Vinyl Institute Seeks Judicial Review of EPA Test Order

/in , ,

Congress granted EPA new test order authority through the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  In May 2022, EPA received its first legal challenge to this new authority from the Vinyl Institute.  The Vinyl Institute is a coalition of seven companies which manufacture a solvent, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, that EPA listed as a priority chemical in December 2019 and that is currently undergoing risk evaluation.  The Vinyl Institute is seeking judicial review of a test order for 1,1,2-trichloroethane, for an avian reproduction test.  Specifically, the petition to the DC Circuit Court argues that EPA has not adequately explained the need for the data.  1,1,2-trichloroethane is used as a solvent and an intermediate in the production of 1,1-dichloroethane.  During the risk prioritization process, the Agency determined that it had insufficient data on the substance to understand if it has the potential to harm wildlife and issued the test order.

The Vinyl Institute stated in their petition that the Test Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.  It alleges that EPA failed to:

  • Adequately explain why the avian reproduction test is necessary,
  • Consider all available information and data for the substance,
  • Cite reliable and representative information and data in support of the Test Order,
  • Adequately justify the need for the test without first requiring screening level testing, and
  • Consider the relative costs of the Test protocols, along with availability of facilities and personnel to perform the testing.

As of this date, the parties have filed motions regarding whether additional submission may be made to the record.

EPA Releases Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Proposed PFAS Reporting Rule

/in ,

On November 25, 2022, EPA released an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for public comment as part of its development of a rule to collect information about PFAS. The IRFA follows the Agency’s June 2021 proposed rule, which would require all manufacturers and importers of PFAS in any year since 2011 to report information related to chemical identity, categories of use, volumes manufactured and processed, byproducts, environmental and health effects, worker exposure, and disposal. In the proposed rule, EPA certified that the rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). In response to public comments from the June 2021 proposed rule and additional data sources on PFAS-containing imports, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel and prepared the IRFA to investigate further the burdens the proposed rule would place on small businesses.

EPA significantly increased its cost estimates for the proposed rule, stating social costs would be approximately $875 million, from the original $10.8 million estimate, and Agency costs would be approximately $1.5M,  from the originally estimated $948,078.  The IRFA anticipates that in order to report years of production and importation data, small businesses would be expected to pay the lion’s share of these costs, $863.5 million, not the originally anticipated $1.8 million. Additionally, the IRFA details the percentage of small firms that will be impacted by the rule, finding that approximately 93% of manufacturers and 97.3% of article importers affected by the proposed rule are small businesses. The total number of small businesses expected to be impacted is 127,794.

In the IRFA, EPA proposed and requested comment on a variety of regulatory flexibility alternatives, including:

  • Exemptions for businesses with less than $12 million in sales.
  • Exemptions for businesses with less than $6 million in sales.
  • Exemptions for article importers with less than $6 million in sales.
  • Exemptions for article importers with less than $2 million in sales.
  • Limiting the scope of PFAS subject to the rule to a finite list of PFAS, removing the structural definition. (Although EPA expressed concern over the Agency’s inability to list substance identities based on CBI claims.)
  • Exemption for reporting thresholds of either 2,500 lbs. per year or 25,000 lbs. per year.
  • Allow for small businesses, providing a six-month deferral of data submission.
  • Simplified reporting forms for R&D substances manufactured in volumes less than 10 kg. per year — including limiting reporting to company information, generic chemical name, and production volume.
  • Simplified reporting forms for article importers– excluding requiring information on existing environmental and health effects data, environmental release and disposal data, or occupational exposure data.
  • Exemptions for R&D substances, byproducts, impurities, recyclers, and intermediates. (However, EPA stated that these exemptions would limit the Agency’s ability to achieve its goal of better understanding the entire scope of existing information on PFAS.)

