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

On September 13, 2018, EPA announced it was requesting public nominations of scientific experts to be considered for ad hoc participation and possible membership on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).  83 Fed. Reg. 46487.  The notice states that all nominees will be considered for ad hoc participation in the TSCA SACC’s peer reviews of the EPA’s risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances addressed under TSCA.  Further, all nominees may be considered for TSCA SACC membership to fulfill short term needs when a vacancy occurs on the chartered Committee.  As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates, EPA staff solicits from the public and stakeholder communities nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc reviewers and possibly members of TSCA SACC. 

EPA states in the notice that any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates, including themselves.  It is requested for individuals nominated to have expertise in one or more of the following areas:  women's health; children’s health; genetic variability; disproportionately exposed populations; aging; other susceptible populations; biochemistry; chemistry; epidemiology; human health risk assessment; pathology; physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling; pharmacology; ecological risk assessment; environmental fate; environmental toxicology; occupational, consumer, and general exposure assessment; toxicology; dose response modeling; environmental engineering; biostatistics; computational toxicology; fiber science; inhalation toxicology; volatile organics; and systematic review.  Nominations are due by October 29, 2018.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On August 31, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review a final rule regarding user fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  As reported in our February 9, 2018, memorandum, “Administrator Pruitt Signs TSCA User Fee Proposal,” as amended by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA provides EPA the authority to levy fees on certain chemical manufacturers, including importers and processors, to “provide a sustainable source of funding to defray resources that are available for implementation of new responsibilities under the amended law.”  Under the amendments to TSCA, EPA has authority to require payment from manufacturers and processors who:

  • Are required to submit information by test rule, test order, or enforceable consent agreement (ECA) (TSCA Section 4);
  • Submit notification of or information related to intent to manufacture a new chemical or significant new use of a chemical (TSCA Section 5); or
  • Manufacture or process a chemical substance that is subject to a risk evaluation, including a risk evaluation conducted at the request of a manufacturer (TSCA Section 6(b)).

EPA’s February 26, 2018, proposed rule described the proposed TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years (FY) 2019, 2020, and 2021, and explained the methodology by which the proposed TSCA user fees were determined and would be determined for subsequent FYs.  In proposing the new TSCA user fees, EPA also proposed amending long-standing user fee regulations governing the review of Section 5 premanufacture notices (PMN), exemption applications and notices, and significant new use notices (SNUN).  Under the proposed rule, after implementation of final TSCA user fees regulations, certain manufacturers and processors would be required to pay a prescribed fee for each Section 5 notice or exemption application, Section 4 testing action, or Section 6 risk evaluation for EPA to recover certain costs associated with carrying out certain work under TSCA.  EPA did not propose specific fees for submission of confidential business information (CBI).


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On August 29, 2018, the Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a press release announcing that they have renewed their request for a hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the amendments made by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The Democrats note this is the fourth request they have made for hearings to be held on EPA’s management of toxic chemicals.  According to the press release, the Democrats “remain concerned that EPA’s implementation of the reformed TSCA program contradicts the new law’s language and intent and undermines public confidence in the program.”  The press release states that the Democrats “are concerned that EPA is ignoring its own scientific evidence and the recommendations of its experienced career staff regarding TSCA implementation at the expense of public health.  They point to a recent report from the New York Times that found EPA officials proposed a rulemaking to review applications for use of asbestos in consumer products over the objections of EPA attorneys and scientists.”  The Democrats “also charge that EPA has abandoned its statutory mandate to review all new and existing chemicals known or foreseeable uses and exposure putting human health and the environment at risk,” possibly resulting in an incomplete evaluation of the health and environmental risk of a number of “extremely toxic chemicals, including asbestos, perchloroethylene (PERC), methylene chloride, and trichloroethylene (TCE).”  The letter was signed by Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY), Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Scott Peters (D-CA), Gene Green (D-TX), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Tony Cardenas (D-CA), Debbie Dingell (D-MI), and Doris Matsui (D-CA).


