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
On May 22, 2023, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and Center for Environmental Health (CEH) submitted “extensive comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demonstrating serious health risks from Inhance Technologies’ unlawful manufacture of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) during its fluorination of hundreds of millions of plastic containers.” According to PEER’s press release, the comments call on EPA “to deny the company’s request for approval to continue this dangerous practice and use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to eliminate this unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.” PEER and CEH submitted the comments in response to 18 significant new use notifications (SNUN) submitted by Inhance pursuant to the 2020 significant new use rule (SNUR) for long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate and perfluoroalkyl sulfonate chemical substances.
As reported in our April 11, 2023, blog item, PEER and CEH filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent Inhance from generating PFAS when fluorinating plastic containers. PEER and CEH sought a court order restraining Inhance from continued manufacture of PFAS in violation of the 2020 SNUR. While PEER and CEH filed suit on December 27, 2022, EPA filed suit on December 19, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Inhance filed a motion to dismiss the case brought by PEER and CEH, “arguing that the TSCA’s diligent-prosecution bar requires dismissal of this separate action.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that PEER and CEH failed to prove that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is not “diligently prosecuting” the action and granted Inhance’s motion on April 6, 2023, dismissing the case without prejudice.
According to PEER and CEH, recent legal filings by the government in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania indicate that the government does not plan to stop unlawful PFAS production by Inhance while EPA considers its requests for approval. PEER and CEH contend that EPA “has a legal obligation to halt these practices.”

Tags: PEER, PFAS, Inhance


By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
On April 20, 2023, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) issued a press release announcing that, together with the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), it sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asking EPA to “fix” the public comment process for 18 significant new use notices (SNUN) for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) created by Inhance Technologies in the fluorination of millions of plastic containers. PEER states that “[t]he public comment process is a critical opportunity for stakeholders to provide data and analysis to EPA as it decides whether it will allow Inhance Technologies to continue to use a process that creates highly toxic PFAS during fluorination.” According to PEER, “[e]xtensive data demonstrate that several PFAS are not only present in fluorinated containers but leach into container contents, directly exposing a large segment of the U.S. population and consumers abroad to PFAS.” PEER notes that EPA’s “flawed approach” is underlined by the “significant deficiencies” in the nine SNUNs posted for public comment that:

  • Are redacted such that critical information, such as the number of containers fluorinated annually, cannot be accessed;
  • Lack key attachments that appear to have been removed from public view without explanation; and
  • Are riddled with inconsistencies, including a failure to notice properly half the new uses.


By Lynn L. Bergeson, Christopher R. Blunck, and Carla N. Hutton

On December 27, 2022, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent Inhance Technologies USA from generating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) when fluorinating plastic containers. According to CEH and PEER’s joint press release, testing conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Notre Dame researchers, and other organizations “has found PFAS chemicals on the inner and outer surfaces of fluorinated containers and in the contents of the containers. The PFAS in the containers are likely formed as a result of chemical reactions that occur during the fluorination process conducted by Inhance.” According to the press release, Inhance “conducts fluorination operations at several facilities in the U.S. and is the leading supplier of post-mold fluorination services” in the United States. The press release notes that in 2020, EPA issued a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) barring firms from producing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and certain other PFAS until EPA had been notified and determined whether the proposed uses of these PFAS might present an unreasonable risk to health. The press release states that [‌i]n this event, the law required EPA to ban or restrict the PFAS for these uses.” According to the lawsuit, Inhance did not notify EPA in 2020 and has been subsequently manufacturing PFOA and other PFAS in violation of TSCA.

CEH and PEER seek a court order restraining Inhance from continued manufacture of PFAS in violation of the SNUR, “requiring it to stop all distribution of fluorinated containers in commerce until and unless TSCA requirements are met and directing it to inform purchasers and users of these containers of the dangers of exposure to PFOA and other PFAS.”

The press release notes that on December 19, 2022, EPA filed suit against Inhance under TSCA. According to the press release, EPA’s suit “followed nearly two years of discussions between the agency and the company during which Inhance continued to produce PFAS in violation of TSCA without any EPA action to protect the public.” The press release states that EPA filed suit only after CEH and PEER wrote to the agency in late October 2022 “threatening to file suit against the company.” CEH and PEER intend to use their suit to ensure that EPA takes all actions authorized under TSCA “to put a stop to Inhance’s unlawful conduct and prevent unsafe exposure to PFAS by users of fluorinated containers.”


