , ,

ExxonMobil deceived the people of California by falsely promoting single-use plastics as sustainable, a complaint filed by California’s attorney general on September 23, 2024, alleges.

The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, argues that ExxonMobil conducted a “decades-long campaign of deception” to convince the public that plastics recycling was a sustainable solution to plastic waste, despite knowing that plastics recycling “is technically and economically nonviable to handle the amount of plastic waste [the company] produces.”  ExxonMobil is the largest producer of plastic polymers in the world.

“ExxonMobil’s deceptions undermined consumers’ ability to make informed choices to avoid the catastrophic harms we are experiencing,” the complaint states.  The attorney general asserts that “single-use plastic chokes our waterways, poisons our oceans, harms already endangered and threatened wildlife, blights our landscapes, contaminates the recycling stream, increases waste management costs, pollutes our drinking water, and expands landfills.”

Special focus was given in the complaint to ExxonMobil’s claims about “advanced recycling,” a collection of non-mechanical recycling technologies designed to convert certain plastic wastes into “fuels, chemicals, waxes, and petrochemical feedstock.”  According to the suit, ExxonMobil conceals several key limitations of its advanced recycling program, including that only 8% of processed waste becomes new plastic and that its “certified circular polymers” are made of “virtually no waste plastic.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of state nuisance, natural resources, water pollution, false advertisement, and unfair competition laws.  The complaint seeks abatement funds, disgorgement, and civil penalties.  California’s attorney general reportedly said they want “billions of dollars” for the abatement fund.

It has been reported that ExxonMobil responded by claiming that California officials have known for decades that their state recycling program is ineffective, arguing that the officials “failed to act, and now…seek to blame others.” The company has been quoted as asserting that “[i]nstead of suing us, they could have worked with use to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.”

Irene Hantman and Philip Moffat Present on Green Marketing at PSX 2024

/in ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman and Philip Moffat presented on green marketing and product stewardship at the PSX 2024 conference in Denver.  Their October 16 presentation covered greenwashing, US regulation of green marketing, and enforcement and litigation.

Green marketing is on the rise, partly because consumers are willing to pay more for “green” products. However, many green marketing claims are overstated.  In the presentation, Ms. Hantman and Mr. Moffat described the various ways in which green marketing claims can be misleading and the potential consequences of deceptive marketing.

Special focus was given to the Green Guides, guidance published by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that helps advertisers avoid making unfair or deceptive claims.  While the Green Guides are non-binding, they provide insight into what advertising claims the FTC may determine to be illegal.  The presentation noted that the FTC is considering whether the Green Guides should be codified as rules and whether the commission should revisit its guidance for terms like “recyclable” and “degradable.”

The presentation also covered notable enforcement actions and litigation pertaining to green marking, including California’s recent suit against ExxonMobil for deceptive public messaging about plastic recycling.  Ms. Hantman and Mr. Moffat concluded by emphasizing the importance of developing green marketing claims that are clear, specific, and substantiated with evidence.

PSX is an annual conference hosted by the Product Stewardship Society.  According to its website, PSX is “the most comprehensive leadership forum for strategies that guide product stewardship professionals in an ever-changing global economy.”  Ms. Hantman serves on the PSX Conference Program Committee.

If you have any questions about the presentation, please contact Ms. Hantman or Mr. Moffat.

EPA Issues Test Order for PFAS 6:2 FTAc

/in , ,

On October 9, 2024, EPA issued a test order under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the PFAS chemical 6:2 FTAc (CASRN 17527-29-6).  The order is the fifth issued under EPA’s National PFAS Testing Strategy, which was launched in 2021.

The order employs a tiered testing approach, as required by TSCA.  Studies on 6:2 FTAc’s physical and chemical properties and environmental fate and behavior will inform future testing on oral and inhalation health effects, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and bioaccumulation in fish.  The earliest test is due 255 days after the order took effect October 13, with most initial testing due within one year.

Depending on the results of hydrolysis testing, the companies subject to the order— Innovative Chemical Technologies, Chemours, Daikin America, Inc., Sumitomo Corp. of Americas, and Du Pont de Nemours and Co.—will also be required to conduct in vitro assays to assess skin absorption, genotoxicity, and/or mutagenicity.

According to an EPA press release, summaries of studies indicate 6:2 FTAc can “cause changes in blood cell counts, liver and kidney size, and animal behavior” in rodents.  However, EPA was unable to obtain the underlying data for these summaries and therefore determined that they did not meet the order’s data needs.

