Tag: environment

Calling All Whistleblowers: Department of Justice Launches Office of Environmental Justice

Last week, the United States Attorney General announced the creation of the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) within the Department of Justice. The OEJ will manage DOJ’s environmental justice projects and “serve as the central hub for our efforts to advance our comprehensive environmental justice enforcement strategy” and address the “harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and climate change.”

In his speech, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland remarked that OEJ will “prioritize the cases that will have the greatest impact on the communities most overburdened by environmental harm” in partnership with the Civil Rights Division, Office for Access to Justice, Office of Tribal Justice, and United States Attorneys’ Offices.
Whistleblowers take note: violations of environmental laws (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act) can be a basis for a False Claims Act case.

In 2019, the DOJ settled a case against a domestic producer of Omega-3 fish oil supplements, fishmeal, and fish solubles for livestock and aquaculture feed. The producer allegedly falsely certified compliance with federal environmental laws on a loan application. Under the terms of the settlement, the fish oil producer paid $1 million. A former employee blew the whistle on their employer’s fishy business and was rewarded $200,000 as part of a qui tam lawsuit.

False certification of environmental law compliance harms taxpayers, workers, residents, and the environment for generations. The Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Civil Division said about the case, “Companies will face appropriate consequences if they misrepresent their eligibility to participate in federal programs and divert resources from those who should receive federal support.” It’s up to employees of manufacturers, contractors, construction companies, power plants, and others who receive government funds to report environmentally hazardous misconduct, so that, as the U.S. Attorney said, “Businessmen and companies that lie to get their hands on taxpayer money will be held accountable for their actions.”

Article By Eva Gunasekera and Renée Brooker of Tycko & Zavareei LLP

For more whistleblower legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

EPA Proposes TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Asbestos

On May 6, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements for asbestos under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 87 Fed. Reg. 27060. EPA proposes to require certain persons that manufactured (including imported) or processed asbestos and asbestos-containing articles (including as an impurity) in the four years prior to the date of publication of the final rule to report electronically certain exposure-related information. The proposed rule would result in a one-time reporting obligation. EPA “emphasizes that this proposed requirement would include asbestos that is a component of a mixture.” According to the notice, the information sought includes quantities of asbestos (including asbestos that is a component of a mixture) and asbestos-containing articles that were manufactured (including imported) or processed, types of use, and employee data. EPA and other federal agencies will use reported information in considering potential future actions, including risk evaluation and risk management activities. EPA requests public comment on all aspects of the proposed rule and also has identified items of particular interest for public input. Comments are due July 5, 2022.

Action EPA Is Taking

EPA proposes to require asbestos manufacturers (including importers) and processors to report to EPA certain information known to or reasonably ascertainable by those entities. EPA states that for this action, the term “asbestos” includes various forms of asbestos, including Libby Amphibole asbestos. The following is a brief list of the primary data requirements being proposed:

  • Asbestos Domestic Manufacturers (Asbestos Mine and Mill): The provisions in the proposed rule would require asbestos domestic manufacturers to provide the quantity manufactured per asbestos type, use, and employee exposure information to EPA. This would include situations in which asbestos is being mined or milled as an intentional or non-intentional impurity, such as in vermiculite and talc.
  • Asbestos Importers: The provisions in the proposed rule would require importers of asbestos to provide the quantity imported per asbestos type, use, and employee exposure information. This includes importers of mixtures containing asbestos, articles containing asbestos components, and impurities (in articles, bulk materials, or mixtures, such as in talc and vermiculite).
  • Asbestos Processors: The provisions of the proposed rule would require processors of asbestos (including processors of mixtures or articles) to provide the quantity processed per asbestos type, use, and employee exposure information. This includes both primary processors and secondary processors of asbestos. This would include situations in which asbestos is appearing as an intentional or non-intentional impurity, such as in vermiculite and talc.

Chemical Substances that Would Be Reportable under the Rule

EPA proposes to require the reporting of information on specific asbestos forms, or if specific information is not known or reasonably ascertainable, reporting on “asbestos” as it is more generally listed on the TSCA Inventory. EPA also proposes to require the reporting of information related to asbestos as it is manufactured (including imported) or processed in bulk, as a component of a mixture, in an article, or as an impurity in bulk materials or products.