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

On August 27, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two direct final rules promulgating significant new use rules (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The first direct final rule promulgates SNURs for ten chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN).  83 Fed. Reg. 43527.  The second direct final rule promulgates SNURs for 19 chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs.  83 Fed. Reg. 43538.  In each rule, EPA notes that the chemical substances are subject to consent orders issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA Section 5(e).  The direct final rules require persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.  The required notification will initiate EPA’s evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period.  Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.  Both direct final rules will be effective on October 26, 2018.  Written adverse comments on one or more of the SNURs must be received by September 26, 2018.  If EPA receives written adverse comments, on one or more of these SNURs before September 26, 2018, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of the direct final rules before their effective date.  In addition to the direct final rules, EPA published proposed rules for both the direct final rules.  83 Fed. Reg. 43606, 83 Fed. Reg. 43607.  Comments on the proposed rules are due September 26, 2018.


 

By Jessie Nguyen and Lynn L. Bergeson

On August 1, 2018, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW Committee) held a hearing entitled “Examining EPA’s Agenda:  Protecting the Environment and Allowing America’s Economy to Grow.”  Testifying at the hearing was Andrew Wheeler, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Acting Administrator.  Witness testimony and an archive of the hearing are available online.  The hearing was intended to provide Wheeler with the opportunity to present himself for the first time in front of the EPW Committee as the Acting Administrator, and to update the EPW Committee on EPA’s agenda since the resignation of Scott Pruitt, EPA’s former Administrator.  Wheeler’s testimony highlighted three main priorities for EPA moving forward:  (1) regulatory certainty between EPA and state/local governments; (2) improvement of programs within EPA; and (3) increased transparency in risk communication.

During the questioning, Wheeler informed the EPW Committee that the clean-up of the Chesapeake Bay and the prevention of future lead contamination are high priorities for the Agency.  When questioned by Senator John Boozman (R-AR) about EPA’s relationship with stakeholders, Wheeler stated that clear communication between EPA and its stakeholders is essential before implementing any regulatory action.  EPA is also committed to working with other government agencies to enhance their regulatory process.

Next, the Trump Administration’s decision to roll back auto fuel efficiency and emissions standards, as well as the partial revocation of California’s ability to set its own emissions standards, was met with strong objection from Democratic Senators.  Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) stated that the oil industry is “scared to death that $1 trillion will stay stranded in the pockets of consumers.  That’s why the Trump Administration is moving to roll back these standards.”  Wheeler stated his belief that the roll back in emissions standards has saved American consumers $500 billion dollars and 12,000 lives.  Moving forward, Wheeler wants to come up with a “50-states solution” for emissions standards to address the issue of air pollutants and reduce cross-state pollution.

The topic of chemicals was brought up by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) as he is concerned that EPA’s failure to consider all sources of exposure for risk assessment will pose an unreasonable risk to human health -- especially to vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly.  Senator Booker urged EPA to ban trichloroethylene (TCE) on the applications for which proposed rules were issued and ban methylene chloride since they are known carcinogens with recognized health hazards.  Wheeler said EPA is moving forward with the assessment of these chemicals, but he declined to promise on a definitive timeframe.  Similarly, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) urged EPA to release the toxicological report on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and set a safety level for PFOS in soil and water.

In response to a question on clean energy by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Wheeler stated he will not give preferential treatment for one source of energy over another; EPA’s role is to regulate pollutants, not to identify a preferential fuel source.  Other miscellaneous topics included Wheeler’s commitment to not abuse his hiring authority.  He expressed a willingness to notify the EPW Committee on EPA’s hiring process.  In response to Senator Tammy Duckworth’s (D-IL) request, EPA will also make a commitment to reduce lead exposure. 