The Agency also requested information and comment on items pertaining to CBI, including treatment of chemical identity claims, notice prior to publication on the public TSCA Inventory, and the generic naming of PFAS. These issues were not included in the IRFA and the Updated Economic Analysis. Regarding the treatment of CBI claims, EPA sought to clarify language related to an entity’s knowledge of a specific chemical identity stating:

[A]n entity that does not have knowledge of a specific chemical identity must initiate a joint submission with its supplier or other manufacturer. In these cases, the secondary submitter would be responsible for providing the specific chemical identity and for asserting and substantiating any CBI claims concerning the specific chemical identity. See, e.g.,40 CFR 711.15(b)(3); 711.30(c).

Regarding notice prior to publication on the public TSCA Inventory, EPA sought to clarify that if a submitter reports a PFAS substance by a specific chemical identity and does not assert CBI, that chemical identity will be published on the public Inventory without notice to the submitter. Importantly, EPA requested comment on aligning this provision with the language in the proposed CBI Procedures rule indicating that persons who previously made a CBI claim for the same specific chemical identity will not receive prior notice before the specific chemical identity is moved to the public Inventory. Lastly, EPA clarified that generic names must sufficiently identify the chemical as a PFAS; for example, under TSCA Section 14(c)(1)(C), a generic name for a PFAS that does not contain “fluor” would be rejected as insufficient.

Federal Trade Commission Seeks Comment on Green Guides

/in , , ,

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a request for public comment on updating its  Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides”), which provides guidelines for businesses that want to use environmental marketing claims in their advertising and labeling. The Green Guides aim to help businesses avoid making deceptive or misleading environmental. This includes assisting businesses in determining how consumers are likely to interpret specific claims and how to substantiate environmental claims.  In addition, the Green Guides present options for qualifying claims to avoid deception.

The Commission reviews the Green Guides every ten years, with the last review occurring in. Accordingly, FTC is now seeking comments on the Green Guides to ensure they continue providing helpful guidance for businesses and consumers.

In its request for public comment, the Commission has requested feedback by providing approximately 40 questions as prompts. The questions focus on what FTC Chair Lina M. Khan describes as “relatively emerging environmental topics” and businesses’ views on the Green Guides’ value. Topics include:

  • The use of environmental marketing claims in the context of emerging technologies and market trends, such as ozone friendly/safe, carbon offsets, recyclability, and energy efficiency, and whether the Green Guides should be updated in addressing these areas.
  • The impact of the Green Guides on small businesses, including any challenges or benefits that small businesses have experienced as a result of following the guidelines.
  • The extent to which the Green Guides are consistent with international guidelines and standards for environmental marketing claims.
  • Any additional guidance or clarification that the FTC could provide to help businesses make accurate and non-deceptive environmental marketing claims.

FTC also asks for comment on whether the Guides overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations, and if so, how?

Additionally, the Commission requests comments on the Guides’ interaction with other environmental marketing regulations and whether the Commission should consider rulemaking to establish independently enforceable requirements related to unfair and deceptive environmental claims.

The Federal Register notice also discusses the types of information that the Commission would find helpful regarding specific environmental marketing claims, including carbon offsets and climate change, degradable, and recyclable.

The Agency is accepting comments until February 21, 2023. You can submit your comments online here.

EPA Releases White Paper on Modernizing the Process and Bringing Innovative Science to Evaluating New Chemicals Under TSCA

/in ,

EPA recently released a white paper, The New Chemicals Collaborative Research Program: Modernizing the Process and Bringing Innovative Science to Evaluate New Chemicals Under TSCA. The document was produced as a summary report to the Board of Scientific Counselors as an integrative research plan under the 2023-2026 Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) Strategic Research Action Plan. This plan seeks to address concerns by both industry and environmental organizations, including the significant lag in EPA’s review of new chemicals, lack of transparency in the process, and insufficient consideration of potential hazards. In addition, the plan would allow EPA’s staff to use new scientific methods to analyze chemical impacts on humans and the environment.

Under TSCA, chemical manufacturers have not been required to provide chemical hazard data in their PMN applications. Under the proposed new processes, data on toxicity, exposure, chemical use, and other databases, in conjunction with computer-based analysis methods, would make chemical reviews easier for the Agency. The plan will focus on five key research areas:

(1) Updates and refinements to chemical analog and category approach.