Asbestos Forms

EPA proposes to obtain manufacturing (including importing) and processing information associated with the following different asbestos forms, and therefore is proposing to require that reporting be completed for each of the forms, to the extent that the information is known or reasonably ascertainable. If the specific asbestos type is unknown, a submitter would provide information under the general asbestos form (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS RN) 1332-21-4).

Asbestos — CAS RN 1332-21-4 Amosite — CAS RN 2172-73-5
Chrysotile — CAS RN 132207-32-0 Anthophyllite — CAS RN 77536-67-5
Crocidolite — CAS RN 12001-28-4 Tremolite — CAS RN 77536-68-6
Actinolite — CAS RN 77536-66-4 Libby Amphibole Asbestos — CAS RN not applicable (mainly consisting of tremolite [CAS RN 77536-68-6], winchite [CAS RN 12425-92-2], and richterite [CAS RN 17068-76-7])

Asbestos as an Impurity

EPA states that “impurity” means a chemical substance that is unintentionally present with another chemical substance, citing 40 C.F.R. Section 704.3. According to EPA, asbestos may occur naturally as an impurity in other products such as talc, vermiculite, and potentially other substances. These products are distributed and used in commerce in the United States. If all other reporting conditions are met, these products would be subject to reporting under this rule. EPA proposes to collect data on asbestos as an impurity because EPA may lack data on the extent to which asbestos as an impurity occurs in products under TSCA jurisdiction that are currently being manufactured (including imported) or processed. EPA notes that data on asbestos as an impurity could better inform the Part 2 asbestos risk evaluation where EPA will determine and then evaluate the relevant conditions of use of asbestos in talc.

Articles Containing Asbestos

The rule would require reporting on articles containing asbestos (including as an impurity). EPA notes that an “article” is defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 704.3 as “a manufactured item (1) which is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, (2) which has end-use function(s) dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and (3) which has either no change of chemical composition during its end use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial purpose separate from that of the article, and that result from a chemical reaction that occurs upon end use of other chemical substances, mixtures, or articles; except that fluids and particles are not considered articles regardless of shape or design.” EPA proposes to collect more data on imported articles containing asbestos. According to EPA, these data could inform Part 2 of the TSCA Risk Evaluation for Asbestos where EPA will determine and then evaluate the relevant conditions of use of such articles containing asbestos. Articles included in Part 1 of the TSCA Risk Evaluation for Asbestos included brake blocks for use in the oil industry, rubber sheets for gaskets used to create a chemical-containment seal in the production of titanium dioxide, certain other types of preformed gaskets, and some vehicle friction products (Ref. 18); EPA states that it “is interested in identifying if there are other articles or if there is information about specific forms of asbestos in these articles.”

Asbestos that Is a Component of a Mixture

EPA states that under TSCA Section 3(10), the term “mixture” means “any combination of two or more chemical substances if the combination does not occur in nature and is not, in whole or in part, the result of a chemical reaction; except that such term does include any combination which occurs, in whole or in part, as a result of a chemical reaction if none of the chemical substances comprising the combination is a new chemical substance and if the combination could have been manufactured (including imported) for commercial purposes without a chemical reaction at the time the chemical substances comprising the combination were combined.” EPA proposes to collect data on asbestos in circumstances where it is a component of a mixture to inform Part 2 of the TSCA Risk Evaluation for Asbestos. In the Part 2 Evaluation, EPA will determine the relevant conditions of use of asbestos in talc; EPA will use the results to evaluate asbestos exposures and associated risks.

Reporting Requirements for Small Businesses

EPA notes that although TSCA Section 8(a)(1) provides an exemption for small manufacturers (including importers) and processors, TSCA Section 8(a)(3) enables EPA to require small manufacturers (including importers) and processors to report pursuant to TSCA Section 8(a) with respect to a chemical substance that is the subject of a rule proposed or promulgated under TSCA Section 4, 5(b)(4), or 6, an order in effect under TSCA Section 4 or 5(e), a consent agreement under TSCA Section 4, or relief that has been granted under a civil action under TSCA Section 5 or 7. According to EPA, six of the asbestos types subject to the proposed rule (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite) are subject to a TSCA Section 6 rule under the Asbestos Ban and Phaseout rule of 1989, and therefore EPA is proposing that these forms of asbestos are not eligible for a small manufacturer (including importer) or processor exemption. EPA states that Libby Amphibole asbestos is not subject to an applicable proposed or promulgated rule, order, or consent agreement, and is not the subject of relief that has been granted under a civil action under TSCA Section 5 or 7. Therefore, EPA proposes that Libby Amphibole asbestos continue to be eligible for such an exemption.

