Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is a Washington, D.C., law firm providing biobased and renewable chemical product stakeholders unparalleled experience, judgment, and excellence in bringing innovative products to market.

 
SAVE THE DATE
NEW TSCA AT FIVE
Virtual Conference
June 30, 2021
 
This June marks the fifth anniversary of the enactment of the game-changing Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg) that amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). With a new Administration and the relentless pace of regulatory developments related to Lautenberg implementation, there are many issues to consider and problems to solve.

The Environmental Law Institute (ELI), the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, and Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) are pleased to announce the fifth annual conference providing updates and insights regarding the current state of TSCA implementation, ongoing and emerging issues, and related developments. Topics will include how EPA is implementing Section 6 risk evaluation provisions, changes in new chemical review, existing chemical risk management provisions, and TSCA’s role in achieving environmental justice, among other topics.

As with our previous TSCA anniversary events, a stellar faculty of speakers from government, non-governmental organizations, industry, and academia will convene to inform, analyze, discuss, and debate the most pressing issues related to TSCA with regulatory practitioners and other stakeholder attendees.

Detailed program and registration information to come. SAVE THE DATE!


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson

EPA announced on March 29, 2021, that it is evaluating its policies, guidance, templates, and regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) new chemicals program to ensure they “adhere to statutory requirements,” the Biden-Harris Administration’s executive orders, and other directives. EPA identified several instances where its approach for making determinations and managing risks associated with new chemicals can, according to EPA, more closely align with TSCA’s requirements to ensure protections for human health and the environment, including the use of significant new use rules (SNUR) and assumptions related to worker exposures. EPA states that it will stop issuing determinations of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” based on the existence of proposed SNURs. According to EPA, “[r]ather than excluding reasonably foreseen conditions of use from EPA’s review of a new substance by means of a SNUR, Congress anticipated that EPA would review all conditions of use when making determinations on new chemicals and, where appropriate, issue orders to address potential risks.” Going forward, when EPA concludes that one or more uses may present an unreasonable risk, or when EPA believes that it lacks the information needed to make a safety finding, EPA will issue an order to address those potential risks.

EPA states that as has been the “long-standing practice,” it intends to continue issuing SNURs following TSCA Section 5(e) and 5(f) orders for new chemicals to ensure the requirements imposed on the submitter via an order apply to any person who manufactures or processes the chemical in the future. EPA notes that this ensures that other manufacturers of the same new chemical substance are held to the same conditions as the submitter subject to the TSCA Section 5(e) or 5(f) order.

EPA states that it now intends to ensure necessary protections for workers identified in its review of new chemicals through regulatory means. According to the announcement, where EPA identifies a potential unreasonable risk to workers that could be addressed with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and hazard communication, EPA will no longer assume that workers are protected adequately under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) worker protection standards and updated safety data sheets (SDS). Instead, EPA will identify the absence of worker safeguards as “reasonably foreseen” conditions of use and mandate necessary protections through a TSCA Section 5(e) order, as appropriate.

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. Commentary

The first policy change -- that the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) will no longer employ the “non-order SNUR” construction to regulate new chemicals without an order -- was somewhat predictable. This construction, since its inception, has led to questions about whether this interpretation meets the requirements under TSCA Section 5. In our view, EPA issuing a SNUR to prohibit conditions of use that EPA identifies as potentially leading to an unreasonable risk was an appropriate and expeditious means to achieve the protective end (the TSCA regulation) without the inefficiency and delays associated with the development of a consent order. EPA would only use this option when EPA concluded the intended conditions of use were not likely to present an unreasonable risk. It is not clear why a SNUR is viewed as being less protective than an order, when an order applies only to the premanufacture notice (PMN) submitter and a SNUR applies to all actors in the supply chain. EPA is required to promulgate a SNUR that conforms to an order absent a reason otherwise. The claim that undertaking a condition of use that is defined in a SNUR as a significant new use “requires only notification to EPA” misrepresents the rigor of the significant new use notice (SNUN) process. A SNUN functions just like a PMN, with a similar level of effort required on the submitter’s and EPA’s parts and nearly identical determination outcomes (a consent order, modification of the existing SNUR, or revocation of the existing SNUR if warranted), so saying that a SNUN is “just a notification to EPA” is the equivalent of stating that a PMN is “just a notification to EPA.” Detractors might also claim that orders include testing, but that presumes that testing is required for EPA to make an informed decision. If EPA can, as it routinely does, make a decision based on conservative assumptions with analogs, models, and information provided by the submitter, EPA can similarly make an informed decision about what measures are necessary to achieve its protective goal without new test data. In Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.’s (B&C®) view, this policy change will add marginal, if any, protective benefit at a significant increase in effort by both EPA and the submitter.

