Source: http://mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/744400/Water/The+Chemical+CompoundOctober+2018
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:19:54+00:00

Document:
This quarterly newsletter provides updates on litigation, regulatory, legislative, and other notable developments involving chemicals of concern to business. Our present focus is on substances which are the subject of regulatory activity or scrutiny by various government agencies and potential litigants. This includes emerging contaminants, such as perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), hexavalent chromium, trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP), and 1,4-dioxane, as well as substances identified by EPA under the 2016 amendments to TSCA for prioritization, risk evaluation, or regulation. We hope you find this publication informative, and we welcome your feedback on chemicals of interest to your organization.
Oral argument has been scheduled in the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) challenge to EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule (TSCA Inventory Rule).9 EDF filed the litigation in the DC Circuit in September 2017 challenging the rule, which EPA promulgated pursuant to the 2016 amendments to TSCA to identify which chemical substances are active in commerce.10 Briefing was completed in the case in July 2018, and oral argument is scheduled for October 12, 2018.
The 2016 amendments to TSCA require EPA to prioritize and evaluate the risks of a minimum number of chemical substances in accordance with specified deadlines. Substances that are designated as "high priority" must undergo a risk evaluation, which will inform EPA decisions about which substances will be regulated under Section 6 of the amended law to mitigate risks to human health and the environment. In 2017, EPA issued final regulations establishing the "framework" (process) under which the Agency will conduct its prioritization and risk evaluation processes. Because the law requires that, once commenced, the prioritization process for any given substance must be completed pursuant to a nine- to 12-month public process, EPA has considered establishing a "pre-prioritization" process for establishing a queue of chemicals to be designated as either "high" or "low" priority. In December 2017, EPA held a public meeting to solicit input regarding methods for identifying potential candidates for prioritization.
EPA has issued or proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) for over 200 chemical substances in 2018. Notable substances subject to these SNURs include asbestos45 and chlorinated paraffins.46 Most of the SNURs issued by EPA have been direct final rules issued for substances that were already the subject of TSCA Section 5(e) Consent Orders.47 However, the SNUR for asbestos was issued only as a proposed rule.48 EPA sought comment on the proposed SNUR for asbestos from June 11, 2018 through August 10, 2018.49 The timeline for issuing the final asbestos SNUR is unknown (additional regulatory actions on asbestos under other TSCA authorities could be forthcoming). Although EPA issued the other SNURs as direct final rules, EPA nonetheless opened comment periods for these rules.50 If, during these comment periods, EPA receives any "adverse comment," the Agency practice is to withdraw the direct final rule for the specific-substances SNUR about which it had received adverse comments, address the comments in a response to comments, and issue a final SNUR taking into account the public comments EPA received.51 Otherwise, a SNUR issued via direct final rule becomes effective two months following publication in the Federal Register.52 On September 26, 2018, EPA withdrew the final direct rules for 145 SNURs about which it had received adverse comments.53 Given the pace at which EPA has been issuing SNURs, and EPA's approach to issuing SNURs as direct final rules that it will withdraw only if it receives adverse comments, manufacturers and processors of chemical substances will need to keep a close eye on the Federal Register and should be prepared to review and submit comments on any direct final SNURs that may affect them.
In June 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released its draft "Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls."54 The Toxicological Profile covers 14 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).55 The Toxicological Profile recommends standards of 11 ppt for PFOA and 7 ppt for PFOS—significantly lower than EPA's 70 ppt lifetime health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS.56 ATSDR sought public comment on the draft Toxicological Profile until August 20, 2018.57 Dr. Peter Grevatt, director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, was asked about the differences between EPA's lifetime health advisory and the standards recommended by the ATSDR Toxicological Profile during a September 6, 2018 hearing in the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Environment.58 Dr. Grevatt explained that the purpose of the ATSDR Toxicological Profile is different from the lifetime health advisory, stating that ATSDR "viewed the science somewhat differently" than EPA. Dr. Grevatt, though, emphasized that EPA is working closely with ATSDR to ensure that both entities have the best information going forward.