EPA’s experience with the TSCA Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos indicates that small businesses are associated with certain identified conditions of use associated with asbestos. Because EPA has much less information on the activities of small businesses, it is concerned that certain conditions of use for which it lacks detailed information may be conducted largely or entirely by small businesses. EPA states that it believes that exempting all small businesses from reporting may exclude most or all of the reporting for some conditions of use, severely hindering EPA’s risk evaluation or risk management activities. As a result, EPA is proposing that small businesses — small manufacturers (including importers) and processors of asbestos and asbestos mixtures (other than Libby Amphibole asbestos) — will need to maintain records and report under this action.

At the time of the proposed rule, Libby Amphibole asbestos is not the subject of any of the activities described in TSCA Section 8(a)(3) and therefore manufacturers (including importers) and processors of that substance may be eligible for a small business exemption.

The Proposed Reporting Standard

EPA proposes to use the reporting standard used for certain other TSCA Section 8(a) reporting requirements, including Chemical Data Reporting (CDR). EPA states that this standard requires that manufacturers (including importers) and processors report information to the extent that the information is known to or reasonably ascertainable by the manufacturer (including importer) or processor. “Known to or reasonably ascertainable by” includes “all information in a person’s possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know.” According to EPA, this reporting standard requires reporting entities to evaluate their current level of knowledge of their manufactured products (including imports) or processed products, as well as evaluate whether there is additional information that a reasonable person, similarly situated, would be expected to know, possess, or control. This standard carries with it an exercise of due diligence, and EPA notes that the information-gathering activities that may be necessary for manufacturers (including importers) and processors to achieve this reporting standard may vary from case-to-case.

Under this standard, submitters conduct a reasonable inquiry within the full scope of their organization (not just the information known to managerial or supervisory employees). This may also entail inquiries outside the organization to fill gaps in the submitter’s knowledge. According to EPA, examples of the types of information that are considered to be in a manufacturer’s (including importer’s) or processor’s possession or control, or that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know include: files maintained by the manufacturer (including importer) or processor such as marketing studies, sales reports, or customer surveys; information contained in standard references showing use information or concentrations of chemical substances in mixtures, such as a safety data sheet (SDS) or a supplier notification; and information from CAS or from Dun & Bradstreet (D-U-N-S). It may also include knowledge gained through discussions, conferences, and technical publications.

EPA states that it “acknowledges that it is possible that a manufacturer (including importer) or processor, particularly an importer of articles containing asbestos (including as an impurity), may not have knowledge that they have imported asbestos and thus not report under this rule, even after they have conducted their due diligence under this reporting standard as described previously.” According to EPA, such an importer should document its activities to support any claims it might need to make related to due diligence. In the event that a manufacturer (including importer) or processor does not have actual data (e.g., measurements or monitoring data) to report to EPA, the manufacturer (including importer) or processor would be required to make “reasonable estimates” of such information. “Reasonable estimates” may rely, for example, on approaches such as mass balance calculations, emissions factors, or best engineering judgment.

Timing of Reporting

The proposed rule would result in a one-time reporting obligation. EPA proposes reporting for persons who have manufactured (including imported) or processed asbestos at any time during the four complete calendar years prior to the effective date of the final rule. EPA anticipates that the four calendar years would be 2019 to 2022. EPA states that these entities would report during a three-month submission period that EPA proposes would begin six months following the effective date of the final rule. Therefore, according to EPA, manufacturers (including importers) and processors would have up to nine months following the effective date of the final rule to collect and submit all required information to EPA.