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Charles M. Auer, and Carla N. Hutton

On August 1, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a direct final rule promulgating significant new use rules (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 145 chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN).  83 Fed. Reg. 37702.  EPA notes that the chemical substances are subject to consent orders issued by EPA pursuant to TSCA Section 5(e).  The direct final rule requires persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process any of these 145 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.  The required notification initiates EPA’s evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period.  Persons may not commence manufacture or processing for the significant new use until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required with that determination.  The rule will be effective on October 1, 2018.  Written adverse comment must be received by August 31, 2018.  If EPA receives timely written adverse comment on one or more of the SNURs, it will withdraw the relevant section(s) of the direct final rule.

Please see the full memorandum for more information on this rulemaking and a commentary that details a few of the differences specific to these SNURs.


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson, Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., and Carla N. Hutton

On July 20, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report on its audit of EPA’s implementation of the OIG recommendations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards (PGCCA) Program.  The PGCCA Program is sponsored by the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) to promote the environmental and economic benefits of developing and using green chemistry by recognizing industry innovations.  In 2015, OIG reported that award results submitted to the EPA’s Pollution Prevention (P2) Program from PGCCA recipients were not adequately supported or transparent.  In its audit, OIG found that EPA discontinued the use of unverified PGCCA results in EPA performance metrics, but “a lack of documented controls presents risk that these data may be used in the future.”

Please see the full memorandum for more information including a short history on performance metrics of the Green Chemistry Program.


 

By Susan M. Kirsch

On May 22-23, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted a Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) National Leadership Summit (Summit) in Washington, D.C.  The Summit convened federal and state regulators, including representatives from EPA’s Office of Water (OW), EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), a small group of invited industry participants, and representative from the environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) community.  The goals of the Summit were:

  • To share information on efforts to characterize risks from PFAS and to develop monitoring and remediation technologies/techniques;
  • To identify near-term actions to address current state and local challenges; and
  • To develop risk communication strategies to address public concerns and questions surrounding PFAS.

EPA broadcast the opening remarks and perspectives delivered by EPA Administrator Pruitt; Peter Grevatt, Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Jeff Morris, Director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT); Craig Butler, Direct of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Chair of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Water Committee; and Jessica Bowman, Senior Director of Global Fluoro-Chemistry, at the American Chemistry Council.  During his remarks, Pruitt announced that EPA will soon classify two fluorochemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoroctane sulfonate (PFOS), as hazardous substances, and that EPA will begin to development maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for PFOA and PFOS under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  PFOA and PFOS are largely legacy chemicals that were the subject of voluntary phase out by chemical manufacturers.  The presence of PFOA and PFOS at former manufacturing sites and detections in groundwater and drinking water have raised public health concerns and made headlines over the last several months, particularly in Northeast states.

Butler’s remarks highlighted the key questions that ECOS and state participants hoped to have addressed by EPA over the course of the Summit, including any plans for MCL development, guidance on contaminated site remediation and PFAS analytical methods, and EPA’s plan to address data and knowledge gaps about PFOA and PFOS, as well as the alternative short-chain PFAS chemistry that makes up the majority of current and new uses of PFAS.  States are eager for direction and assistance from EPA on standard-setting and, in the absence of federal standards, some states have begun to set their own standards.  A copy of the ECOS statement is available here.

Grevatt shared plans for further co-regulator discussions and community engagement as part of an EPA “roadshow” beginning in late June in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  Morris provided an overview of the rigors of the pre-market review process under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and OPPT’s ongoing work to better understand the diverse range of PFAS in the marketplace. 

EPA intended for the Summit to serve as a formal launch of an ongoing dialogue with states, the public, and industry on PFAS, and more details will likely be shared in the coming weeks and months.  A recording of the May 22, 2018, broadcast is available on EPA’s YouTube channel.  Copies of the slide presentations from the Summit are available on EPA’s PFAS Summit website.