EPA also noted that 6:2 FTAc’s chemical structure “suggests that it may cause cancer.”  Like previous PFAS test orders, the agency plans to use the collected data to learn more about the potential human health effects of other structurally similar PFAS.

The order is the first issued since the D.C. Circuit’s July ruling in Vinyl Institute v. EPA, which vacated a test order due to insufficient justification in the public record.  The test order does not reference the case, which was discussed in a previous blog post.

6:2 FTAc is used to manufacture textiles, apparel, leather, and other basic organic chemicals.  Chemical Data Reporting indicates that 1–20 million pounds of 6:2 FTAc are manufactured annually.

EPA Proposes Adding Over 100 PFAS to TRI List

/in , ,

Significantly more PFAS substances would be subject to Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting under a proposed rule published by EPA on October 8, 2024.  The proposed rule would add 16 individual PFAS and 15 PFAS categories to the TRI list, which currently contains 196 PFAS.

The proposed additions would be made due to their potential human health effects, environmental effects, or both.  According to EPA, the 15 proposed category additions encompass over 100 individual PFAS.

The added PFAS would be subject to a reporting threshold of 100 pounds.  The manufacture, processing, and otherwise use of substances within a PFAS category would cumulatively count towards that category’s 100-pound threshold.

EPA is also proposing to add the proposed PFAS to the list of chemicals of special concern, which would make them ineligible for the de minimis exemption.  Under the de minimis exemption, facilities can disregard small concentrations of TRI chemicals in mixtures and trade name products when making threshold determinations.

EPA previously designated existing PFAS on the TRI list as chemicals of special concern in October 2023.  In that rulemaking, EPA argued that the move would “result in a more complete picture of the releases and waste management quantities for PFAS.”

The FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) instructed EPA to add certain PFAS to the TRI list with a 100-pound reporting threshold.  “Congress’ use of this low reporting threshold demonstrates a concern for even relatively small quantities of these PFAS,” EPA said.

EPA was required to evaluate some of the proposed PFAS additions for possible inclusion by section 7321 of the NDAA.  However, the NDAA did not specify what the threshold should be for those additions.  In the proposed rule, EPA defended its proposed 100-pound threshold, saying that it would “maintain consistency for all chemicals added to TRI pursuant to the NDAA.”

The NDAA also instructs EPA to add PFAS automatically when certain conditions are met.  In the proposed rule, EPA clarified its interpretation of those conditions, which include when EPA “finalizes a toxicity value” for a PFAS.

Finally, EPA is proposing that it add related PFAS (like an acid and its associated salts) under the NDAA as a category going forward. The proposed rule would also consolidate certain existing individual PFAS on the list into categories.

Comments on the proposed rule are due November 7, 2024.

EPA’s Draft Risk Evaluation of DINP Finds Minimal Risks, but Determines That the Phthalate Presents an Unreasonable Risk

/in , ,

On August 30, 2024, EPA released its draft risk evaluation for diisononyl phthalate (DINP).  The draft risk evaluation determined that most uses of DINP under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) “do not pose risk to the environment or the general population.”

The draft only identified three uses that “raise concerns” out of 47 evaluated conditions of use.  However, EPA preliminarily found that DINP presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health due to the agency’s “single risk determination” approach to risk evaluations.

Two of these three uses were found to raise concerns for workers: industrial use of adhesives and sealants and industrial use of paints and coatings, specifically in scenarios in which unprotected workers used high-pressure sprayers.  According to the draft, these uses could create high concentrations of DINP in mist that an unprotected worker could inhale.

The other use—use of DINP in construction and building materials that cover large surface areas—was found to raise concerns for consumers.  This use could result in young children inhaling DINP-containing dust that settles “onto vinyl flooring, in-place wallpaper, and carpet backing and [is] resuspended into the indoor environment,” the draft says.

The draft risk evaluation identified developmental toxicity and liver damage as potential health effects of these types of exposures.  DINP also has the potential to cause “phthalate syndrome,” a collection of adverse effects on the developing male reproductive system, EPA said.

According to EPA, DINP is primarily used as a plasticizer to manufacture flexible polyvinyl chloride, better known as PVC.  Data from the Chemical Data Reporting rule indicates that hundreds of millions of pounds of DINP are manufactured annually.

EPA initiated the risk evaluation process after a 2019 request from ExxonMobil Chemical Company to review DINP and its chemical relative diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP).  EPA only found one concerning condition of use in DIDP’s draft risk evaluation, which was released this May.

DINP is a category of chemical substances which include 1,2-benzene-dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-diisononyl ester (CASRN 28553-12-0) and 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich (CASRN 68515-48-0).