EPA states that it believes that providing six months between the effective date of the rule and the start of the submission period allows sufficient time for both EPA to prepare the final reporting tool and for submitters to familiarize themselves with the rule and compile the required information. Since this TSCA Section 8(a) reporting rule would result in the collection of similar information to that collected under CDR, EPA anticipates some submitters would be familiar with the types of information requested and how to report. EPA “believes that three months would be adequate time for submissions, in addition to the six-month period between the effective date and the start of the submission period.” EPA requests public comment on the submission period start date and duration, as well as alternative compliance timelines for small businesses.

Reporting of Information

EPA proposes different reporting requirements based on a two-part knowledge-based reporting approach to obtain as complete a picture as possible of the manufacturing (including importing), processing, and use of asbestos. EPA notes that because asbestos can be included in small quantities in some products, it expects that using a threshold concentration for reporting would eliminate much of the information that may be useful to support EPA’s TSCA risk evaluation and risk management efforts. Therefore, EPA proposes that reporting would be required whenever the presence of asbestos is known or reasonably ascertainable. EPA states that it is also aware that there may be circumstances under which a manufacturer (including importer) or processor is unable to provide a reliable quantity of the asbestos in their products because the percentage of asbestos in their products is not known or reasonably ascertainable by them. For those situations, EPA proposes a short form (Form A) for attestation purposes. For other situations, submitters that can determine or estimate the quantity would provide more detailed information in the full form (Form B). EPA anticipates that most submitters would know or be able to estimate the quantity of the asbestos and would complete the full form.

Request for Comments

EPA requests comment on the content of the proposed rule and the Economic Analysis prepared in support of it. In addition, EPA provides a list of issues on which it is specifically requesting public comment. EPA encourages all interested persons to submit comments on these issues, and to identify any other relevant issues as well. EPA requests that commenters making specific recommendations include supporting documentation where appropriate. The list of issues EPA has identified include:

  • EPA solicits comment on the total number of manufactures (including importers) and processors that will be impacted by the promulgation of the rule, and on the related burden and costs for reporting. In addition, due to the lack of information on the extent to which asbestos occurs as an impurity, EPA states that it was unable to determine the number of potential manufacturers (including importers) or processors of asbestos as an impurity that would report under this rule. EPA requests comment on the number of manufacturers (including importers) and processors that may be subject to the proposed rule due to the presence of impurities in their products, and on the related burden and cost for reporting.
  • Because there is no existing small processers definition that would be applicable under TSCA Section 8(a), EPA requests comment on how best to provide guidance for small processors of Libby Amphibole asbestos.
  • EPA seeks comment on what additional guidance, if any, might be useful for helping entities, including small businesses, understand the reporting standard, as well as how the reporting standard would apply to impurities. EPA requests public comment on the submission start date and duration, including for small businesses.
  • EPA requests comment on whether there should be a threshold for reporting using Form B and, if so, whether the threshold should be concentration-based (e.g., a certain percentage) or annual volume-based. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether any submitter under the threshold should alternatively report using Form A. According to EPA, having a threshold for Form B may decrease burden on certain submitters while still allowing EPA to obtain information on all bulk materials, mixtures, and articles with known asbestos content. The substances subject to the rule can occur naturally as impurities in other products that may be handled in very large volumes, such as talc, vermiculite, and potentially other substances. EPA notes that a de minimis concentration could reduce the compliance determination and reporting burdens. Comments suggesting threshold levels should include the justification for that particular level.
  • EPA requests comment on whether there should be other end product types listed in Table 4 in proposed 40 C.F.R. Section 704.180(e)(4)(iv)(B). In addition, EPA is interested in whether the units of measure listed with the product types are appropriate.
  • EPA identifies additional data elements related to employee data, wastewater discharge and waste disposal, air emissions data, and customer sites data considered for this proposed rule and solicits public comment on whether any of the additional data elements should be included in the action. While EPA believes the proposed data elements provide sufficient information for use by EPA and other federal agencies in potential actions involving asbestos, EPA seeks comment on whether any additional data elements should be included in this action.
  • EPA seeks comment on what additional guidance, if any, might be useful.

Commentary

As EPA did in its proposed per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Section 8(a) reporting rule, EPA is narrowing the exemptions available. In this case, EPA is voiding the article exemption (40 C.F.R. § 711.10(b)), the impurity exemption (40 C.F.R. § 711.10(c) by reference to 40 C.F.R. § 720.30(h)(1)), and the naturally occurring substance exemption (40 C.F.R. § 711.6(a)(3)) to CDR reporting. As proposed, the research and development (R&D) exemption would be available. As EPA argues, the existing Section 6 rule on asbestos already voids the small business exemption (40 C.F.R. § 711.9).

