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 Margaret R. Graham

The amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has ushered in new developments in testing strategies.  In March 2017, Andre E. Nel, Ph.D. (Division of NanoMedicine, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California (UCLA); California NanoSystems Institute, UCLA (CNSI)) and Timothy F. Malloy (CNSI; UCLA School of Law; UCLA Center on Environmental and Occupational Health) published Policy reforms to update chemical safety testing:  TSCA reform empowers EPA to use modernized safety testing in the United States, in the Journal Science.  This article discusses this new “paradigm” in testing, which it states relies “largely on nonanimal, alternative testing strategies (ATS), uses mechanism-based in vitro assays and in silico predictive tools for testing chemicals at considerably less cost.”  There are technological and institutional challenges, however, that the article addresses, but the authors state they hope to provide a “cautious but hopeful assessment of this intersection of law and science.”   

The article describes five iterative components that make up the elements of ATS:  conceptual pathways; biomolecular events; screening and modeling; integrating evidence; and regulatory applications.  These components work together to inform four types of regulatory decisions: “screening to identify chemicals and nanomaterials for more extensive testing and evaluation; ranking or prioritization for further action; qualitative or quantitative risk management in support of risk management; and comparative evaluation of the hazards and risks of different substances in support of safer design.” 

Amended TSCA Section 4(h)(2) implements alternative testing methods to “promote the development and timely incorporation of new scientifically valid test methods and strategies that are not based on vertebrate animals,” and Section 4(h)(2)(A) directs EPA, by June 2018, to develop a strategic plan that will promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or replace vertebrate animal testing and provide information of equivalent or better scientific quality and relevance for assessing risks of injury to health or the environment of chemical substances or mixtures….” 

The article states that while the amended statute seems to be only “procedural in nature” in terms of the implementation of ATS, as the statute compels EPA to facilitate development of ATS but does not obligate the agency to adopt it, two factors bode well for ATS implementation: (1) various EPA offices as well as its partner entities are “already engaged in bringing ATS into the regulatory context”; and (2) as amended TSCA mandates EPA to prioritize chemicals already in the marketplace for safety evaluations, by “specified enforceable deadlines,” which incentivizes the broader EPA chemical regulatory program to “adopt ATS for prioritization and subsequent risk evaluation of chemicals deemed high priority.”  The article references EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP), the new chemical review program, and EPA’s partner entity the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods as those entities engaged in ATS implementation.  


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Carla N. Hutton, Charles M. Auer, and Oscar Hernandez, Ph.D.

On January 13, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposed rule that would establish a process for conducting risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, under the conditions of use.  The process would not consider costs or other nonrisk factors.  Risk evaluation is the second step, after prioritization, in a new process of existing chemical substance review and management established under recent amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The proposed rule identifies the steps of a risk evaluation process, including scope, hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and finally a risk determination.  EPA proposes that this process be used for the first ten chemical substances to be evaluated from the 2014 update of the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments, chemical substances designated as High-Priority Substances during the prioritization process, and those chemical substances for which EPA has initiated a risk evaluation in response to manufacturer requests.  The proposed rule also includes the required “form and criteria” applicable to such manufacturer requests.  EPA posted a pre-publication version of the proposed rule on its website.  When the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, it will begin a 60-day comment period.  This is the third foundational rule released during the week of January 9, 2017.  An in-depth memorandum on the proposed risk evaluation process, as well as memoranda regarding EPA’s proposed requirements for TSCA Inventory notification and prioritization process for reviewing existing chemicals, will be available on our website under the key phrase TSCA.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, Kathleen M. Roberts, and Margaret R. Graham

On December 15, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register of its intention to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (NRC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act.  81 Fed. Reg. 90843.  The NRC will implement the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(6) requirement that EPA “enter into a negotiated rulemaking … to develop and publish, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment … a proposed rule providing for limiting the reporting requirements under this subsection for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts, if the byproducts, whether by the byproduct manufacturer or by any other person, are subsequently recycled, reused, or reprocessed.”