Dr. Grevatt also testified at a September 26, 2018 hearing in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management.78 At this hearing, Dr. Grevatt again expressed skepticism about the need for an MCL for PFOA and PFOS, citing the aforementioned study. Dr. Grevatt also set expectations for a timeline for the implementation of an MCL for PFOA and PFOS, if EPA determines it is an appropriate regulatory measure, and the designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA and/or other appropriate statutes. Dr. Grevatt emphasized that, even if EPA announces in its PFAS national management plan later this year that the Agency intends to pursue these measures, EPA would still have to develop proposed rules, seek public comment on these rules, and develop final rules based on public comments. He indicated that this process would take at least one year. Dr. Grevatt also explained at the hearing that EPA was developing a SNUR for PFAS to supplement the initial SNUR proposed by EPA in January 2015.79 He did not provide a timeline for releasing the supplemental SNUR.
California's Water Resources Control Board established drinking water notification levels for PFOA and PFOS that took effect on July 13, 2018.88 The new notification level for PFOA is 14 ppt,89 and the new notification level for PFOS is 13 ppt.90 The State Water Board also established a combined response level for PFOA and PFOS of 70 ppt.91 Although public drinking water systems generally are not mandated to test for PFOA and PFOS, those that do test are now required to report exceedances to their governing boards and the State Water Board, and are urged to report exceedances to their customers.92 These notification levels were issued after the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment sent a recommendation to the California Water Boards in June 2018.93 The establishment of a notification level is often an initial step in the process of adopting a maximum contaminant level.94 Data collected as a result of the new guidelines, reflecting the extent and levels of contamination, will be used by the State Water Board to determine whether or not to adopt a maximum contaminant level for PFOA and PFOS.
Additionally, California has launched a biomonitoring program to measure the levels of perfluorinated chemicals in the blood of California residents.95 The program will kick off with testing of a diverse group of 300 to 500 adults in the Los Angeles area. It is expected to expand in seven other regions in California over the next few years. In addition to blood samples, California is collecting information from participants in an effort to identify sources of PFAS chemicals. After the study, California will hold community meetings to discuss the results.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has formed a "stakeholder advisory group" to develop best practices for managing vapor intrusion risks, specifically in commercial and industrial buildings.99 Members of the stakeholder advisory group include environmental consulting groups, banks, property developers, and other state governmental entities. Interested parties who are not members of the stakeholder advisory group are encouraged to connect with members of the group if they wish to engage in the development of these best practices. The Agency hopes to publish its best practices by January 2019. Issues expected to be covered by the best practices released next year include the sufficiency of passive mitigation systems (such as sealing cracks in floor slabs), whether an underground parking garage may be considered a mitigation system, and the required verification testing requirements for each type of mitigation.
New Jersey has finalized maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for 1,2,3,-TCP and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) in New Jersey drinking water.100 These MCLs were initially proposed in August 2017.101 Under New Jersey's revised Safe Drinking Water Act regulations, the MCL for PFNA is 13 ppt, and the MCL for 1,2,3,-TCP is 30 ppt.102 New Jersey is currently the only state in the country with a drinking water MCL for PFNA,103 and only the third state in the country to adopt an MCL for 1,2,3-TCP.104 Public water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people are required to begin monitoring for PFNA and 1,2,3,-TCP within the first quarter of 2019. Public water systems serving more than 10,000 people have until the first quarter of 2020 to begin monitoring for these chemical substances.
Vermont has expanded its 20 ppt health advisory for PFOA and PFOS to include three other PFAS chemicals.107 Under the health advisory, as updated by the state in July 2018, the cumulative level of the following PFAS chemicals may not exceed 20 ppt: PFOA, PFOS, perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), and PFNA. Tests of drinking water in Vermont have primarily detected PFOA. However, some recent tests have also detected PFHxS and PFHpA, thus spurring the state to expand its health advisory.
Pursuant to legislation signed in July 2018, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services is now required to set maximum contaminant levels for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS.108The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services is required to initiate rulemaking to establish the maximum contaminant level by January 1, 2019.109 The legislation also directs the Department of Environmental Services to develop a plan to establish surface water quality standards for PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS. The Department of Environmental Services is required to submit this plan to the New Hampshire legislature by January 1, 2020.
1 Consent Decree, United States v. US Steel Corp., No. 2:18-cv-00127 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 2, 2018), ECF No. 2-1, at 3, 23-28.
2 Sarah Reese, US Steel Wants Clean Water Act Lawsuit to Remain on Hold; Surfrider, Chicago Push to Lift Stay, nwi.com (June 6, 2018).
4 National Parks Conservation Association, Comments on Proposed Consent Decree in United States et al. v. United States Steel Corporation (June 4, 2018).