While seeking information on asbestos that may be present in articles or may be present as an impurity, EPA must recognize that seeking the information retrospectively will likely yield little different information than if EPA were to seek the information prospectively.

EPA oddly asserts that this rule will garner information that has not been reported previously under CDR, especially from entities that have not had to report, and that reporters will be familiar with the CDR reporting tool. Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) expects that there will be many potential reporters, at least hundreds, if not thousands, that have never had to report because the products they manufacture, import, or process have been exempt, because of either the article or the impurity exemption. These new reporters will not be familiar with the CDR reporting tool or the CDR policies and guidance. Stakeholders, including individual companies, trade associations, and other non-governmental organizations (NGO), and EPA will address these issues to ensure non-traditional reporters are engaged. Guidance from EPA will be critically important: What is EPA’s expectation of the level of due diligence to document that an importer (of an article or a substance) has met its obligation to determine if asbestos is present in a product or article and document that reporting is not required or if reporting is required that a particular data element is not known or reasonably ascertainable?

Stakeholders are strongly urged to comment on whether a de minimis threshold (either as a quantity or a percentage, or both) is appropriate, either for neat asbestos, asbestos as part of a mixture, or asbestos as part of an article. For example, if a company imports 100 grams of asbestos, should that be a reportable event? Or if an importer knows that asbestos is not present above 100 parts per million in, for example, talc, but does not know if asbestos is or is not present below that threshold, should that import be reported? Similarly, what extent of knowledge is expected for imported articles? Suppliers may not be willing to certify that no asbestos is present at any level, especially in complex goods. Should an importer that receives that response report the presence/absence of asbestos as not known or reasonably ascertainable or not report at all?

We do not question that EPA has a legitimate need for information related to manufacturing, import, or processing of asbestos and asbestos-containing products and articles. We hope that stakeholders comment on the balance between the burden that EPA imposes under the proposal on potential reporters and the likelihood of such burden garnering meaningful information that will actually contribute to EPA’s risk evaluation and risk management. We hear stakeholders state that “EPA needs to know what is in products.” While true, it is reasonable to take the position that potential reporters “should have known” what was in products when there was no requirement to develop and document such knowledge until EPA proposed this rule. Now EPA asks for such potential reporters to go back in time and see what information might have been available, and offers the option to report that the information was not known or reasonably ascertainable without acknowledging that the significant burden is not filling out the form, it is researching the information that might have to be included in the form. Imagine if EPA imposed this burden on individuals — that each individual would have to search records of each product purchased online in a four-year period to see if there was any information provided by the supplier whether asbestos was present or not and, if present, at what level. The search would likely turn up little that is meaningful, so there would be little to report, but it is the search that would be the greatest burden.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
Article by the Government Regulation practice group with Bergeson & Campbell P.C.
For more articles about the EPA, visit the NLR Environmental & Energy.

ARPA-E: Biden’s Proposed FY 2023 Budget Boosts Investment in Clean Energy Technologies

On March 28, 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration sent the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 to the United States Congress (“Congress”). The President’s proposed $5.8 trillion budget for FY 2023 allocates billions of dollars toward combating climate change and boosting clean energy development. Biden’s budget requests $48.2 billion for the Department of Energy (“DOE”), with $700 million of those funds allocated to the DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy program (“ARPA-E”).[1] With these increased funds, the Biden administration plans for ARPA-E to expand its scope beyond energy technology–focused projects to include climate adaptation and resilience innovations.[2]

What Is ARPA-E?