EPA’s decision that it no longer views use of PPE as reasonably foreseeable is an unwelcome and unprincipled development. B&C, on behalf of the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition (NCC), provided, at OPPT’s request, a robust data set that demonstrated that proper PPE is rarely not used in an industrial/commercial setting. A database of 40 years of OSHA violations contained very few glove, goggle, and general dermal protection violations -- all obvious violations to any inspector. The marginal number of OSHA violations supports the NCC’s view that standard PPE use is both reasonably foreseeable and highly likely and demonstrably so. Today’s unexplained reversal is difficult to reconcile with these facts. If EPA proceeds to issue orders for every PMN that may present a risk if workers do not take routine protective measures, then EPA will be required to regulate nearly every PMN in which EPA identifies a hazard other than “low hazard” for health and ecotoxicity, as was EPA’s practice when the Lautenberg amendments were passed in 2016. As we have stated previously, that would mean that EPA will be implementing TSCA as a hazard-based law, instead of the clear risk-based law that it is.


 

March 31, 2021
1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. EDT
Register here

The COVID-19 global pandemic has had far-reaching impacts on business operations. While we are all eager to put the pandemic behind us, other catastrophic events will inevitably occur. To strengthen organizational resilience going forward, we must examine lessons learned and position product stewardship as a key player in business continuity and crisis management.

This complimentary future-focused webinar, hosted by the Product Stewardship Society (PSS), will identify the broad range of complex, unresolved, and evolving issues product stewards have faced and continue to face because of the pandemic.

SPEAKERS:

 

Tina Armstrong, Ph.D., Principal Scientist and Vice President at the global consultancy firm Arcadis

 

 Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (moderator)

 

Jon Hellerstein, CIH, CSP, a career environmental health professional 

 

Al Iannuzzi, Ph.D., Vice President, Sustainability, The Estée Lauder Companies

 

Louise Proud, leader of the Environment, Health, and Safety program for Pfizer Inc.

 

In addition to receiving 1.5 contact hours, participants will learn:

  • How product stewards can integrate product stewardship into business continuity and crisis management.
     
  • What issues a product steward needs to address when a COVID-19 outbreak occurs in a workplace, retail space, or upstream/downstream in the supply chain.
     
  • How to leverage the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic to influence senior leaders to think differently about product stewardship and environment, health, and safety in general.

Make sure to register now for what promises to be a timely, resourceful, and interesting event!


 

By Richard E. Engler, Ph.D.

In the 21st century, we take as given a continuous stream of new and better products. From electronics to building materials to transportation solutions, the flow of new and better products and applications seems unending. New chemical substances play a fundamental role in creating those products and making existing products better. If the pipeline of new chemicals were closed off, the flow of new products and applications would slow to a trickle and eventually dry up. Modern life as we know it would not exist without the continued invention, production, and use of new chemicals.

In the United States, all new chemicals must be reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can enter commerce. The Agency looks at new chemicals to determine whether their manufacturing, processing, and use would adversely affect people or the environment. If EPA identifies risks that it determines to be unreasonable, then it either prohibits use of the chemical, or requires restrictions on the chemical to control for risks. Since the 1970s, tens of thousands of chemicals have come through EPA for review and have been allowed into U.S. commerce.

In this article, Richard E. Engler, Ph.D. and Jeffery T. Morris, Ph.D. write that more robust consideration of a new chemical’s potential to prevent pollution and lower risks could help achieve the right balance between safety and innovation. The full article is available at https://chemicalwatch.com/220164/guest-column-why-the-us-epa-can-and-should-evaluate-the-risk-reducing-role-a-new-chemical-may-play-if-allowed-on-the-market (subscription required).


 

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Ligia Duarte Botelho, M.A.

EPA announced that it is extending the public comment period on proposed updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Fees Rule to give stakeholders more time to review and comment. The current comment period was set to close on February 25, 2021. Comments are now due on March 27, 2021. Information on the proposed updates is available in the Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) December 30, 2020, memorandum, “EPA Intends Proposed Rule to Increase Flexibility and Reduce Burdens under TSCA Fees Program.”

On February 18, 2021, EPA held a virtual public meeting on the TSCA Fees Rule, allowing stakeholders to provide input on the proposed rulemaking. One of the main concerns by industry stakeholders was related to fees collection under TSCA Section 4. Stakeholders reported that EPA should not collect such fees under Section 4 because the same fees are collected under Section 5. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation proposed instead a tiered fees structure, given that the rule as proposed includes downstream user fees, which would double fees within the supply chain.