(2) Development and expansion of databases containing TSCA chemical information.

(3) Development and refinement of predictive models for physiochemical properties, environmental fate/transport, hazard, exposure, and toxicokinetics.

(4) Integration and application of in vitro New Approach Methodologies (NAMs).

(5) Development of a TSCA new chemicals decision support tool that utilizes curated data.

Using these NAMs, the Agency hopes to fill information gaps and address the challenges of its current framework.

Earthjustice Files Petition Requesting EPA Revoke LVE and LoREX Exemptions for 600 PFAS

/in ,

On October 13, 2022, Earthjustice, on behalf of numerous environmental organizations and community advocates throughout the country, filed a petition with EPA requesting that the Agency revoke the approval of approximately 600 PFAS Low Volume Exemptions (LVEs) and Low-Exposure Exemptions (LoREXs) to the TSCA Premanufacture Notice (PMN) requirement. The petition argues that EPA has a regulatory and statutory duty under 40 C.F.R. § 723.50(h)(2)(i)(A) to review previously granted LVEs and LoREXs to ensure they meet legal standards for exemption under TSCA section 5 (h)(4). (Earthjustice states that 40 C.F.R. § 723.50(h)(2)(i)(A) implicitly requires EPA to notify a manufacturer “at any time after the [initial] review period,” if it determines that a previously granted exemption no longer meets the legal standard, is that EPA must continue to evaluate chemicals’ eligibility for PMN exemptions in light of new information.)

PMN exemptions require that a substance “will not present an unreasonable risk.” The petition argues that this conclusion cannot be scientifically supported for the exposure levels allowed under the LVEs and LoREXes that have been granted.  The petition notes that EPA has the authority to revoke a previously granted exception at any time if it no longer meets TSCA’s legal standards.  When it issued the LVE rule in 1985, the Agency detailed its revocation authority, explaining that the authority “ensure[s] that eligibility for the exemption will be determined on the basis of the best available information [i.e., scientific evidence], regardless of when the information becomes available.” EPA made a similar statement regarding LoREXes in 1995.  The petition noted that this obligation is further stressed in case law that holds that EPA and other federal agencies have a general duty to consider new scientific information that may bear on whether the Agency’s past decisions or standards are health-protective, and to modify past decisions to ensure legal requirements are met.

The petition further argues that EPA’s prior initiatives to address PFAS LVEs do not adequately address health risks.  Earthjustice highlights numerous studies related to PFAS and human, animal, and environmental health, as well as EPA’s own statements indicating that it expects that chemicals entering commerce through both LVE and LoREX will result in levels of contaminations that far exceed what are now thought to be safe levels for PFAS.

This petition builds on Earthjustice’s 2021 petition that asked the Agency to amend the regulations that create exemptions from the PMN process—the LVE, the LoREX, the Byproducts Exemption, and the Polymer Exemption—to prohibit their use for PFAS.  The Agency has not yet responded to that request. TSCA section 21 permits any person to petition EPA to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule or order under TSCA section 4 (rules or order requiring chemical testing), section 5(d) or (f) (orders affecting new chemical substances) section 6 (rules imposing regulatory controls on chemicals), and section 8 (rules requiring information).

EPA Proposes Adding PFAS to TRI List of Chemicals of Special Concern and Amending Supplier Notifications Requirements

/in ,

On December 5, 2022, EPA released a proposed rule which, if implemented, will automatically designate PFAS on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) to the list of Lower Threshold Chemicals of Special Concern (“Chemicals of Special Concern”). The chemicals on this list have profiles that are categorized as persistent bioaccumulative toxic and are referred to as PBT chemicals. Currently, only 16 PBT Chemicals of Special Concern are on this list. Chemicals of Special Concern are subject to different reporting requirements than the other chemicals that are subject to TRI reporting. PBTs on the TRI chemical list have reporting thresholds that are either 10 pounds or 100 pounds, several orders of magnitude lower than most other TRI-listed chemicals. (Reporting thresholds for TRI chemicals are usually set at 10,000 pounds or 25,000 pounds.) Another characteristic of Chemicals of Special Concern is that they are ineligible for the de minimus exemption.

