Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is a Washington, D.C. law firm providing chemical and chemical product stakeholders unparalleled experience, judgment, and excellence in matters relating to TSCA, and other global chemical management programs.

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice on November 12, 2019, announcing the availability of its response to a petition it received under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  84 Fed. Reg. 60986.  As reported in our August 23, 2019, blog item, PEER petitioned EPA under TSCA Section 21 to prohibit the use of hydrofluoric acid in manufacturing processes at oil refineries under TSCA Section 6(a) and under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to take the same action pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  PEER petitioned EPA to prohibit the use of hydrofluoric acid in manufacturing processes at oil refineries and require a phase-out of use at such facilities within two years.  EPA states that after “careful consideration,” it has denied the Section 21 petition.  EPA notes that the Federal Register notice specifically addresses only the TSCA Section 21 petition, not the petition submitted under the APA.  EPA is denying the petition “based on the petition’s lack of sufficient facts establishing that it is necessary for the Agency to issue a rule under TSCA section 6(a).”  According to EPA, to grant a petition for a TSCA Section 6(a) rulemaking, a petition must provide facts establishing that the requested rulemaking is necessary.  Those facts need to be “sufficiently clear and robust for EPA to be able to conclude, within 90 days of filing the petition, that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and that issuance of a TSCA section 6(a) rule is the appropriate response to the petition.”  To make the threshold finding, EPA needs hazard and exposure data and other information to enable it to assess risk and conclude whether the risk is unreasonable.  In this case, EPA states that PEER’s petition “refers to hazard databases and makes conclusory statements of toxicity but provides little further information that would support granting a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking request.”  According to EPA, the petition lacks the analysis that would be expected in a TSCA risk evaluation preceding a Section 6(a) rulemaking, such as “discussion of the appropriate hazard threshold, exposure estimates, assessment of risks, or how the facts presented allow EPA to comply with its duties under section 26 or other statutory requirements in making an unreasonable risk determination.”  Absent such information, EPA “cannot make the threshold determinations necessary to substantively assess and grant a petition for a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking.”  EPA denies PEER’s petition request as facially incomplete.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice on November 7, 2019, announcing the availability of the draft risk evaluation for N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and soliciting public comment.  84 Fed. Reg. 60087.  EPA’s draft risk evaluation findings include:

  • EPA did not find risk to the environment, bystanders, or occupational non-users.  For all the conditions of use included in the draft risk evaluation, EPA has preliminarily found no unreasonable risks to the environment, bystanders, or occupational non-users from NMP.
     
  • EPA’s draft risk evaluation preliminarily found unreasonable risks associated with acute and chronic inhalation and dermal exposure to NMP under a variety of conditions of use.  EPA found that workers and consumers could be adversely affected by NMP under certain conditions of use.

The draft risk evaluation will be peer reviewed by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) on December 5-6, 2019.  EPA will hold a preparatory virtual meeting on November 12, 2019.  Stakeholders must register online on or before November 12, 2019, to receive the webcast meeting link and audio teleconference information.  Written comments for the preparatory virtual meeting and requests for time to present oral comments are due on or before 10:00 a.m. (EST) on November 12, 2019.  EPA requests comments on the draft risk evaluation by November 26, 2019, to allow SACC time to review and consider them before the peer review meeting.  EPA states that it will use feedback received from the public comment and peer review processes to inform the final risk determinations.  Comments on the draft risk evaluation are due January 6, 2020.  More information is available in our November 5, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Releases Draft Risk Evaluation for NMP, Schedules SACC Review for December.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On October 29, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation for methylene chloride (MC).  84 Fed. Reg. 57866.  As reported in our October 26, 2019, blog item, EPA is submitting the same document to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) for peer review.  SACC will convene an in-person public meeting to consider and review the draft risk evaluation on December 3-4, 2019.  Preceding the in-person meeting, there will be a preparatory virtual public meeting on November 12, 2019, for SACC to consider the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions for the peer review.  Registration for the preparatory virtual meeting must be completed on or before November 12, 2019, to receive the webcast meeting link and audio teleconference information.  Written comments for the preparatory virtual meeting and requests for time to present oral comments are due by 12:00 p.m. on November 8, 2019.  Written comments on the draft risk evaluation that are submitted to EPA on or before November 26, 2019, will be provided to SACC for review and consideration before the December 3-4, 2019, meeting.  Requests to present oral comments at the in-person meeting are due December 3, 2019.  Comments on the draft risk evaluation are due December 30, 2019.
 