On the other hand, representatives from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) expressed opposition to the exemptions outlined in the proposed rule and criticized EPA for relying on voluntary information requests.

Tags: TSCA, Fees

 

By Lynn L. Bergeson 

EPA published on February 8, 2021, a periodic update of the TSCA confidential business information (CBI) review statistics. TSCA Section 14(g)(1) requires that EPA, within 90 days of receipt of a CBI claim:

  • Review and make determinations on CBI claims for chemical identity after the chemical substance has been offered for commercial distribution; and
     
  • Review and make determinations on a representative subset of at least 25 percent of other CBI claims that are not exempt from substantiation and review.

The updated data summarize the number of CBI cases under review and results of completed reviews through December 28, 2020. In addition, a spreadsheet is available showing the details of completed TSCA CBI determinations through December 28, 2020.

EPA states that making this information publicly available continues to demonstrate its commitment to transparency while fulfilling its responsibilities under TSCA. EPA notes that it has established numerous new processes, systems, and procedures to enable submitters to provide the information required when making confidentiality claims and to facilitate EPA’s review, and where applicable, determinations on these claims.

Tags: TSCA, CBI

 

By  Lynn L. Bergeson 

On January 11, 2021, EPA published a proposed rule that would amend the 2018 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fees rule. 86 Fed. Reg. 1890. Under TSCA, EPA collects fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to help fund implementation and to ensure that public health and the environment continue to be protected. TSCA requires EPA to review its fees every three years and, after consulting with parties potentially subject to the fees, to adjust the fees if necessary. The proposed rule describes the proposed modifications to the TSCA fees and fee categories for fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024 and explains the methodology by which these TSCA fees were determined. The proposed updates include:

  • Regarding EPA-initiated risk evaluations, narrowing the scope of the TSCA fees rule by exempting from the requirement to pay fees importers of articles containing a chemical substance, companies that produce a chemical as a byproduct or manufacture or import as an impurity, companies that manufacture or import a chemical in de minimis amounts, companies that manufacture or import chemicals solely for R&D purposes, and companies that produce a chemical as a non-isolated intermediate;
     
  • Using cost data gathered over the past two years, instead of estimates, to update the fee calculations;
     
  • Ensuring fees are fairly and appropriately shared across companies by proposing a production-volume based fee allocation and including export-only manufacturers for EPA-initiated risk evaluations;
     
  • Allowing for corrections to be made to the list of manufacturers subject to fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations after the final list is published, ensuring the accuracy of the list;
     
  • Increasing flexibility for companies by extending the amount of time to form consortia to share in fee payments;
     
  • Ensuring that EPA can fully collect fees and enabling companies to prepare better for paying fees by allowing payments in installments for EPA-initiated and manufacturer-requested risk evaluations (MRRE); and
     
  • Adding three new fee categories, two associated with new chemical activities and one associated with test orders.
     

Comments are due February 25, 2021. More information is available in our December 30, 2020, memorandum, “EPA Intends Proposed Rule to Increase Flexibility and Reduce Burdens under TSCA Fees Program.

Tags: TSCA, Fees

 

By  Lynn L. Bergeson 

On December 21, 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a pre-publication notice of proposed updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Fees Rule. Specifically, the proposed updates to the original 2018 TSCA Fees Rule include:

  • Narrowing the scope of the rule by exempting importers of articles containing a chemical substance, companies that produce a chemical as a byproduct or manufacture or import as an impurity, companies that produce a chemical in de minimis amounts, companies that use chemicals solely for research and development (R&D) purposes, and companies that manufacture a chemical that is produced as a non-isolated intermediate from fees;
     
  • Using cost data gathered over the past two years, instead of estimates, to update the fee calculations;
     
  • Ensuring fees are fairly and appropriately shared across companies by proposing a production-volume based fee allocation and including export-only manufacturers for EPA-initiated risk evaluations;
     
  • Allowing for corrections to be made to the list of manufacturers subject to fees for EPA-initiated risk evaluations after the final list is published, ensuring the accuracy of the list;
     
  • Increasing flexibility for companies by extending the amount of time to form consortia to share in fee payments;
     
  • Ensuring that EPA can fully collect fees and enabling companies to prepare better for paying fees by allowing payments in installments for EPA-initiated and manufacturer-requested risk evaluations; and
     
  • Adding new fee categories associated with new chemicals activities.

EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 45 days after its publication in the Federal Register. Further details are available here, and a Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) commentary can be accessed here.