The de minimus exemption allows facilities to avoid reporting small concentrations of most TRI chemicals.  The exemption applies to threshold determinations such as release and waste management calculations. The Agency’s rationale is that eliminating the de minimus exemption for PFAS will give it a more complete picture of the releases and waste management practices for these substances. Use of the de minimus exemption, EPA believes, has allowed significant quantities of PFAS to avoid TRI reporting.

The rule further proposes removing the de minimus exemption for purposes of Supplier Notification Requirements for all chemicals on the list of Chemicals of Special Concern. Supplier notifications require that suppliers of products that contain one or more of the EPCRA section 313 chemicals notify their customers that the substance(s) is present. (EPCRA section 313 chemicals are those for which EPA is required to establish an inventory of routine toxic chemical emissions from manufacturing.) Suppliers are currently exempt from this requirement when the chemical is in an article or part of a consumer product.

As with PFAS, the Agency is concerned that significant quantities of chemicals of special concern can be overlooked by reporting facilities by using the de minimus exemption. The de minimus exemption threshold for non-PBT TRI-listed chemicals is 1% percent; for carcinogens, the threshold is .01%. EPA provided the following example:

“If a mixture or trade name product contains 0.9% of a listed PFAS and 100,000 pounds of the product is purchased, the supplier need not provide notification, and the purchaser could be unaware of and not account for 900 pounds of PFAS. The impact of this exemption for the PBT chemicals with 10-pound reporting thresholds is even greater. Using the same 100,000-pound example, if mercury [a PBT with a reporting lower threshold] were present at 0.9%, then that same 900 pounds would be 90 times the mercury reporting [i.e., the threshold for mercury reporting for nonexempt releases is 10 pounds].”

EPA considered including a small quantity exemption instead of a de minimus exemption for supplier notification purposes. However, the Agency ultimately decided against this option. The Agency has concerns that this type of exemption would not provide adequate information to facilities receiving multiple shipments over the course of a year. The facilities would have insufficient information to address TRI reporting requirements that may apply to them based on the total aggregated quantity received. Without this data on the TRI-listed chemical, EPA is not confident the receiving facility would have sufficient data to fulfill its TRI reporting obligations.

Petition to Remove Polyvinyl from EPA’s Safer Choice and Safer Chemical Ingredients List

/in ,

On November 15, 2022, BlueLand and Plastic Pollution Coalition filed a petition with EPA on behalf of itself and numerous non-profit organizations fighting plastic pollution and climate change, requesting that EPA require health and environmental testing and regulation of polyvinyl alcohol under TSCA, and that the substance be removed from EPA’s Safer Choice and Safer Chemical Ingredients lists. TSCA section 21 permits any person to petition EPA to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule or order under TSCA section 4 (rules or order requiring chemical testing), section 5(d) or (f) (orders affecting new chemical substances) section 6 (rules imposing regulatory controls on chemicals), and section 8 (rules requiring information).

Polyvinyl alcohol, also referred to as PVA or PVOH, is commonly used in consumer-packaged goods, including laundry and dishwasher detergent pods and sheets. PVA is a petroleum-based polymer that serves as the thin layer of plastic film on these pods. The film dissolves in the water during a washing machine or dishwasher cycle. However, the PVA itself does not; tiny pieces of plastic debris called microplastics are contained in the wastewater.

Microplastics are suspected of contributing to plastic pollution in oceans and waterways. A recent study detailed in Degradation of Polyvinyl Alcohol in US Wastewater Treatment Plants and Subsequent Nationwide Emission Estimate stated that approximately 75 % of PVA from these pods persists through conventional wastewater treatment, ultimately ending up in waterways and ecosystems. Additionally, microplastics have been found in human food and water sources, the human bloodstream, and human breast milk.

