EPA Issues Next Test Order Under National PFAS Testing Strategy — PFAS Used in Plastics at Issue

/in ,

EPA has issued its second round of Test Orders under its National PFAS Testing Strategy. The test orders require companies to conduct and submit testing on trifluoro (trifluoromethyl) oxirane (HFPO) (CASRN 428-59-1), a PFAS substance used in making plastics. According to EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) database, more than 1,000,000 points of HFPO are manufactured each year. EPA has concluded, using existing hazard and exposure data, that HFPO may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, finding that exposure may result in neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, and cancer. The Tier 1 testing will address human health from exposure via inhalation and hydrolysis. Tier 2 testing, if required, will look at reproductive toxicity, developmental neurotoxicity, and carcinogenicity.

The companies that are subject to the test order include The Chemours Company, DuPont De Nemours Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, and 3M Company. These companies are required to submit the results of testing data to EPA within 415 days of the effective date of the order. All data produced from this test order will subsequently be published on EPA’s website.

EPA Publishes Final IRIS Assessment of PFBA

/in ,

In December, EPA published the IRIS Toxicological Review of Perfluorobutanoic Acid and Related Salts. The Agency’s assessment addresses potential cancer and noncancer human health effects of exposure to perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) and its related salts. The most significant of the IRIS findings is that sufficient oral exposure to PFBA likely causes disruptions to normal thyroid hormone production, liver damage, and developmental effects. The Agency stated there was inadequate evidence to determine whether reproductive effects might represent a potential human health hazard following PFBA exposure.

PFBA and its related salts are members of the PFAS family.  It is a breakdown product of other PFAS that are used in a variety of products, including stain-resistant fabrics, carpets, and paper food packaging. PFBA can also be used in the manufacturing process of photo film and is used as a substitute for a type of PFAS, longer chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids in consumer products. The substance can accumulate in agriculture crops, household dust, soils, food products, and surface, ground, and drinking water. Exposure to PFBA can occur through inhalation of indoor or outdoor air, ingesting contaminated drinking water and food, and dermal contact with PFBA-containing products.

As part of its PFAS Strategic Roadmap, EPA has been actively working on IRIS assessments for five PFAS: PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA. The PFBA IRIS is the first in this series to be released.

EPA Revokes Interim Approval of Glyphosate

/in , ,

EPA recently withdrew its 2020 Interim Approval of glyphosate, often referred to by its trade name Roundup. Interim approvals are part of a conditional registration process used by the Agency to allow new active ingredients to enter the market for an unspecified period of time while the registrant generates missing data required by the Agency for the formal registration process.  Although the Interim Approval was revoked, EPA maintains that the chemical is not carcinogenic, and the product will remain on the market as the Agency completes its periodic review as required by law. In its registration review of glyphosate, the Agency will attempt to elaborate on its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. EPA will also consider whether a better explanation is needed for its findings on other aspects of the human health analysis. EPA expects to complete the review of glyphosate in 2026.

The 2020 Interim Approval was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioners made two main allegations, first that EPA’s analysis of human health, particularly related to cancer analysis, was faulty. Second, the Agency violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which requires the weighing of such risks against the benefits of glyphosate and the interim risk mitigation measures.

In June 2022, the Court vacated the human health portion of the glyphosate interim review decision and held that EPA’s registration review decision under FIFRA triggered ESA obligations. It also granted EPA’s request for voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the ecological portion of the interim registration review decision but imposed a deadline for EPA to issue a new ecological potion.

While the EPA has made this withdrawal decision, it is unable to finalize the new ecological portion in a registration review decision as mandated by the Court decision. The Agency states the delay is necessary to appropriately address the issues EPA sought to remedy in the ecological potion and satisfy the ESA requirements. EPA is currently working on a consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Services. Any proposed decisions will require a 60-day comment period and an assessment of comments received. You can read EPA’s full release on its withdrawal decision here.

EPA Updates New Chemical Review Program Webpage to Increase Transparency

/in , ,

In December 2022, EPA announced updates to its New Chemicals Review Program website to include additional information and metrics on the Agency’s review of new chemicals and significant new uses.  In the announcement, the Agency stressed its commitment to increasing efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency through the chemical review process. To progress in this goal, the website will now include:

  • A more detailed breakdown of new chemical submissions, including a month-by-month count of new chemical submissions, completed risk assessments, and completed risk management actions for all notices and exemptions.
  • Greater details and explanations on each step of the review process. This includes “the extent to which the submitter has provided additional information during the review period – subsequent to the original submission – and the level of effort needed to potentially rework some or all of the risk assessment as a result” and applicability of new approaches developed by the Agency to standardize reviews for certain new chemicals.
  • A status tracker for new chemical exemptions (e.g., Low Volume Exemptions (LVEs) and Test Market Exemptions (TMEs)).

According to EPA, the new website will be updated monthly.

EPA Allegedly Refuses to Address Toxic Pesticide Ingredients

/in ,

The Center for Food Safety and other non-profit organizations dedicated to environmental advocacy brought suit against the EPA, claiming that the Agency fails to assess the full environmental and health impacts of pesticides in its approval process. Current EPA regulations require pesticide producers to submit toxicity data on active ingredients as part of the registration process.  However, such data is not required for inert ingredients. Active ingredients are those designed to harm the targeted pests, while inert ingredients, which can also be toxic, are used for other purposes, such as acting as a solvent to help the active ingredient penetrate a plant’s leaf surface, preventing foaming or caking, and extending a product’s shelf life. EPA is required to determine the safety of all active and inert pesticide ingredients. Petitioners argue this isn’t achievable without toxicity data for inert ingredients. This is not the Center for Food Safety’s first plea to the Agency to address this issue; in 2017, it filed a petition with EPA requesting a rulemaking change for pesticide regulations, but the Agency never responded.