 

By  Lynn L. Bergeson 

EPA has posted a Compliance Advisory entitled “Applicability of the Toxic Substances Control Act to Chemicals made from Petroleum and Renewable Sources Used as Fuels and Fuel Additives and Distillates.” The Compliance Advisory states that EPA is reaffirming that chemical substances used as fuels, fuel additives, and distillates made from either petroleum or renewable sources are subject to TSCA. Anyone who plans to manufacture (including import) a chemical made from petroleum or renewable sources must comply with the statutory and regulatory new chemical requirements under TSCA Section 5. According to the Compliance Advisory, EPA has received stakeholder inquiries “as to whether fuel and fuel additives made from renewable sources (such as renewable naphtha) are subject to the TSCA new chemicals requirements under section 5.” EPA states that it is issuing the Compliance Advisory “to affirm that fuel and fuel additives either made from petroleum or renewable sources are subject to TSCA and have been subject to its requirements since 1976.”

According to the Compliance Advisory, there are about 142 “naphthas” and 178 “distillates” (that compositionally can qualify as naphthas) currently on the TSCA Inventory, and they are considered Unknown, Variable composition, Complex, or Biological (UVCB) substances. Any substance that is not on the TSCA Inventory is a new chemical under TSCA Section 5(a)(1)(A). Prior to manufacture (including import) of a new chemical for commercial use, a premanufacture notice (PMN) must be filed with EPA under TSCA Section 5. The Compliance Advisory includes several questions and answers (Q&A), including:

Can you manufacture or import a chemical substance made from a renewable source if it is not listed on the TSCA Inventory?

No. Anyone who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance that is subject to TSCA for a non-exempt commercial purpose is required to submit a PMN at least 90 days prior to the manufacture of the chemical. Manufacturers (importers) are in violation of TSCA if they fail to comply or are late in complying with TSCA notice requirements. If you are required to submit a PMN, failure to do so is a violation of TSCA Section 15 and you may be subject to penalties. PMN submissions must include all available data, pursuant to 40 CFR 720.45 and 720.50. TSCA requires EPA to review the notice and make a determination; and, if appropriate, regulate the proposed activity.

EPA’s “compliance advisory” is disappointing. It signals this EPA is disinclined to promote renewable petroleum cuts and essentially (and emphatically) reaffirms what we believe to be EPA’s inflexible and unimaginative stance on “source” being determinative in petroleum cut UVCBs. This position, as we have noted in a variety of regulatory contexts, is a substantial disincentive to commercializing renewable petroleum cuts. EPA’s view is especially problematic when a refinery might wish to use a combination of petroleum and renewable feedstocks to make a single naphtha (or other distillate) cut.

For example, to avail itself of the equivalence determination, a company would have to submit a PMN for the renewable equivalent of a petroleum cut, sign the almost certain resultant consent order (EPA will undoubtedly identify aquatic toxicity concerns and may also identify health concerns), commence manufacture, file a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import (NOC), and then request an equivalency determination. If EPA denies the equivalency determination, any downstream processor or user will have to either segregate the renewable products from the petroleum products so that the downstream entity can maintain records of compliance with the consent order or treat both the renewable and petroleum products as being subject to the order. Neither option is commercially feasible or sustainable.

This sequence of events illustrates why commercial entities are disinclined to avail themselves of renewable sources in the distillate space. EPA’s compliance advisory is an unexpected and, to many, unwanted parting gift from the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration may wish to revisit the wisdom and prudence of this inflexible, antiquated, and inequitable view.


 

By  Lynn L. Bergeson 

EPA announced on January 5, 2021, that it is reopening the reporting period under the TSCA Inventory notification active-inactive rule where companies identified chemicals that were manufactured, imported, or processed in the United States during the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016. As reported in our June 26, 2017, memorandum, “EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules,” the final TSCA Inventory notification (active-inactive) rule established a retrospective electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory that were manufactured (including imported) for nonexempt commercial purposes during the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016, with provision to also allow notification by processors. From August 11, 2017, through October 5, 2018, chemical manufacturers and processors provided information on which chemicals were manufactured, imported, or processed in the United States over the past ten years. The reporting period included an opportunity for submitters to assert claims to retain specific chemical identities as confidential business information (CBI). In May 2020, EPA posted an interim list of chemicals expected to lose their CBI status and move to the public portion of the TSCA Inventory. In its January 5, 2021, announcement, EPA states that it has since become aware of “submitter confusion and issues regarding CBI claims” during the initial reporting period. EPA is allowing companies to submit, amend, or withdraw filings under the TSCA Inventory notification (active-inactive) rule to maintain existing CBI claims for specific chemical identity. The reporting period will reopen 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and run for 60 days after that date.


 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›