The petition argues that under TSCA (15 U.S.C 2603), EPA has the authority to and should require extensive health and environmental safety testing of PVA once it is released into ecosystems and waterways. The petition also requests that PVA be removed from EPA’s Safer Chemicals Ingredient List developed by EPA’s Safer Choice Program; the list arranges chemicals by functional-use class to help manufacturers find safer chemical alternatives than traditional chemicals that meet the criteria of the Safer Choice Program. The petition argues that based on PVA’s bioaccumulative and persistence qualities, when applied to the Safer Choice Program’s guidance on polymers, PVA does not meet the requirements to be listed.

EPA Releases Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking to Modify TSCA Fees Rule

/in ,

On November 16, 2022, EPA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (87 FR 68647) addressing fees for the administration of TSCA. The SNPRM modifies and supplements the Agency’s proposed TSCA fees rule issued on January 11, 2021. The 2021 proposed rule was released pursuant to TSCA section 26(b)(4)(F), which requires EPA to review and, if necessary, adjust fees every three years. EPA determined this SNPRM was necessary based on comments on the proposed rule, adjustments to EPA’s cost estimates, and additional experience in implementing the 2018 Fee Rule. Modifications include:

  • Increasing fee amounts and the estimates of EPA’s costs for TSCA administration.
  • Expansion of the fee requirements to companies required to submit information for test orders.
  • Narrowing the proposed exemptions for the test rule fee activities to only: (1) importers of articles containing a chemical substance; (2) producers of a chemical substance as a byproduct; (3) manufacturers (including importers) of a chemical substance as an impurity; (4) producers of a chemical as a non-isolated intermediate; (5) manufacturers (including importers) of small quantities of a chemical substance solely for research and development and; (6) manufacturers (including importers) of chemical substances with production volume less than 1,100 lbs of a chemical subject to a TSCA section 4 test rule.
  • Adjustments to the self-identification and reporting requirements of EPA-initiated risk evaluation and test rule fees to reduce the burden of calculating and reporting production volumes to comply with the 2021 proposed recordkeeping requirements. EPA is considering using ranking methodologies and reporting production volume ranges instead of averages.
  • The proposal of a partial refund of fees for PMNs withdrawn any time after the first 10 business days during the assessment period for the chemical.
  • Adjustment of the fee payment obligations to require payment by processors subject to test orders and enforceable consent agreements.
  • Extending the time frame for test orders and test rule payments.

The proposed fee increases are as follows:

Fee Category 2018 Fee Rule Current Fees* 2022 Supplemental Proposed Rule
Test order $9,800 $11,650 $25,000
Test rule $29,500 $35,080 $50,000
Enforceable consent agreement $22,800 $27,110 $50,000
PMN and consolidated PMN, SNUN, MCAN, and consolidated MCAN $16,000 $19,020 $45,000
LoRex, LVE, TME, Tier II exemption, TERA, Film Articles $4,700 $5,590 $13,200
EPA-initiated risk evaluation $1,350,000 Two payments totaling $2,560,000 Two payments totaling $5,081,000
Manufacturer-requested risk evaluation on a chemical included in the TSCA Work Plan Initial payment of $1.25M with final invoice to recover 50% of actual costs Two payments of $945,000, with final invoice to recover 50% of actual costs Two payments of $1,497,000, with final invoice to recover 50% of actual costs
Manufacturer-requested risk evaluation on a chemical not included in the TSCA Work Plan Initial payment of $2.5M, with final invoice to recover 100% of actual costs Two payments of $1.89M, with final invoice to recover 100% of actual costs Two payments of $2,993,000, with final invoice to recover 100% of actual costs

*The current fees reflect an adjustment for inflation required by TSCA and went into effect on January 1, 2022.

EPA states that increased fees will ensure recovery of 25% of implementation costs, consistent with the direction of the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations bill. The Agency also states that the fee increases will strengthen its ability to successfully implement TSCA in a manner that is both protective and sustainable.  Furthermore, EPA asserts that the fee increases will improve on-time performance and quality significantly.