This lawsuit raises many interesting issues. TSCA Section 20(b)(1)(B) appears to preclude commencement of a Section 20 action if EPA has commenced and “is diligently prosecuting a proceeding” to issue an order under TSCA Section 16 to require compliance. If the plaintiff has given appropriate notice of its pending action before EPA commences its action, it can, however, intervene in EPA’s action as a matter of right. A factual question relevant here is whether EPA is diligently prosecuting the proceeding. The plaintiff seems to address this issue in paragraph 35 of its complaint:

35. Because of the many redactions in the Complaint and the lengthy two-year delay between EPA’s initiation of discussions with Enhance [sic] and the filing of its suit, plaintiffs are concerned that EPA will not “diligently prosecute” its action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, removing a possible bar to plaintiffs’ suit in this Court under TSCA section 20(b)(1)(B) and enabling plaintiffs to seek all relief authorized by law in this action.

In that there have been relatively few TSCA Section 20 citizen actions to compel a person or company to come into TSCA compliance, this case could be one to watch. We question that the plaintiffs have made the case that EPA is not diligently prosecuting the case it filed, especially as only eight calendar days passed between the EPA filing and the plaintiffs’ filings, and that period included the Christmas holiday.

Another interesting issue relates to the likelihood that the manufacturing activities addressed in the complaint preceded proposal of the SNUR such that they would have been considered “ongoing,” thus arguably defeating application of the SNUR restrictions. Whether these activities preceded the proposed SNUR and whether EPA was made aware of this are unclear. Given the circumstances of the byproduct chemicals’ manufacture, it seems reasonable that such production would not be understood to be covered by the SNUR, as discussed further below -- and thus trigger the byproduct manufacturer to comment, noting to EPA the ongoing activity.

Notwithstanding EPA’s apparent position, it is questionable whether byproducts with no intentional use that become impurities in the products being processed and distributed are subject to SNURs. The manufacture of the substances of concern may be considered byproducts exempted by the SNUR. Although the byproduct exemption in Subpart A of Part 721 of the SNUR regulation itself, i.e., 40 C.F.R. Section 721.45(e), appears not to cover the activity, the PMN regulations exempt in 40 C.F.R. Section 720.30(h)(2) “[a]ny byproduct which is not used for commercial purposes.” This particular byproduct exemption appears to cover the byproducts in the facts at play, especially when read in the context of the chapeau to 40 C.F.R. Section 720.30(h) and 40 C.F.R. Section 721.1(c) of the SNUR regulations. which states:

The provisions of part 720 of this chapter apply to this part 721. For purposes of this part 721, wherever the phrase “new chemical substance” appears in part 720 of this chapter, it shall mean the chemical substance subject to this part 721. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of part 720 of this chapter and the provisions of this part 721, the provisions of this part 721 shall govern.

Arguably, there is no conflict between the SNUR regulation and the PMN regulations with regard to the applicability of the exemption at 40 C.F.R. Section 720.30(h)(2) to SNURs. In the absence of a provision making the exemption not applicable in specific SNURs, the exemption would appear applicable (as would other exemptions in 40 C.F.R. Section 720.30(h) that are not specifically replicated in 40 C.F.R. Section 721.45, certain of which we assume EPA even more clearly would not intend to include as covered manufacturing activities for SNUR purposes, e.g., a “chemical substance which results from a chemical reaction that occurs incidental to storage or disposal of another chemical substance, mixture, or article” (40 C.F.R. Section 720.30(h)(4)), which could also become an impurity in a product processed and distributed in commerce.). That the SNUR regulation exemptions duplicate certain PMN exemptions but exclude certain others should not be read to mean those excluded exemptions are not applicable given the language in 40 C.F.R. Section 721.1(c), copied above. Another view is that the manufacture of a substance as a byproduct that becomes an impurity in a product that is processed and distributed in commerce is not subject to the SNUR as the substance is not being manufactured “for any use” within the meaning of the SNUR. It is merely being inadvertently produced. Notwithstanding, we recognize EPA’s authority under TSCA to gather information, assess, and manage any unreasonable risks associated with the activity.

