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) filed a complaint with the Environmental Appeals Board on March 15, 2022, pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to the complaint, as the result of an EPA inspection of the Vorbeck Materials facility on June 20, 2019, and its follow-up actions, EPA alleges that Vorbeck has violated TSCA Section 12(b) and the Notice of Export rule requirements at 40 C.F.R. Part 707, Subpart D, thereby violating TSCA Section 15(3)(B). EPA notes that TSCA Section 12(b), and the regulations set forth at 40 C.F.R. Section 707.60, require any person who exports or intends to export a chemical substance or mixture for which a rule has been proposed or promulgated under TSCA Sections 5 or 6 to notify EPA of such exportation to a particular country. According to EPA, Vorbeck exported a carbon nanomaterial substance that is subject to a TSCA Section 5(e) consent order on one occasion to one country without prior notification to EPA as required by TSCA Section 12(b) and 40 C.F.R. Section 707.60, and as specified in 40 C.F.R. Sections 707.65 and 707.67. The complaint states that Vorbeck has claimed the identity of the carbon nanomaterial as TSCA confidential business information (CBI). Vorbeck has subsequently submitted a TSCA Section 12(b) export notification for the carbon nanomaterial.
 
Based upon the facts alleged in the complaint, and upon the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations alleged, as well as Vorbeck’s ability to pay, effect on ability to continue to do business, any history of prior such violations of TSCA, the degree of culpability, and such other matters as justice may require, EPA proposed a penalty of $8,277 for the alleged violations. According to the April 19, 2022, final order of the Environmental Appeals Board, EPA received full payment of the penalty ($8,277), and the case is resolved.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
The U.S. Commercial Service, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration, has begun registration for a webinar series designed to inform exporters and manufacturers about potential per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) risks affecting their business:
 
Part I: PFAS Basics: What you need to know
Wednesday, March 9, 2022, 1:00 p.m. (EST)
The first session will cover the PFAS basics, including where they are found, what health, environmental, and legal risks they present, how they are regulated, and how exporters and manufacturers can assess and manage their PFAS risks.
 
Part II: PFAS Technologies: Where are we & where are we going
Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 1:00 p.m. (EDT)
The second session will cover the current and future state of the many technologies needed to handle the increasing attention on PFAS.
 
Panelists will include:

  • Alfredo Fernandez, Partner, Shipman & Goodwin LLP; and
  • Brian Drollette, Managing Scientist, Exponent.

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
 
On March 2, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it reached a settlement agreement with Brenntag Pacific, Inc. for violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  According to EPA, Brenntag Pacific, Inc. has corrected the violations and will pay a $128,265 fine.  EPA states that it discovered the violations following inspections at Brenntag Pacific, Inc. facilities in Fairbanks, Alaska, and in Santa Fe Springs, California.  EPA inspectors “found the company failed to submit accurate and timely reports and notification associated with the import and export of nine chemicals.”  According to EPA, between 2012 and 2015, Brenntag Pacific, Inc. failed to report properly the import production volumes and uses of five chemicals as required by the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule.  In addition, the company failed to produce first-time export notices for four chemicals between 2016 and 2017.  EPA notes that under TSCA, chemical importers and manufacturers are required to submit CDR information to EPA every four years.  EPA uses these data to track the chemicals being imported into the United States and to assess the potential human health and environmental effects of these chemicals.  In addition, EPA makes the non-confidential business information it receives available to the public.