EPA officials have repeatedly argued that the 2016 Lautenberg Amendments tasked the Agency with many new responsibilities but did not increase the TSCA budget accordingly. According to the Agency, while there was a fee increase in 2018, EPA was only able to collect about half of the 25% target fees since the 2018 rule’s finalization. Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Michal Freedhoff commented, “[f]or the last six years, we’ve lacked the needed resources to build a sustainable chemical safety program that’s grounded in science, protects communities from dangerous chemicals, and supports innovation; with today’s action, we’re continuing to adjust TSCA fees to account for the full costs of running the program the way that Congress intended.”

EPA will hold a webinar on December 6, 2022, from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM to provide stakeholders with an overview of the SNPRM and accept public comments. Registration closes on December 1, 2022; you can register for the webinar here.

EPA Advances Early Pesticides Protections for Endangered Species

/in ,

On November 16, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an update to its Endangered Species Act (ESA) Workplan that outlines steps to increase protections for wildlife while also providing regulatory certainty for pesticide users. The update, which follows the EPA’s April 2022 ESA Workplan, aims to address the complexity of meeting the Agency’s obligations under the ESA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). When registering or reevaluating a pesticide, EPA has an obligation under FIFRA to determine whether the pesticide presents unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.   EPA is also obligated under the ESA to ensure pesticide registrations do not imperil the continued existence of ESA-listed species or adversely impact their respective critical habitats.

To better fulfill the Agency’s obligations under the ESA, the Workplan update stresses the need for pesticide registration review and other FIFRA actions to provide protections for nontarget species, including endangered and threatened species, earlier in the review process. As well as resulting in better ESA compliance, these changes could provide farmers with more predictable access to pesticides.

  1. Describes EPA’s overall approach to mitigating ecological risks in registration review, which includes prioritization of registration review cases based on opportunities to reduce a pesticide’s risk to human health or the environment.
  2. Proposes a menu of FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation measures that EPA will draw from for future conventional and biological pesticide registration and registration review actions to protect non-target species
  3. Proposes label language to expand the use of online endangered species protection bulletins to implement geographically specific mitigation measures for individual listed species. These measures are designed to focus protections only in specific needed areas, thus minimizing impacts to agriculture..
  4. Describes current and future programmatic initiatives with other federal agencies to prioritize mitigation for listed species that are particularly vulnerable to pesticides and to improve the efficiency and timeliness of the ESA-FIFRA process.

The FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation measures will focus on reducing pesticide spray drift and runoff. and will be applied on a case-by-case basis, depending on the level of risk that a particular pesticide presents to species and the exposure route. This approach is intended to more efficiently protect nontarget species, including listed species, and to standardize protections across similar pesticides, rather than addressing risks on a pesticide or species-specific basis as the EPA has done in the past.

Additionally, the Agency plans to work with registrants of pesticides to add language to pesticide labels that direct users to reference Bulletins Live! Two, a website containing endangered species protection bulletins. These bulletins contain use limitations to protect threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat in specific geographic areas. The EPA expects that adding the reference to Bulletins Live! Two, to pesticide labels in advance of consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, will save time and resources by reducing the number of amendments to labels. It further plans to add language on pesticide incident reporting and advisory language to protect insect pollinators to protect listed and other non-target species better.

Verdant Law’s Irene Hantman Gives Presentation to Chemical Society of Washington on Chemical Commercialization

/in ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman gave a presentation, Chemical Commercialization: What to Know about EPA Regulations, before the Chemical Society of Washington. The presentation provided a comprehensive overview of chemical commercialization under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The overview of TSCA detailed the definitions of chemical substances and substances in commerce, background on the TSCA Inventory and the premanufacture notification (PMN) process, and the EPA platforms for reporting and submitting data related to PMNs and active Inventory substances. The overview of FIFRA outlined the definition of pesticides under the law, the pesticide registration process, data requirements, review timelines and fees, and potential tolerance limitations EPA may set on chemicals with food uses. For questions about this presentation, contact Irene Hantman.