This is an interesting case TSCA mavens should monitor.


By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) announced on January 5, 2022, that it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose reports submitted pursuant to Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to the complaint, PEER submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in November 2021 seeking records demonstrating how EPA deals with Section 8(e) reports. PEER states that it requested both Section 8(e) reports submitted to EPA and internal policies regarding publicly posting and using Section 8(e) reports. PEER notes that its FOIA request “built upon information reported in a November 2021 article in The Intercept noting that EPA had only posted one 8(e) report publicly since 2019 and describing disagreement over how the EPA processes 8(e) reports internally.”

In its announcement, PEER states that TSCA requires industry to notify EPA within 30 days when it obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a chemical substance presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. According to PEER, in early 2019, EPA stopped posting these industry reports in its public-facing database or on an easily searchable internal database. While industry submitted and EPA published more than 1,000 substantial risk reports from 2017 through 2018, PEER states that since 2019, EPA has posted only one to the public database. EPA scientists informed PEER that another approximately 1,240 reports have been received but sequestered.

PEER states that “[a]n EPA spokesperson told a news reporter that the person who had been responsible for posting these reports had retired in December 2018; and the agency lacked fundings to replace this single employee. However, at the same time, the agency finances an online tool enabling chemical companies to track their products through the approval process – internally called the ‘pizza tracker.’”

PEER asks the court to enter an order declaring that EPA wrongfully withheld requested documents and to issue a permanent injunction directing EPA to disclose all wrongfully withheld documents.


By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
On December 21, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that a report compiling the letter peer reviewers’ comments on the revised draft Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation of C.I. Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) is now available in Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604.  EPA states that it is in the process of reviewing the letter peer reviewers’ comments and will use the feedback received from the peer review and public comments to inform the final risk evaluation.
According to EPA, after it issued the draft risk evaluation in November 2018, it received additional data in response to test orders, as well as additional information voluntarily submitted by the sole U.S. manufacturer.  EPA states that these new data led it to revise its analytical approach for evaluating the potential exposure and health effects of PV29.  As a result of this updated analysis, the revised draft risk evaluation now shows unreasonable risk to workers for 11 out of 14 conditions of use.  Because these new data had a significant impact on EPA’s risk evaluation and ultimately the risk determinations, EPA provided an opportunity for the public to give input before issuing the final risk evaluation.
EPA notes that it also conducted a letter peer review of the revised draft risk evaluation using independent scientists, including one who has served as a member and several who have served as ad hoc peer reviewers for the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).  The peer review focused on charge questions supplied by EPA.  The report made available December 21, 2020, is the result of this letter peer review.


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 Margaret R. Graham

On May 25, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would host a half-day preparatory meeting for experts selected to serve as letter peer reviewers for EPA’s Exposure and Use Assessment and Human Health and Environmental Hazard Summary for Five Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) chemicals.  Section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) directs EPA to issue regulations under Section 6(a) for certain PBT chemical substances that were identified in EPA’s TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 update.  The selected chemicals are:

  • Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DECA);
  • Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD);
  • Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP);
  • Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) (PIP3/ITPP); and
  • 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl) phenol (2, 4, 6 TRIS).

EPA prepared an Exposure and Use Assessment and a Human Health and Environmental Hazard Summary in response to the requirements under TSCA Section 6(h) to summarize conclusions of toxicity and whether there is likely exposure to these PBT chemicals and EPA organized letter peer reviews for the Exposure and Use Assessment and the Human Health and Environmental Hazard Summary.  The Federal Register notice announcing the meeting states that during the preparatory meeting, “the individual letter peer reviewers will have the opportunity to comment on and ask questions regarding the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions.”  EPA’s background papers, related supporting materials, and charge/questions for these letter peer reviews are now available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0314 on

The meeting is scheduled for June 25, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT) and will be held via teleconference and webcast only.  Registration is available online.  Those requesting to provide oral comments (approximately five minutes) are asked to register by June 21, 2018.  Though the peer reviewers may not be able to consider fully written comments submitted after July 23, 2018, EPA will consider all comments submitted on or before August 17, 2018

More information, including the list of experts, is available on EPA’s TSCA Peer Review website.