Amended TSCA requires EPA to issue a risk management rule to address any unreasonable risks found by the final evaluation.  Comments on the draft risk evaluation are due on November 4, 2024.

Maine Releases Draft Language Clarifying Proposals for Currently Unavoidable PFAS

/in ,

This August, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released draft language to implement April 2024 amendments to Maine’s PFAS in products legislation.  The draft language was described by DEP as an “initial, informal outreach process” with the goal of initiating rulemaking this fall.

Under Maine’s PFAS in Products law, DEP has broad authority to determine whether PFAS uses are “currently unavoidable.”  Currently unavoidable uses (CUUs) will be granted a five-year exemption to the amended statute’s incremental sales prohibitions for products containing intentionally added PFAS.

Tight timelines

Under the draft language, CUU proposals would only be accepted 18–36 months prior to the applicable sales prohibition or 12–24 months prior to the expiration of an existing CUU determination.  However, sales prohibitions for cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, and other products containing intentionally added PFAS take effect in less than 18 months (January 1, 2026).  In an October 1 email, DEP stated that they “recognize the tight timeline with the new statutory prohibitions starting in 2026 and are making efforts to streamline the process as much as possible.”

DEP solicited currently unavoidable use proposals for the 2026 prohibitions earlier this year, before the April amendments forced the department to redraft its rulemaking.  In the email, DEP clarified that they are “still considering” whether they will be able to utilize some of the previously submitted information and that “manufacturers may need to resubmit information” to meet the requirements of the eventual final rule.

Proposal requirements

According to the draft language, proposals for CUU determinations could be submitted by manufacturers individually or collectively.  A separate proposal would be required for each combination of product category and industrial sector.  As part of the proposal, manufacturers would be required to include:

  • An explanation of why use of PFAS in the product is “essential for health, safety or the functioning of society” and “essential to the function of the product”;
  • A description of whether alternatives to the use of PFAS are reasonably available;
  • Information on whether and how other states have regulated the use of PFAS in the product; and
  • Known or reasonably ascertainable information on the product’s health and environmental impacts.

The draft language “strongly recommends that all proposals for currently unavoidable use determinations do not contain claims of confidentiality” because “the Department may determine that there is insufficient publicly available information to justify a rulemaking.”

Other provisions of the draft rulemaking, including the notification requirements for manufacturers of products covered by a currently unavoidable use determination, largely mirror the requirements of the amended statute.  More information on the April 2024 amendments can be found in a previous blog post.

Third Circuit FIFRA Preemption Ruling Creates Circuit Split

/in , ,

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts a Pennsylvania law that allegedly requires Monsanto to include a cancer warning on its “Roundup” weedkillers, the Third Circuit ruled on August 15, 2024.  The decision in Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp. creates a split with the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, which have found that similar state-level duty to warn laws were not preempted because the state-law labelling requirements were equivalent to a requirement under FIFRA.

Like the Ninth and Eleventh circuits, the Third Circuit applied a “parallel requirements” test outlined by the Supreme Court in Bates v. Dow Agriscience LLC to determine whether the state law diverged from FIFRA requirements.  Those circuits determined that the state laws were not preempted because they were equivalent to FIFRA’s statutory definition of “misbranding.”

But the Third Circuit ruled that those circuits erred when conducting the test by failing to take into account EPA regulations limiting the modification of precautionary statements on labels.  According to the court, these regulations would require Monsanto to seek EPA approval before adding a warning.

“If EPA regulations specifically identify the contents required to be included on a pesticide label, a state-law requirement is preempted unless it is equivalent to that specific regulatory requirement,” the court said.  “The state-law duty cannot survive preemption simply because its standard of liability is equivalent to the broad statutory definition of misbranding.”

The highly technical decision had to contend with the Supreme Court’s holding in Bates, which it acknowledged “plausibly indicates that [FIFRA] does not on its own preempt all state-law duties to include a warning omitted from” its label.  The Third Circuit concluded that there was no discrepancy because the Supreme Court had not considered how regulations would affect preemption under FIFRA section 136v(b), which addresses preemption.

Writing for the panel, Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares rejected arguments that the Third Circuit should be bound to the Ninth Circuit’s decision.  “The complex subject of preemption under FIFRA has not been comprehensively analyzed in prior caselaw, and the Supreme Court has yet to address FIFRA preemption in the specific circumstances presented by this case,” the decision states.

He also noted that the Supreme Court’s recent overruling of Chevron deference did not undermine EPA’s authority to promulgate FIFRA regulations, including those requiring agency preapproval of product labels, because FIFRA explicitly grants EPA authority “to prescribe regulations to carry out the [statute’s] provisions.”