The draft risk evaluation states that EPA’s initial determinations of unreasonable risk for the specific conditions of use of MC listed below are based on health risks to workers, occupational non-users (ONU), consumers, or bystanders from consumer use.  According to the draft risk evaluation, risks to the general population either were not relevant for these conditions of use or were evaluated and not found to be unreasonable.

  • Unreasonable Risk to Workers:  EPA determined that the conditions of use that presented unreasonable risks included processing MC into a formulation or mixture; all but two industrial and commercial uses; and disposal;
     
  • Unreasonable Risks to ONUs:  For ONUs, EPA determined that the conditions of use that presented unreasonable risks included import of MC, processing MC as a reactant in several industrial sectors, some industrial and commercial uses, and disposal.  EPA determined in some cases that a condition of use presented an unreasonable risk not only to workers but also to ONUs; in other cases, EPA determined that a condition of use presented an unreasonable risk only to one or the other.
     
  • Unreasonable Risk to Consumers:  EPA determined that all but two consumer conditions of use present unreasonable risks.
     
  • Unreasonable Risk to Bystanders (from Consumer Uses):  When EPA determined that a condition of use presented risks to consumers, unreasonable risks were often, but not always, identified for bystanders.

A more detailed summary of the draft risk evaluation and commentary will be available in our forthcoming memorandum.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on October 23, 2019, that it settled with Miles Chemical Company Inc. for failing to report timely chemical substances it imported.  Under the settlement, the company will pay a $45,000 penalty.  According to EPA, between 2012 and 2015, Miles Chemical Company failed to submit timely forms to EPA documenting the import of large quantities of two chemicals.  EPA notes that under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), chemical importers and manufacturers are required to submit Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) information to EPA every four years.  This reporting allows EPA to track the chemicals being imported, assess potential human health and environmental effects of these chemicals, and make the non-confidential business information it receives available to the public.  EPA notes that chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory that are manufactured or imported at volumes of 25,000 pounds or greater must be reported to EPA, as required by TSCA’s CDR rule.

Tags: CDR,

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On September 23, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced that it plans to begin fieldwork on EPA’s Safer Choice program.  According to OIG, its objectives are to identify and assess the controls that EPA has in place to verify that the Safer Choice program meets its goals and achieves quality standards through its product qualification, renewal, and required audit process.  OIG states that Safer Choice “is a voluntary labeling program that helps consumers and commercial buyers find chemical-based products that are safer for human health and the environment.”  OIG plans to conduct work at headquarters and at various third-party assessor and auditor locations.  It will use applicable generally accepted government auditing standards in conducting its audit.  The anticipated benefits of the audit “are reducing the use of chemicals of concern and empowering consumers to protect their health.”

Tags: Safer Choice,

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a press release on September 10, 2019, announcing that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed a directive to prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing.  Administrator Wheeler also announced $4.25 million in funding to five universities to research the development and use of alternative test methods and strategies that reduce, refine, and/or replace vertebrate animal testing.  Administrative Wheeler directs the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) “to prioritize ongoing efforts and to direct existing resources toward additional activities that will demonstrate measurable impacts in the reduction of animal testing while ensuring protection of human health and the environment.”  The directive states that EPA “will reduce its requests for, and [its] funding of, mammal studies by 30 percent by 2025 and eliminate all mammal study requests and funding by 2035.  Any mammal studies requested or funded by the EPA after 2035 will require Administrator approval on a case-by-case basis.”  Administrative Wheeler requests that OCSPP and ORD hold a joint animal conference on new approach methods (NAM), with the first conference to be held in 2019
 
Five universities were awarded grants through EPA’s Science to Achieve Results Program.  According to EPA, the research focuses on advancing the development and use of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine, and/or replace vertebrate animal testing.  The grantees are advancing the science of non-vertebrate alternative test methods and strategies in chemical hazard assessment.  The grantees include:

  • Johns Hopkins University to develop a human-derived brain model to assess the mechanism by which environmental chemicals might cause developmental neurotoxicity;
     
  • Vanderbilt University to test their organ-on-a-chip to study the blood brain barrier and potential brain injury after organophosphate exposure;
     
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center to use their Endo Chip technology to research how preexisting diseases affect cellular responses to environmental toxicants with a focus on reproductive disorders in women;
     
  • Oregon State University to develop in vitro test methods for fish species to screen chemicals in complex environmental mixtures; and
     
  • University of California Riverside to use human cells to develop a cost-effective end point to characterize potential skeletal embryotoxicants.

