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 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 November 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. (EST), the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a hearing on “Strengthening Transparency or Silencing Science?  The Future of Science in EPA Rulemaking.”  The Committee will hear from the following witnesses:
 
Panel 1

  • Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD); EPA Science Advisor.

Panel 2

  • Dr. Linda S. Birnbaum, Scientist Emeritus, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); Director of NIEHS, 2009-2019;
     
  • Dr. Mary B. Rice, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Pulmonary and Critical Care Physician, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center;
     
  • Dr. David Allison, Dean, School of Public Health, Indiana University-Bloomington; Member, “Reproducibility and Replicability in Science” Committee, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and
     
  • Dr. Todd Sherer, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research.

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On November 4, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of the draft risk evaluation for N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), which includes more than 30 uses of NMP in adhesives, sealants, paints and arts and craft paints, paint and coating removers, adhesive removers, and degreasers.  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.

EPA notes that these initial determinations are based on a draft risk evaluation of the reasonably available information and are not EPA’s final determinations on whether NMP presents unreasonable risks under the conditions of use.  EPA will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the draft risk evaluation and beginning a 60-day comment period.  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 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.  More information will be available in our forthcoming memorandum.


 

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 will publish a Federal Register notice on October 29, 2019, announcing the availability of and soliciting public comment on the draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation of methylene chloride (MC).  EPA states that it is also submitting the same document to the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) for peer review and that SACC will hold 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.  Publication of the Federal Register notice on October 29, 2019, will begin a 60-day comment period on the draft risk evaluation.  The draft risk evaluation is not yet publicly available and is not expected to be until the notice is published on October 29, 2019, and Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437 is created at http://www.regulations.gov.  More information is available in our October 25, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Will Publish Draft Risk Evaluation of Methylene Chloride on October 29.”


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) stated on October 11, 2019, that EPA will provide more time for public comment on its draft risk evaluations before the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) meets to peer review the draft documents.  According to Dunn, the new schedule will include a comment period of at least 30 days before SACC meets.  EPA plans to complete ten chemical risk evaluations by June 22, 2020.  To date, EPA has released four draft chemical risk evaluations, and SACC has peer reviewed them.  For the remaining six chemicals, EPA intends to release four of the draft risk evaluations for public comment by the end of 2019 and the other two in January 2020.  SACC will peer review two of the draft risk evaluations in 2019 and the remaining four in 2020.  Dunn stated that EPA will meet the Lautenberg Act’s deadline to release all ten risk evaluations by June 2020.


 

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
 
On September 30, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of the meeting minutes and final report for the June 18-21, 2019, meeting of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) on the draft risk evaluation for Pigment Violet 29 (PV29).  SACC’s report addresses the scientific issues being considered by EPA regarding the peer review for the draft risk evaluation.  As reported in our November 16, 2018, memorandum, “EPA Publishes First Draft TSCA Chemical Risk Evaluation,” the draft risk evaluation states that EPA considered all reasonably available data for PV29 to make a determination of whether the risk it poses is unreasonable.  EPA “concludes that C.I. Pigment Violet 29 does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment, without considering costs or other non-risk factors, including no unreasonable risk to potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations identified as relevant, under the conditions of use.”  EPA requested SACC to provide advice and recommendations on questions concerning:

  • The overall content, organization, and presentation of the draft risk evaluation;
  • Systematic review;
  • Physical chemical properties/environmental fate;
  • Exposure and releases;
  • Environmental effects;
  • Human health;
  • Risk characterization/risk determination; and
  • Supplemental analysis.

The report notes that this first SACC peer review is the first time the TSCA program is making non-TSCA confidential business information (CBI) available to peer reviewers.  According to the report, EPA requested comment on the process, integration, and clarity related to the use of the CBI that was provided.  EPA provided SACC members TSCA CBI training, and they were permitted to review the full studies as part of their peer review.  The report states that upon a comparison of the full (unredacted) studies with the redacted studies, SACC reached consensus that the nature of the redactions do not materially impact the draft risk characterization.  SACC agreed that the summary statistics provided in the unredacted version of the reproduction/development study were consistent with the animal data in the redacted version of the study.  SACC made recommendations to EPA about how to process CBI information for use by SACC and the public for future assessments.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On September 25, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized 14 Safer Choice Partner of the Year award winners for outstanding achievement in 2018 for the design, manufacture, selection, and use of products with safer chemicals for use in households and facilities nationwide.  The Safer Choice program partners with businesses and others to help consumers and commercial buyers identify products with safer chemical ingredients, without sacrificing quality or performance.  According to EPA’s press release, the 2019 Partner of the Year award winners represent businesses -- including woman-owned and small- and medium-sized -- local government, and associations.  The following organizations from seven EPA regions are being awarded this year:


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) published a September 16, 2019, blog item entitled “EPA’s latest move to deflect criticism of its TSCA risk evaluations: Muzzle its science advisors.”  EDF notes that it has opposed a number of recent decisions made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “that aim to limit the risks it finds when evaluating the safety of chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),” including:

  • Excluding from its analysis known human and environmental exposures to a chemical, based on the assumption that those exposures are adequately managed by other statutes;
     
  • Claiming without support that workers are protected by assuming universal and universally effective use of personal protective equipment throughout chemical supply chains and the adequacy of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations that either do not apply or are out of date;
     
  • Arbitrarily loosening EPA’s longstanding risk standards governing when cancer incidences are deemed unacceptably high; and
     
  • Choosing not to exercise its enhanced authorities under TSCA to require submission of robust information on chemicals’ hazard and exposures, instead making “questionable assumptions and relying on voluntarily submitted industry data that are unrepresentative or of poor or indeterminate quality.”

EDF states that through these decisions, EPA increases the likelihood that it will either not find unreasonable risk and thereby avoid regulating the chemical, or find risks that are low enough that it can impose few restrictions.  According to EDF, in response to each of these decisions, EPA received critical comments on its draft risk evaluations from state and local governments, labor and health groups, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGO), and members of the scientific community.  EDF reports that during the first several peer reviews conducted by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), many of the SACC members raised similar concerns.  According to EDF, EPA has directed SACC “that these issues are off-limits to the peer reviewers because they represent policy decisions that are beyond the charge given to the SACC.”  EDF states that “[t]his is beyond the pale” for the following reasons:

  1. Such issues fall squarely within SACC’s charge.  EPA’s charge questions to SACC for its most recent peer review of 1-bromopropane (1-BP) “specifically (and appropriately) call on the SACC to comment on the ‘assumptions, uncertainties and data limitations in the methodology used to assess risks from 1-BP’”;
     
  2. It is “absolutely” SACC’s role and responsibility to comment on the scientific consequences of EPA’s decisions that directly affect its characterization of exposure, hazard, and risk; and
     
  3. With respect to the adequacy of the information on which EPA relies, EPA “has recently made an additional claim to the SACC:  that EPA has no choice but to use the data it has readily at hand, however limited they are.”

EDF concludes that EPA’s direction to SACC “is but the latest in a series of moves to limit the scientific information and scientific advice that EPA can obtain and use to make decisions.”


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›