{"id":10768,"date":"2022-01-06T13:31:11","date_gmt":"2022-01-06T18:31:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=10768"},"modified":"2022-01-06T14:44:01","modified_gmt":"2022-01-06T19:44:01","slug":"epas-significant-new-use-rules-under-tsca-must-reflect-its-policy-goals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2022\/01\/06\/epas-significant-new-use-rules-under-tsca-must-reflect-its-policy-goals\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA\u2019s Significant New Use Rules under TSCA must reflect its policy goals"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lauren Ellis<\/i><\/a>,\u00a0Research Analyst, Environmental Health<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We\u00a0recently\u202fsubmitted\u00a0<\/span>comments<\/a>\u202fto\u00a0the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\u202fon\u00a0a subset\u00a0of\u00a0proposed\u00a0<\/span>Significant New Use Rules<\/a> (SNURs) published by the New Chemicals program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). We commend EPA for issuing these proposed SNURs. Our review of some of the SNURs, however, raised concerns about chemical releases to the environment, risks to consumers, and the absence of worker protections. We believe EPA can address many of these concerns by following through on its stated policy goals.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For all the chemicals in this batch, EPA had previously issued \u201cconsent orders\u201d \u2013 which impose restrictions on a new chemical \u2013 because the agency found at the time of their initial review for market entry that the chemical substances may present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. We strongly support EPA\u2019s use of SNURs to follow up on consent orders it issues, as a consent order only applies to the original company that submitted a premanufacture notice (PMN) to EPA to domestically manufacture or import a new chemical.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A SNUR is a separate action that requires any company seeking to engage in a \u201csignificant new use\u201d identified in the SNUR to notify EPA at least 90 days before beginning that use, triggering EPA’s review of the potential new use. For new chemicals that received orders, a SNUR can conform to the order \u2013 meaning it mirrors the conditions in the consent order for the chemical \u2013 or it can apply more broadly to activities or uses that are beyond the scope of the consent order. Either way, SNURs enable the agency to review potentially risky uses <\/span>prior to\u00a0<\/span><\/i>their commencement.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In our comments, we\u00a0call for\u00a0four\u00a0major\u00a0changes to a subset of the proposed SNURs:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Stop treating PFAS like it\u2019s 2009<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

EPA has\u00a0<\/span>committed<\/a> to taking an agency-wide approach to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of highly persistent substances known as \u201cforever chemicals.\u201d Unfortunately, the proposed SNUR for two PFAS in this batch reflects how EPA viewed PFAS in 2009 when the consent orders were issued, rather than how the agency has pledged to approach PFAS today.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In its proposed PFAS SNUR, EPA only designates release of the substances to water as a significant new use, which was the only prohibition in the 2009 consent order. Thus, the proposed SNUR conforms to the outdated consent order, and does not take into account EPA\u2019s own 2017 re-evaluation of the consent order and the risks and recommendations it identified.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The\u00a0proposed\u00a0SNUR is\u00a0also\u00a0inconsistent with EPA\u2019s recently published\u00a0<\/span>PFAS Strategic Roadmap<\/a>, where the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) stated that it is \u201clooking at PFAS that it has previously reviewed through the TSCA New Chemicals program\u201d and \u201cplans to revisit past PFAS regulatory decisions and address those that are insufficiently protective.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Based on the agency\u2019s most recent findings and commitments, EPA should designate as significant new uses any use that leads to releases to the environment (air and land, in addition to water), any applications of these chemicals other than use as a chemical intermediate, and any use lacking worker protections and hazard communication where there is the potential for exposure \u2013 thus giving the agency the chance to review such uses, and limit them if warranted, <\/span>before<\/span><\/i>\u00a0they begin.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Require notification\u00a0for\u00a0uses\u00a0resulting in\u00a0environmental releases of PBTs<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

EPA also\u00a0proposed\u00a0<\/span>SNURs for 13 chemical substances used in photolithography that EPA indicated may be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT). The agency recognizes in its <\/span>PBTs Policy Statement<\/a> that PBTs present a heightened risk to the environment and human health due to their ability to build up in the environment, animals, and humans. In addition, for these particular substances, EPA identified health effects that included liver toxicity, neurotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity. EPA stated they were unable to assess the risks to surrounding communities or the environment due to insufficient information. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Given the\u00a0<\/span>PBT nature<\/a> of the chemicals and EPA\u2019s uncertainty about their risks, EPA should have prohibited any activity resulting in the release of these PBTs to the environment in its consent orders for these substances, but did not. EPA should issue a final SNUR that extends beyond the terms of the consent order and designate as a significant new use any use resulting in a release of the chemicals to the environment. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Ensure adequate\u00a0worker protection and hazard communication<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Several of the proposed SNURs in this batch failed to adequately consider risks to workers, as TSCA\u2019s language explicitly requires. For these chemicals, EPA should designate as a significant new use any activity or use that lacks worker protection and hazard communication.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

EPA\u00a0<\/span>announced<\/a> in March 2021 that it changed its Trump-era new chemical review approach regarding worker protection, and no longer assumes that \u2013 in the absence of a regulatory requirement \u2013 employers will provide and require the use of protective equipment to mitigate risks to workers.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We\u00a0<\/span>commend<\/a> EPA for its stated change and appreciate the agency’s actions regarding worker protections in its\u00a0<\/span>recently\u00a0revised<\/a> HBCD risk determination. However, these new proposed SNURs do not include worker protections as significant new uses, and thus appear to continue the previous administration\u2019s practice of assuming that employers will require protective equipment.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

TSCA requires that EPA explicitly consider \u201cpotentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations,\u201d which includes workers, when evaluating and managing chemical risks \u2013 a major improvement made to the law when it was amended in 2016. The law defines potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations as (emphasis added):<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

a group of individuals within the general population identified by [EPA] who, due to either greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at greater risk than the general population of adverse health effects from exposure to a chemical substance or mixture, such as infants, children, pregnant women, <\/span>workers<\/span><\/i>, or the elderly.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

EPA must ensure that these and future\u00a0new chemical\u00a0SNURs provide protections\u00a0for workers.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Require notification\u00a0for\u00a0reasonably foreseen consumer uses<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, several of the proposed SNURs in this batch failed to evaluate potential uses of the chemicals by consumers. Although EPA stated that consumer use was \u201cnot reasonably foreseen,\u201d we were able to easily identify consumer applications of the chemical substances, such as the use of hyperpigmented ink in art projects. Thus, for chemicals with reasonably foreseen consumer risks, EPA should designate as a significant new use any applications of these substances in a consumer product.\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

See\u202four\u00a0<\/span>submitted comments<\/a>\u202ffor more details.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Lauren Ellis,\u00a0Research Analyst, Environmental Health\u00a0 We\u00a0recently\u202fsubmitted\u00a0comments\u202fto\u00a0the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\u202fon\u00a0a subset\u00a0of\u00a0proposed\u00a0Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) published by the New Chemicals program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). We commend EPA for issuing these proposed SNURs. Our review of some of the SNURs, however, raised concerns about chemical releases to the environment, risks to consumers, …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":148072,"featured_media":9105,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[114108],"tags":[68,56108,106773,39178,5022],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-10768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tsca","tag-epa","tag-new-chemicals","tag-pfas","tag-significant-new-use-rule-snur","tag-worker-safety"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10768","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/148072"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10768"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10768\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10768"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=10768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}