EPA to Release Phthalate Cumulative Risk Assessment

/in , ,

On December 10, 2024, EPA announced its schedule for completing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations for five phthalates: BBP, DBP, DEHP, DIBP and DCHP.  In the next few weeks, EPA expects to release a draft risk evaluation for DCHP and a slew of supporting documents—including a first-of-its-kind cumulative risk assessment (CRA) for six phthalates as a class.

The CRA will mark the first time EPA has evaluated the combined risk to health from multiple chemicals with similar effects under TSCA section 6.  It is intended to inform, rather than replace, individual risk evaluations for each phthalate.

EPA justified the CRA in a draft proposal released in February 2023.  According to the agency, studies have shown “widespread exposure to some phthalates and that humans may become co-exposed to multiple phthalates at the same time,” possibly due to their use in food contact materials.  A particular concern is “phthalate syndrome,” a collection of adverse effects on the developing male reproductive system.

In the draft proposal, EPA announced the agency’s plan to address phthalate syndrome by focusing on the most sensitive effect rather than assessing the syndrome as a whole.  EPA also proposed to consider exposures to these substances from “non-TSCA exposures,” such as dietary intake, and to assess the phthalates “under an assumption of dose addition” using “a relative potency factor approach.”

Meanwhile, final risk evaluations for two additional phthalates, DIDP and DINP, are nearing release.  The risk evaluations for these substances were initiated at the request of the companies that produce them.  EPA intends to include DINP—but not DIDP—in its cumulative risk analysis.

Draft risk evaluations for BBP, DBP, DEHP, and DIBP are expected in the first quarter of 2025.  According to the December 10 announcement, final risk evaluations “will be released by December 2025.”

EPA Reworks its Regulations for PBTs DecaBDE and PIP (3:1)

/in ,

On November 19, 2024, EPA published a final rule revising its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations for decaBDE and PIP (3:1), two persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals.  The rule generally lessens burdens on industry stakeholders, who argued that the original PIP (3:1) risk management rule would lead to significant supply chain disruptions.

The final rule excludes from prohibition certain uses of PIP (3:1) in lubricants, greases, wire harnesses, and circuit boards.  Phased-in prohibitions for PIP (3:1) in marine antifouling coatings and manufacturing equipment, including the semiconductor industry, are now delayed until 2029 and 2034, respectively.  And, in response to comments, the rule allows for the “processing and distribution in commerce for maintenance and repair of existing PIP (3:1)-containing articles.”

On the other hand, the rule subjects motor vehicle and aerospace vehicle parts—which were excluded from prohibition under the original rule—to phased-in PIP (3:1) prohibitions that take effect in 2054.  EPA also finalized worker protection requirements during PIP (3:1)’s manufacturing and processing.

As for decaBDE, EPA determined that no alternative to decaBDE-containing wire and cable insulation is available for use in nuclear power plants and therefore extended the compliance date for this use until after the end of the wire and cable service life.  All other changes to the decaBDE regulations—for which supply chain disruptions were a lesser concern—impose new requirements rather than diminishing existing ones.  These include mandating signage in regulated areas, requiring worker protections for certain activities, and prohibiting releases to water.

Importantly, the rule also implements a de minimis standard for the already-effective general prohibitions on the manufacture and distribution of decaBDE and PIP (3:1)-containing products and articles.  Products and articles unintentionally containing less than 0.1% of either PBT by weight will now be exempt.

PIP (3:1) Litigation

The rule is likely to resolve a D.C. Circuit case challenging EPA’s risk management rule for PIP (3:1).  In a recent court filing in Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Inst. v. EPA, No. 21-1082, the agency said that its release “could obviate the need for further proceedings.”

That case was held in abeyance from 2022 until September as EPA pursued the rulemaking.  In the meantime, EPA repeatedly delayed certain phased-in prohibitions for PIP (3:1) and provided a no action assurance on enforcement of the rule.

The rule’s effective date—January 21, 2025—means that its implementation could be delayed by the incoming administration, however.

More on EPA’s actions to delay the PIP (3:1) rule’s compliance deadlines can be found here.  A blog post on the November 2023 proposed rule can be found here.

Court Approves Tight Deadlines for Overdue Risk Evaluations

/in , , ,

The D.C. District Court has entered two consent decrees concerning over twenty overdue Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations, holding the incoming administration’s EPA to aggressive deadlines for completing the chemical reviews.

The consent decrees, approved November 22, concern 20 risk evaluations initiated by EPA in December 2019 and two manufacturer-requested risk evaluations initiated in January 2020.  None were completed within TSCA’s 3.5-year deadline.

Under the consent decrees, linked here and here, EPA will be required to complete:

  • Draft risk evaluations for six of the substances, including 1,3-butadiene, by December 31, 2024;
  • Final risk evaluations for TCEP, formaldehyde, 1,1-dichloroethane, and DIDP by December 31, 2024;
  • A final risk evaluation for DINP by January 15, 2025;
  • A draft risk evaluation for one of the remaining substances by March 31, 2025;
  • Final risk evaluations for seven of the substances, including 1,3-butadiene, by December 31, 2025; and
  • Final risk evaluations for the remaining 10 substances by December 31, 2026.