In a webinar presented by Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) earlier this fall, we noted the significance of this rulemaking for many entities subject to reporting requirements under TSCA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) provisions under Section 8(a).  A “byproduct” is defined as a chemical substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance or mixture.  EPA is of the view that byproducts without a separate commercial value are nonetheless produced for the purpose of obtaining commercial advantage since they are part of the manufacture of a chemical substance produced for commercial purpose.  Accordingly, byproducts are considered manufactured substances under TSCA and must be listed on the TSCA Inventory and, therefore, reportable under the CDR -- unless they are exempt.  Byproducts are exempt from Inventory listing and CDR reporting if their only commercial purpose is use by public or private organizations that burn it as a fuel, dispose of it as a waste, or extract component chemical substances from it for commercial purposes.

EPA has interpreted “extract component chemical substances from it” narrowly and has determined the exemption is voided if an extraction process involves a chemical reaction.  Stakeholders have long asserted that this interpretation discourages recycling programs that necessarily involve a chemical reaction, processes that are frequently used to extract commercially valuable metals or other materials from byproducts that would otherwise be destined for disposal.  The speed with which EPA has moved to implement this provision reflects EPA’s interest in ensuring this regulatory disconnect is addressed before the next CDR reporting cycle in 2020.

The notice states that the main purpose of the NRC is to conduct discussions in a good faith attempt to reach consensus on proposed regulatory language.  The notice provides a clear and comprehensive discussion of the negotiated rulemaking process and procedures, initially identifies specific parties that may be interested in participation, and requests comment on the extent to which the approaches described in the notice are adequate and appropriate.  The notice should be carefully reviewed by any entity having an interest in this issue.  Comments are due by January 17, 2017

We note in addition that the notice specifically discusses the Section 8(a) CDR rule as being relevant to the negotiation.  While we agree that the CDR is clearly of interest, we note that the negotiation as structured applies to any rule under Section 8(a), such as the Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) (40 C.F.R. Part 712) and any chemical-specific Section 8(a) rules (40 C.F.R. Part 711).  At the same time, the negotiation as described in new TSCA is limited to Section 8(a) and does not address the issues of Inventory listing and potentially associated Section 5 notification requirements for inorganic byproducts.  We note also that as a FACA Committee, the NRC can consider and, by consensus, determine its interest in also picking up these closely related issues for discussion and attempt to develop a consensus approach.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On November 10, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reportedly received the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft proposed risk evaluation rule under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Procedures for Evaluating Existing Chemical Risks Under the Toxic Substances Control Act.  This is a much anticipated procedural rule that will establish EPA’s process for evaluating the risk of so called “high priority” chemicals.  This is the second rule of three Framework Action rules that amended TSCA has directed EPA to issue in final within one year of enactment, or by mid-June 2017.  The Inventory rule, which will require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured/processed in the previous ten years, is expected to be sent to OMB soon.  Whether election transition issues will complicate and perhaps slow the review process is unclear but certainly not unlikely.

More information on the implementation of amended TSCA is available in our TSCA Reform News & Information website and in our TSCA Reform memoranda.


 

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) Managing Partner Lynn L. Bergeson and Senior Policy and Regulatory Advisor Charles M. Auer have recently published two articles on important issues as related to the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): 

The concept of “conditions of use” plays an important role in TSCA as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.  Conditions of use is a centralizing concept under which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines how a chemical is made, processed, used, and disposed.  The term is defined in TSCA Section 3 and also appears one or more times in the following Sections:  5, 6, 9, 14, 18, 21, and 26.  The term is not used in Sections 4 and 8.  B&C’s BNA article explores the use and application of conditions of use under Sections 5 and 6 and provides insights into the implications of what may be its unusual use in Section 5 in comparison to Section 6.

Among its other requirements and authorities, Section 5 of new TSCA generally requires that a company timely submit to EPA a notice of its intent to manufacture or process a new chemical or significant new use (NC/SNU).  EPA is then required to conduct a review of the Section 5(a)(1) notice and make a determination on the NC/SNU and take required additional actions.  Questions have been raised as to whether the review period is fixed and requires that EPA determinations and actions be completed within that period, or if the statute can be read to permit a more flexible review period along the lines of how it was interpreted and applied in old TSCA with the use of voluntary suspensions.  Charles M. Auer and Lynn L. Bergeson’s September ABA article analyzes that question.

Other B&C articles on amended TSCA and other regulatory issues of interest are available on our website.