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On September 4, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new guidance intended to help methylene chloride processors and distributors comply with EPA’s March 2019 rule issued under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) prohibiting the manufacture (including import), processing, or distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal.  The final rule became effective on May 28, 2019.  Each person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce methylene chloride for any use after August 26, 2019, must comply with the requirements for downstream notification and recordkeeping.  The guidance describes the requirements EPA established to address unreasonable risks from the use of methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating removal.  The guidance also:

  • Defines key terms;
  • Identifies the regulated entities;
  • Describes the required or prohibited activities; and
  • Summarizes the downstream notification and recordkeeping requirements.

EPA notes that the small entities directly regulated by the rule include:

  • Processors (since they formulate paint and coating removers containing methylene chloride);
  • Distributors of methylene chloride;
  • Distributors of paint and coating removers containing methylene chloride; and
  • Retailers.

EPA states that the rule is fully effective on November 22, 2019, when prohibitions on manufacturing (including importing), processing, or distributing methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal go into effect.  This ban includes a prohibition on distributing any methylene chloride for paint and coating removal to or by retailers, including e-commerce retailers.  More information on EPA’s final rule is available in our March 20, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Bans Consumer Sales of Methylene Chloride Paint Removers, Seeks Comment on Program for Commercial Uses.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxic Substances Control Act Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (TSCA SACC) will peer review EPA’s draft risk evaluation for 1-bromopropane (1-BP) on September 10-12, 2019.  The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City at Reagan National Airport, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia.  As reported in our August 9, 2019, blog item, EPA released the draft risk evaluation for 1-BP on August 9, 2019.  EPA made the following initial determinations on risk:

  • Unreasonable risks to workers, occupational non-users, and consumers under certain conditions of use.  EPA notes that these initial determinations are not its final determinations on whether 1-BP presents unreasonable risks under the conditions of use.  EPA states that it will use feedback received from the public and peer review processes to inform the final risk evaluations.
     
  • No unreasonable risk to the environment.  For all the conditions of use included in the draft risk evaluation, EPA found no unreasonable risks to the environment from 1-BP.

EPA requests comments on the draft risk evaluation by August 30, 2019, to allow SACC time to review and consider them before the peer review meeting.  Comments received after August 30, 2019, and prior to the end of the oral public comment period during the meeting will still be provided to the SACC for their consideration.  EPA will continue to accept comments on the draft risk evaluations until October 11, 2019.  EPA will consider all comments received on the draft risk evaluations by the October 11, 2019, deadline when developing the final risk evaluation.  More information is available in our August 12, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Draft Risk Evaluation for 1-BP Finds Unreasonable Risks to Workers, Occupational Non-Users, Consumers, and Bystanders under Certain Specific Uses.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice on May 15, 2019, announcing the availability of a signed action identifying chemical substances for inactive designation according to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements rule.  84 Fed. Reg. 21772.  The signed action, dated May 6, 2019, initiated a 90-day period after which substances identified as inactive will be designated as inactive.  Inactive designations for chemical substances on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory are effective on Monday, August 5, 2019.  Beginning August 5, 2019, manufacturers and processors will be required to notify EPA before reintroducing into commerce a substance currently identified as inactive on the TSCA Inventory.  Manufacturers and processors can notify EPA via a Notice of Activity (NOA) Form B, found in EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).  Upon receiving such notification, EPA will change the designation of substances from inactive to active.  Our July 31 2019, memorandum, “EPA Posts NOA Form B Materials before TSCA Inventory Inactive Designations Take Effect August 5,” provides links to EPA materials intended to help manufacturers and processors prepare for the inactive designations taking effect, as well as a detailed commentary.  Companies with additional questions should contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)., for assistance.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On July 29, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register its proposed rule intended to reduce exposures to certain chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT).  84 Fed. Reg. 36728.  EPA identified five chemicals pursuant to Section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA):  decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE); phenol, isopropylated phosphate (3:1) (PIP (3:1)), also known as tris(4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate; 2,4,6-tris(tert-butyl)phenol (2,4,6-TTBP); hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD); and pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP).  The proposed rule would restrict or prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce for many uses of all of the chemicals except HCBD, for which EPA is proposing no regulatory action.  For the other four chemicals, the proposed rule includes recordkeeping requirements, as well as additional downstream notification requirements for PIP (3:1).  Comments are due September 27, 2019.  Our June 24, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Publishes Proposed PBT Chemicals Rule under TSCA,” provides a detailed review and analysis.


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›