5 Motion to Lift Stay by Plaintiff City of Chicago, The Surfrider Foundation v. US Steel Corp., No. 2:18-cv—00020-JVB-APR (N.D. Ind. July 13, 2018), ECF No. 26.
6 Response to Motion to Lift Stay by United States Steel Corporation, The Surfrider Foundation v. US Steel Corp., No. 2:18-cv—00020-JVB-APR (N.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2018), ECF No. 27.
7 Reese, supra note 2.
9 Clerk's Order Scheduling Oral Argument, Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, No. 17-1201 (DC Cir. Aug. 29, 2018).
10 Petition for Review, Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, No. 17-1201 (DC Cir. Sept. 1, 2017).
11 See the April 2, 2018 edition of The Chemical Compound for a discussion of the Environmental Defense Fund's opening brief.
12 TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements, 82 Fed. Reg. 37,520, 37,527 (Aug. 11, 2017).
13 Petitioner Environmental Defense Fund's Principal Brief at 31-32, Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, No. 17-1201 (DC Cir. July 5, 2018).
15 Final Brief of Respondents EPA and Scott Pruitt at 19, Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, No. 17-1201 (DC Cir. July 5, 2018).
17 Respondents' Motion for Partial Voluntary Remand, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, No. 17-72260 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2018).
19 15 USC § 2625(h).
20 Respondents' Motion for Partial Voluntary Remand, supra note 17, at 1.
22 Petitioners' Response to Respondents' Motion for Partial Voluntary Remand at 1, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, No. 17-72260 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2018).
23 Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, No. 18-00025 (2d Cir. Aug. 27, 2018).
24 Petition for Review, Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, No. 18-00025 (2d Cir. Jan. 5, 2018).
25 New Chemicals Review Program Implementation and Approaches for Identifying Potential Candidates for Prioritization for Existing Chemical Risk Evaluations Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Public Meetings and Opportunity for Public Comment, 82 Fed. Reg. 51,415 (Nov. 6, 2017).
26 Opening Brief of Petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council at 41-49, Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, No. 18-00025 (2d Cir. May 1, 2018).
28 Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), supra note 23.
29 Order Granting Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, No. 18-00025 (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2018).
30 Pre-Publication Copy Notice: Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA (Sept. 27, 2018).
31 Id. at 49-52. Although Section 533(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires that final rules not take effect until 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register, agencies may waive this 30-day period upon a showing of "good cause." In the pre-publication version of the final rule, EPA explained that the Agency believes it has good cause to waive this 30-day period because impacted parties have sufficient notice of the requirements of the final rule, and because EPA is required under TSCA to begin assessing fees on October 1, 2018. Id.
41 A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization, US Envtl. Protection Agency (Sept. 27, 2018).
42 Submitting Information on TSCA Work Plan Chemicals to Inform Prioritization and Risk Evaluation, US Envtl. Protection Agency (last updated Sept. 27, 2018).
43 List of Substances Reported Under the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule, US Envtl. Protection Agency (last visited June 18, 2018).
44 Petition for Review, Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, No. 17-1201 (DC Cir. Sept. 1, 2017).
45 Asbestos; Significant New Use Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 26,922 (June 11, 2018).
46 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances, 83 Fed. Reg. 40,986 (Aug. 17, 2018).
47 See id; Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances, 83 Fed. Reg. 37,702 (Aug. 1, 2018); Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances, 83 Fed. Reg. 43,538 (Aug. 27, 2018); Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances, 83 Fed. Reg. 43,527 (Aug. 27, 2018); Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances, 83 Fed. Reg. 47,004 (Sept. 17, 2018).
48 Asbestos; Significant New Use Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 26,922.
50 See, e.g., Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances, 83 Fed. Reg. 40,986.
53 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances; Withdrawal, 83 Fed. Reg. 48,456 (Sept. 26, 2018).
54 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls: Draft for Public Comment, Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (June 2018).
56 Juan Carlos Rodriguez, HHS Unveils Controversial Drinking Water Contaminant Study, Law360 (June 20, 2018).
57 Availability of Draft Toxicological Profile: Perfluoroalkyls, 83 Fed. Reg. 28,849 (July 23, 2018).
58 Perfluorinated Chemicals in the Environment: An Update on the Response to Contamination and Challenges Presented, House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (Sept. 6, 2018).
59 Office of Management & Budget, EO 12866 Regulatory Review.
60 See EPA Actions to Address PFAS, US Envtl. Protection Agency, (last updated May 14, 2018).
63 PFAS Community Engagement: Horsham, PA, US Envtl. Protection Agency (last updated July 30, 2018).
64 Draft Final—Agenda: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Community Engagement in Horsham, Pennsylvania, US Envtl. Protection Agency (July 2018).