Tags: PFAS, PFOS, PFOA, EPA, Summit

 

By Richard E. Engler, Ph.D. and Margaret R. Graham

On May 17, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice releasing statements of findings on new chemical substances made on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 5(a) notices during the period from February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018.  83 Fed. Reg. 22978.  EPA is required to do so per TSCA Section 5(g) after its review of TSCA Section 5(a) notices when it makes a finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.  EPA posted these determinations on its website when they were made.  The statements of findings, all related to premanufacture notices (PMN), and their website links are:

  • EPA Case Number:  P-16-0415; chemical name:  generic:  polyurethane; polymer exemption flag (generic name); intended uses:  coating for oil and gas industry; known and reasonably foreseen use(s):  paint additive and coating additive. 
  • EPA Case Number:  P-18-0002; chemical name:  generic:  phosphinic acid, P,P-alkyl-, salt (generic name); intended use(s) (specific):  chemical intermediate for a non-halogenated flame retardant; known and reasonably foreseen use(s):  chemical intermediate; flame retardant. 
  • EPA Case Number:  P-18-0021; chemical name:  generic: dicarboxylic acids, polymers with substituted poly (substituted alkendiyl), 3-hydroxy-2-(hydroxyalkyl)-2-alkylalkenoic acid, 5-substituted-1-(substituted alkyl)-1,3,3-trialkyl carbomonocyle, alkanediol, alkane-triol, alcohol blocked compounds with aminoalcohol; polymer exemption flag (generic name); intended use(s) (generic):  paint; known and reasonably foreseen use(s):  adhesive and sealant chemical.
  • EPA Case Numbers:  P-18-0044 - 0045:
    • P-18-0044:  chemical name:  generic:  fatty acids (generic name); intended use(s) (generic):  intermediate species known and reasonably foreseen use(s):  chemical intermediate; lubricant and lubricant additive; viscosity adjustor; coating.
    • P-18-0045:  chemical name:  generic:  fatty acids, alkyl esters; intended use(s) (generic):  application coating; known and reasonably foreseen use(s):  lubricant intermediate; mold release agent; plasticizer; processing aid.
  • EPA Case Number:  P-18-0083; chemical name:  specific:  2-propenoic acid, telomers with bualc.-2-[(2-propen-1-yloxy)methyl]oxirane reaction products, sodium bisulfite and sodium 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-1-propanesulfonate(1:1), sodium salts, peroxydisulfuric acid([(HO)S(O)2]2O2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. (CASRN: 2118944-42-4); intended use(s) (generic):  dispersant additive; known and reasonably foreseen use(s):  chelating agent.

Commentary

P-18-0044, P-18-0045, and P-18-0083 are notable in that EPA identified a hazard other than “low hazard” for health or the environment and nevertheless concluded that exposures were low enough that the substances are not likely to present an unreasonable risk under the reasonably foreseeable conditions of use.  In the cases of P-18-0044 and P-18-0045, EPA identified health hazards, but EPA expects that exposures to the general population will be low and that there will not be consumer uses.  Furthermore, EPA expects that workers will “use adequate personal protective equipment.”  In the case of P-18-0083, EPA identified acute and chronic aquatic toxicity concentrations of concern of >20,000 and >1,000 parts per billion, respectively.  Even though these do not meet EPA’s thresholds for “low hazard,” EPA does not expect releases to exceed those thresholds.

More information on TSCA’s implementation is available on our TSCA Reform News & Information web page. 


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On April 19, 2018, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) received the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule entitled “Strengthening Transparency and Validity in Regulatory Science.”  This new proposed rule, item 2080-AA14, has not been published in the regulatory agenda; the only information available concerning the content of this rule is its title.

 On April 11, 2018, OIRA received an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking from EPA entitled “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process.”  The OIRA 2017 Fall Regulatory Agenda for this rulemaking, item RIN 2010-AA12, states that EPA is considering “developing implementing regulations that would increase consistency across EPA divisions and offices, increase reliability to affected stakeholders, and increase transparency during the development of regulatory actions,” and that by developing implementing regulations through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process “it will provide the public with a better understanding on how EPA is evaluating costs when developing a regulatory action and allow the public to provide better feedback to EPA on potential future proposed rules.”

 More information on regulatory agenda items is available on our blog under key phrase regulatory agenda.


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›