The deadlines are largely unchanged from those in the proposed consent decrees, released in April and discussed in a previous blog post.  Since then, EPA has released a final risk evaluation for TCEP and drafts for 1,1-dichloroethane, DINP, and 1,3-butadiene.  However, as it stands, EPA will be required to complete three more final risk evaluations before the end of 2025—and a fourth before the presidential transition.

Meanwhile, EPA looks likely to designate another five chemicals as “high priority” this December, automatically triggering new risk evaluations.  More on those chemicals can be found here.

DTSC Finalizes SCP Priority Product Work Plan

/in , ,

This October, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released the final version of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Program’s Three-Year Priority Product Work Plan for 2024–2026.  The work plan identifies eight categories of consumer products that DTSC will evaluate to determine whether specific products within those categories should be designated as Priority Products—product-chemical combinations that may be subject to regulation.

Four categories remain largely unchanged from the 2021-2023 work plan:

  • Beauty, personal care, and hygiene products;
  • Cleaning products;
  • Building products and materials used in construction and renovation; and
  • Children’s products.

Two existing categories have been expanded:

  • Food packaging—expanded to include food contact articles; and
  • Motor vehicle tires—expanded to include motor vehicle parts, accessories, maintenance, and repair materials.

Finally, two new categories have been added:

  • Paints (previously included under building products); and
  • Products that contain or generate microplastics.

The work plan also touches on Senate Bill 502.  That 2022 California law expanded DTSC’s authority under the SCP Program, granting DTSC greater power to require product manufacturers to disclose product ingredients.  Importantly, the bill also established a process for DTSC to move directly to regulatory response for a Priority Product, bypassing an Alternatives Analysis.

A full list of Candidate Chemicals—substances that may lead to a product’s prioritization—is available on DTSC’s website.

Science Advisory Board to Review Co-exposure Approach to TSCA Risk Evaluations

/in , ,

This October, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) received an EPA briefing on a proposed “screening level analysis” that could account for cumulative chemical exposures in Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations.

Released in September 2023, EPA’s draft approach is designed to support the identification of potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (PESS) and co-exposures with other chemicals.  It relies heavily on AirToxScreen, a modelling tool already used by EPA to estimate chemical inhalation exposure and risk at the national level.

The draft approach “can be used to better inform chemical co-exposure, highlight geographic areas or population groups that may experience disproportionate impacts, and identify areas that may need more targeted or higher tier exposure and risk characterization.”  It is not intended to be “used as a sole basis for health or regulatory action,” however.

Limitations to the draft approach include its narrow focus on industrial releases to air and reliance on annual data, which makes it impossible to determine whether releases occurred concurrently.  In addition, the model does not calculate “a total additive exposure or total additive risk across the chemicals included in the analysis.”

Historically, TSCA risk evaluations have evaluated a single chemical and considered routes of exposure separately.  However, in a slideshow from the October 15–16 SAB meeting, EPA noted that there is “wide acknowledgement in [the] scientific and regulatory community [that] multiple facility and chemical exposures” meaningfully intersect.

The agency also emphasized the environmental justice concerns tied to cumulative exposures, which disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

The SAB is expected to provide formal comments on the approach in the coming months.

Industry Petitioners Challenge EPA’s Use of TSCA to Regulate Workplace Chemical Exposures

/in , , ,

Industry petitioners are arguing before the D.C. Circuit that EPA has overstepped its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by assuming powers to regulate worker chemical exposures—powers that they argue that rightfully belong to OSHA.

United Steel Workers v. EPA, No. 24-1151, consolidates multiple cases challenging EPA’s May 2024 revisions to the procedures for TSCA risk evaluations.  That rule reversed key Trump-era policies by requiring the agency to consider all possible uses of a chemical, issue a single risk determination, and not assume PPE usage.

The industry petitioners, which include the Texas Chemistry Council and the American Chemistry Council, are challenging these changes in full.  However, their October 10 brief also questions EPA’s ability to circumvent OSHA’s role in regulating workplace chemical exposures, arguing that “TSCA is not, and was not intended to be, a worker protection law.”

Their arguments center on TSCA section 9, which allows EPA to report a chemical’s unreasonable risks to another agency if EPA believes they could mitigate the risks.  “In context, TSCA requires EPA to refer regulation of TSCA chemicals that pose unreasonable risks to workers to OSHA if regulation under the OSH Act may prevent or reduce risks of chemical exposure in the workplace,” the industry petitioners’ brief states.  “Only if the referral agency fails to act may EPA proceed to regulate those risks to workers.”

The industry petitioners additionally argue that EPA should give greater consideration to existing OSHA regulations, including those requiring the use of PPE, when considering chemical exposures to workers.  However, a collection of labor petitioners in the case contend that EPA should be prohibited from considering PPE entirely during risk evaluations, asserting that the agency’s approach “confuses risk evaluation with risk management.”

EPA has declined to exercise its referral powers in recent rulemakings, arguing that “gaps exist between OSHA’s authority to set workplace standards under the OSH Act and EPA’s obligations under TSCA section 6 to eliminate unreasonable risk.”  For example, according to EPA, OSHA must consider the economic and technological feasibility of regulation in circumstances where EPA does not.

More on EPA’s 2024 revisions to the procedures for TSCA risk evaluations can be found in a previous blog post.

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.