65 Cosmo Servidio & Peter Grevatt, Welcoming and Opening Remarks, US Envtl. Protection Agency (July 25, 2018).
66 US EPA: PFAS Research and Development, US Envtl. Protection Agency (July 25, 2018).
67 PFAS Community Engagement, US Envtl. Protection Agency (lasted updated Sept. 10, 2018).
68 PFAS National Leadership Summit and Engagement, Regulations.gov (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
71 Perfluorinated Chemicals in the Environment: An Update on the Response to Contamination and Challenges Presented, House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (Sept. 6, 2018).
75 Dave Reynolds, EPA Official Raises Concern Over PFAS MCL as States Back Standard, InsideEPA (Aug. 29, 2018).
77 Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS, EPA (last updated July 9, 2018).
78 The Federal Role in the Toxic PFAS Chemical Crisis, US Senate Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs (Sept. 26, 2018).
79 Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical Substances; Significant New Use Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 2,885 (Jan. 21, 2015).
80 Press Release, Congressman Paul D. Tonko, Tonko Drinking Water Legislation Passes House, Likely to Become Law (Sept. 13, 2018).
82 Id.; see also Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, US Envtl. Protection Agency (last updated Sept. 13, 2018).
83 Id.; see also Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of Public Meeting, 71 Fed. Reg. 92,666 (Dec. 20, 2016).
84 Reporting Requirements for the Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4), US Envtl. Protection Agency, (last updated Nov. 16, 2017).
85 The Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3): Data Summary, January 2017, US Envtl. Protection Agency (Jan. 2017).
86 See, e.g., Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, Comments Regarding PFAS National Leadership Summit and Engagement 2 (July 20, 2018).
88 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), California Water Boards (last updated July 13, 2018).
89 Notification Level Issuance: Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), California Water Boards (July 13, 2018).
90 Notification Level Issuance: Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS), California Water Boards (July 13, 2018).
91 Press Release, California Water Boards, State Water Board Releases Guidelines for Testing and Reporting on PFOA and PFOS in Drinking Water (July 13, 2018).
92 Notification Levels for Chemicals in Drinking Water, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
93 Memorandum from Lauren Ziese (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) to Darrin Polhemus (State Water Resources Control Board) (June 26, 2018).
94 Press Release, California Water Boards, supra note 91.
95 California Regional Exposure (CARE) Study, Biomonitoring California (last visited Sept. 13, 2018).
96 Tammy Lovell, San Francisco Bans Single-Use Food Service Ware Containing PFASs, ChemicalWatch (Aug. 27, 2018).
97 City of San Francisco, Ordinance No. 201-18 (July 10, 2018).
98 Yessenia Funes, This Latest Straw Ban Also Comes With a Ban on Toxic Food Packaging, GizModo (July 27, 2018).
99 Development of Commercial/Industrial Vapor Intrusion Mitigation BMPs, Minn. Pollution Control Agency (last visited Sept. 26, 2018).
100 Safe Drinking Water Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:10-5.2(a)(5), (a)(6)(ii).
101 49 N.J.R. 2361(a) (Aug. 7, 2017).
102 Safe Drinking Water Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:10-5.2(a)(5), (a)(6)(ii).
103 NJ Makes Regulatory History; Safe Drinking Water Standard for PFNA Adopted, Cape May County Herald (Sept. 4, 2018).
104 David Levinsky, New Jersey Adopts Water Standard for Hazardous Chemical Found in Moorestown, Maple Shade, Burlington County Times (Sept. 10, 2018).
105 Jon Hurdle, New Jersey Issues First Advisories for Consumption of Fish Containing PFAS Chemicals, StateImpact - NPR (July 21, 2018).
106 Sandra M. Goodrow et al, Investigation of Levels of Perfluorinated Compounds in New Jersey Fish, Surface Water, and Sediment, New Jersey Dep't of Envt'l Protection (June 18, 2018).
107 Health Department Updates Health Advisory for PFAS, State Expands Testing Plan to Include 10 Schools in Pilot Project, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (July 10, 2018).
108 Aaron Nicodemus, New Hampshire to Set Limits on Fluorochemicals in Drinking Water, Bloomberg Law (July 11, 2018).
109 SB 309-FN (N.H. 2018).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2625
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.