The Supreme Court denied Monsanto’s petition for certiorari in the Ninth Circuit’s case, Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., in 2022.  A blog post on the Eleventh Circuit’s case, Carson v. Monsanto Co., can be found here.

Class Action Targets 3M and Chemours for Suppressing PFAS Risks in Carpeting

/in ,

Two Minnesota consumers who own PFAS-treated carpeting have sued 3M and Chemours, alleging that the chemical companies collaborated for decades to suppress information about the health and environmental risks of PFAS.

According to the complaint, the defendants knew that PFAS were dangerous as early as the 1950s but knowingly withheld evidence of their harms from EPA and the public.  The plaintiffs allege that when these companies shifted from using long-chain PFAS like PFOA and PFOS to shorter-chain variants like GenX and PFBS, they baselessly claimed that the shorter-chain variants were safer.  And even after many carpet manufacturers and retailers stopped making and selling carpeting containing PFAS, the complaint states that the defendants “continued to lie about the harms caused by [these] products.”

Products made by the defendants were used to treat carpets to make them stain- and soil-resistant.  However, the suit claims that carpet manufacturers were unaware that these products were dangerous, in part due to false or misleading safety data sheets provided by the defendants.  The proposed class action seeks to represent all persons who had carpeting installed prior to 2020, alleging that the defendants’ PFAS products were applied to “virtually all carpets manufactured in the United States” until that year.

The proposed class action’s claims are partially based on internal company documents released through other litigation, including a 2018 settlement reached between 3M and Minnesota over PFAS contamination in drinking water.  That case unearthed documents allegedly showing that 3M discouraged its scientists from discussing the chemicals in writing and stymied research efforts, despite knowledge that PFAS were severely toxic and widely present in human blood.

More large settlements were reached last year.  But the defendants “have not paid a dime for the grievous harms caused by carpets in homes and day-care centers infused with PFAS,” said the plaintiffs, who are seeking damages to replace contaminated carpeting.  These alleged harms include property damage resulting from PFAS emissions from the carpets, which reportedly continue throughout the carpet’s lifespan.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act as participants in a scheme to conceal PFAS harms for commercial gain.  The suit’s 127 counts also include a myriad of state law claims, including strict products liability and nuisance claims.

The complaint also includes allegations against PFAS manufacturer Daikin, which is not named as a defendant.

The case is Peterson v. 3M Co. (D. Minn.), No. 0:24-cv-0349.

Court Vacates EPA Test Order, Citing Incomplete Evidence in Public Record

/in , ,

On August 28, 2024, the D.C. Circuit issued an order in Vinyl Institute v. EPA, a case challenging a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) test order issued in March 2022.  The mandate signals that neither party intends to appeal the court’s July 5 ruling, which found EPA’s justification for the test order inadequate.

The test order, which required an avian reproduction study of 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, was vacated and remanded to EPA.  However, the panel noted several places in which additional EPA materials would have satisfied TSCA’s “substantial evidence” standard if they were included in the public record, suggesting that EPA would not necessarily be required to perform additional analyses to justify future test orders as long as the analyses were included in the record.

For example, the court ruled that EPA’s “conclusory statements” in the public record on why vertebrate testing was necessary were inadequate, but also said that other documents showed that EPA considered new approach methodologies (as required by TSCA).  However, the court ruled that these documents—although covered by EPA’s brief—were not part of the administrative record that was available to the public, and that therefore “they are not part of the record subject to our review.”

According to the decision, not all studies referenced in the statement of need accompanying the test order were explained or even identified.  Nor did EPA publicly explain why those studies’ findings could not be used to fill the data gap, the court said.

“EPA should have explained why it could not extrapolate mammalian chronic exposure data to avian chronic exposure in its Statement of Need description of reasonably available information,” Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote.  “Identifying close but ultimately inapplicable studies and explaining, in the record, why it could not extrapolate other potentially relevant findings could constitute substantial evidence.”

However, the court upheld EPA’s decision to issue a test order rather than pursuing a rule or consent agreement, agreeing with EPA that timeliness in acquiring the data was sufficient justification. EPA initiated the risk evaluation for 1,1,2-Trichloroethane in December 2019 but has yet to issue a report on its findings.

Judge Henderson also agreed that EPA was not required to demonstrate that exposure may exist at potentially toxic levels before issuing a test order.  That would “reverse[]…TSCA’s allocation of burdens,” the decision states.

Judge Henderson was joined in full by Judge Florence Pan and in part by Judge Justin Walker.  A previous blog post on the case, written after the December 2023 oral argument, can be found here.