Verdant Law
Washington, DC
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Recent News
Phone
202-828-1233
Washington, DC
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
OKLearn moreWe may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.
If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
Disclaimer
DOD Requests Information on Chemicals Undergoing TSCA Risk Evaluation
/in Risk Evaluations & Management, TSCALast 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, Risk Evaluations & Management, TSCAEPA 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 News & Events, TSCAVerdant 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 EPA, Risk Evaluations & Management, TSCAA 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 EPA, PFAS, TSCAOn 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 California, News & Events, Prop. 65On 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 EPA, New Chemicals, TSCAEnvironmental 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 News & Events, PFASA 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.
Court Reinstates Suit Alleging Roundup “Expiration” Due to Impurity
/in News & Events, PesticidesAllegations that Monsanto’s popular Roundup-brand weedkillers degrade into a carcinogenic impurity will proceed, after the Ninth Circuit reinstated a proposed class action a district court had dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Unlike the many personal injury suits over Roundup, the plaintiffs in this case assert purely economic harms. They allege that consumers would have paid less for concentrated Roundup products had they known that glyphosate—the active ingredient—gradually degrades into harmful levels of N-Nitrosoglyphosate (NNG) over time from exposure to nitrites in “everyday air and water,” effectively causing the products to “expire.”
The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case in December 2023, finding two key allegations implausible: that NNG is substantially certain to form at levels of 1 part per million (ppm), and that 1 ppm NNG is unsafe.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that plausibility does not require probability. While no regulation sets a specific 1 ppm limit for NNG, the panel found that an expert opinion combined with EPA statements sufficed to support a plausible claim regarding NNG’s hazard.
Similarly, although the complaint failed to allege that any products purchased by the plaintiffs or other consumers contained 1 ppm NNG, the court held that a variety of factual allegations—including that “Monsanto had discovered NNG at levels above 1 ppm in relevant products in its own possession”—were enough to make the plaintiffs’ claim about the occurrence of 1 ppm NNG plausible.
However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Roundup distributor The Scotts Co., finding that plaintiffs failed to allege that Scotts had “unbridled control” over the challenged conduct or knowledge of the alleged expiration.
The Ninth Circuit also criticized the lower court’s reliance on an incomplete version of a key study submitted by Monsanto, which likely presented findings in a more favorable light. “The parties and the court should be concerned about submission of and reliance upon an incomplete document,” the opinion states.
The case is Koller v. Monsanto Co., No. 24-43, opinion filed March 27, 2025.
EPA Announces Intent to Reconsider Risk Evaluation Framework Rule
/in EPA, Risk Evaluations & Management, TSCAThe Trump EPA announced in a March 10, 2025 press release that it will reconsider the Biden-era risk evaluation framework rule governing assessments of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
As discussed in a previous blog post, the risk evaluation framework rule replaced regulations promulgated by the first Trump administration. The Biden-era rule reversed key policies by requiring the agency to consider all conditions of use of chemical, issue a single risk determination rather than use-by-use determinations, and not assume that workers use PPE.
According to the press release, specific policies in the rule that EPA will review include:
The rulemaking process is set to begin “in the near future.”
Ongoing Litigation
On the same day as the press release, EPA filed a motion for voluntary remand in a consolidated D.C. Circuit case challenging the risk evaluation framework rule. The court previously denied EPA’s February motion to hold that case in abeyance.
“EPA’s reconsideration is consistent with agencies’ implicit authority to reconsider past decisions, particularly in light of a change of administration and attendant change in policy priorities and approach to statutory interpretation,” the motion for voluntary remand states.
There are also ongoing as-applied challenges to the rule, including a Fifth Circuit suit challenging EPA’s risk evaluation for methylene chloride. The court granted an EPA motion to hold that case in abeyance in February despite industry opposition, but reversed its decision a week later without explanation.
A post on the D.C. Circuit case can be found here. More on the methylene chloride suit can be found here.