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.

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.

EPA Proposed Rule Making Changes to Clean Air Act Risk Management Program

/in

On August 31, 2022, EPA published a proposed rule, Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention. The proposed rule aims to address several changes and amplifications to the accident prevention program requirements, enhancements to the emergency preparedness requirements, increase the public availability of chemical hazard information, and provide changes and clarity to definitions currently lacking. The proposed rule applies to a variety of industries, including but not limited to chemical manufacturing.

 

Below is a summary of the key changes and additions within the proposed rule. A table that identifies the full scope of proposed changes and additions can be found here.

 

Subpart C – Program 2 Prevention Program

40 CFR § 68.58 Compliance audits.

The proposed rule revises paragraph (a), advising that a third-party audit may be required under added paragraph (f) of this section. Additionally, the proposed rule adds paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to this section. Paragraph (f) states that a third-party audit is required when one or more of the following apply: (1) two accidental releases have occurred within five years, meeting the criteria in § 68.42(a) from a covered process at a stationary source; (2) one accidental release as occurred within five years meeting the criteria in § 68.42(a) from a covered process at a stationary source in NAICS code 324 or 325, located within one mile of another stationary source in NIACS code 324 or 325; or (3) an implementing agency requires a third-party audit due to conditions at the stationary source that could lead to an accidental release of a regulated substance or when a previous third-party audit failed to meet the competency or independence requirements of § 68.59(c).

 

40 CFR § 68.59 Third-party audits.

Section 68.59 is added in its entirety. The 2019 reconsideration rule rescinded third-party compliance audit requirements, but EPA seeks to reinstate these requirements stating it found there “are likely no legitimate reliance interests associated with the 2019 reconsideration rule’s elimination of these requirements.” EPA has ensured that the proposed section is consistent with existing OSHA PSM requirements.

 

40 CFR § 68.62 Employee participation.

The proposed rule adds § 68.62 in its entirety and addresses employee participation in Program 2 prevention programs. Paragraph (a) of this section requires the owner or operators to “develop a written plan of action regarding the implementation of the employee participation required [by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section].” Paragraph (b) requires the owner or operators “to develop and implement a process to allow employees and their representatives to anonymously report unaddressed hazards that could lead to a catastrophic release, unreported RMP-reportable accidents, or any other non-compliance with 40 CFR part 68.” Paragraph (c) states that the owner or operator must “provide to employees and their representative’s access to the hazard reviews and to all other information required to be developed under this rule.”

 

Subpart D – Program 3 Prevention Program

40 CFR § 68.79 Compliance audits.

The modifications to this section mirror those in 40 CFR § 68.58 detailed above.

 

40 CFR § 68.80 Third-party audits.

The modifications to this section mirror those in 40 CFR § 68.59 detailed above.

 

40 CFR § 68.83 Employee participation.

The modifications to this section mirror those in 40 CFR § 68.62 detailed above.

 

Subpart E – Emergency Response

40 CFR § 68.90 Applicability.

The proposed rule amends paragraph (b)(1) to extensively detail all components required within the facility’s community response plan, which under the current regulation is only referenced as “the community response plan developed under 42 U.S.C. 11003.” The proposed rule also revises paragraph (b)(3) to include specific relevant information that should be included when notifying emergency responders that there is a need for a response, whereas the current regulation states only that “appropriate mechanisms” to notify must be in place. The proposed rule further adds paragraph (b)(6), requiring that “the owner or operator maintains and implements, as necessary, procedures for informing the public and the appropriate Federal, state, and local emergency response agencies about accidental releases of RMP-regulated substances and ensure that a community notification system is in place to warn the public within the area potentially threatened by the release.”

 

40 CFR § 68.95 Emergency response program.

Paragraph (c) is completely rewritten to address issues with responding facilities notifying the public of releases. The revision requires facilities to provide necessary entities with initial RMP accidental release information during the release of regulated substances to efficiently convey such information to the public and the appropriate federal, state, and local emergency agencies. This information includes the regulated substance released, the estimated time the release began, the estimated quantity of the substance already released, the potential quantity to be released, and the potential consequences of the release on human health and the environment.

 

Subpart G – Risk Management Plan

40 CFR § 68.160 Registration.

The proposed rule adds paragraph (b)(22), which requires adding the method of communication and location of the notification of a chemical hazard to the public residing within six miles of the stationary source to the registration form included in the RMP.

 

Subpart H – Other Requirements

40 CFR § 68.210 Availability of information to the public.

The proposed rule amends § 68.210, adding paragraphs(d), (e), and (f). Paragraph (d) details the chemical hazard information a facility must provide to any requesting member of the public residing within six miles of the stationary source. This information includes (1) regulated substance information, (2) SDS for all regulated substances at the facility, (3) five-year accident history, (4) the emergency response program, (5) a list of the scheduled and required exercises, and (6) LEPC contact information. Paragraph (e) dictates that the company must provide ongoing notification on its website, social media platforms, or through other publicly accessible means. Such notifications should convey that the information in paragraph (d) is available and accessible to community members living within 6 miles of the RMP facility. Paragraph (f) requires that the owner or operator of the facility provide the information outlined in paragraph (d) within 45 days of receiving the request.