ARPA-E is a United States federal government agency under the purview of the Department of Energy that funds and promotes the research and development of advanced energy technologies. ARPA-E was recommended to Congress in the 2005 National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Bright Economic Future, which published recommendations for federal government actions to maintain and expand U.S. competitiveness.[3] In 2007, ARPA-E was officially created after Congress implemented a number of the report’s recommendations by enacting the America COMPETES Act.[4] The 2007 Act was superseded by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, which incorporated much of the original language of the 2007 Act but made some modifications to ARPA-E structure.[5] In 2009, ARPA-E officially commenced operations after receiving its first appropriated funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 —$400 million to fund the establishment of ARPA-E.[6]

ARPA-E’s mission is statutorily defined as overcoming “the long-term and high-risk technology barriers in the development of energy technologies.”[7] This involves the development of energy technologies that will achieve various goals, including the reduction of fossil fuel imports, the reduction of energy-related emissions, improvements in energy efficiency, and increased resilience and security of energy infrastructure.[8] The statute directs ARPA-E to pursue these objectives through particular means:

  1. Identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental and applied sciences;
  2. Translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations; and
  3. Accelerating transformational technological advances in areas industry is unlikely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.[9]

The Impact of ARPA-E

Since 2009, ARPA-E has provided approximately $3 billion in R&D funding for over 1,294 potentially transformational energy technology projects.[10] Publishing annual reports to analyze and catalog its influence, the agency tracks commercial impact with key early indicators, including private-sector follow-on funding, new company formation, partnership with other government agencies, publications, inventions, and patents.[11]

Many ARPA-E project teams have continued to advance their technologies: 129 new companies have been formed, 285 licenses have been issued, 268 teams have partnered with another government agency, and 185 teams have together raised over $9.87 billion in private-sector follow-on funding.[12] In addition, ARPA-E projects fostered technological innovation and advanced scientific knowledge, as evidenced by the 5,497 peer-reviewed journal articles and 829 patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that sprung from the ARPA-E program.[13] ARPA-E recently announced that it is starting to count exits through public listings, mergers, and acquisitions. As of January 2022, ARPA-E has 20 exits with a total reported value of $21.6 billion.[14]

How Does Biden’s FY 2023 Budget Affect ARPA-E?

Biden has requested a 56% increase for ARPA-E, to $700 million.[15] The budget also proposes expansions of ARPA-E’s purview to more fully address innovation gaps around adaptation, mitigation, and resilience to the impacts of climate change.[16] This investment in research and development of high-potential and high-impact technologies aims to help remove technological barriers to advance energy and environmental missions.[17]

The request provides that ARPA-E shall also expand its scope “to invest in climate-related innovations necessary to achieve net zero climate-inducing emissions by 2050.”[18] Given the increasing bipartisan support for alternative energy funding and ARPA-E’s continuing and rising commercial impact, it is likely that ARPA-E’s funding and support of the research and development of early-stage energy technologies will continue to pave the way for the commercialization of advanced energy technologies.

Endnotes

  1. https://www.law360.com/articles/1478133/biden-budget-provides-billions-for-clean-energy
  2. https://www.energy.gov/articles/statement-energy-secretary-granholm-president-bidens-doe-fiscal-year-2023-budget
  3. https://doi.org/10.17226/24778
  4. Id. at 22
  5. Id.
  6. Id.
  7. 42 U.S.C. § 16538(b)
  8. 42 U.S.C. § 16538(c)(1)(A)
  9. 42 U.S.C. § 16538(c)(2)
  10. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/about/our-impact
  11. Id.
  12. Id.
  13. Id.
  14. Id.
  15. https://www.science.org/content/article/biden-s-2023-budget-request-science-aims-high-again
  16. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/budget_fy2023.pdf
  17. Id.
  18. https://www.science.org/content/article/biden-s-2023-budget-request-science-aims-high-again

Article By Kaoru C. Suzuki of Mintz

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Litigation Minute: Defending Consumer Class Action Claims Involving PFAS

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Defending consumer class action claims alleging false and misleading product labeling based on the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is similar to the defense of other food and beverage labeling class actions, but there are nuances the food and beverage industry should consider.

What Are PFAS?

As noted in last week’s edition, PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances used for their flame-retardant and water-resistant properties. They are used in clothing, cosmetics, and food packaging. PFAS can also be found in municipal water supplies.

How Do PFAS Relate to Consumer Class Actions?

Plaintiffs’ counsel have brought consumer class actions against the makers and sellers of food and beverages alleging that the presence of PFAS in the labeled product renders the labeling false and misleading. Consumer class actions involving PFAS typically allege that the presence of PFAS renders affirmative representations on the product labeling false or misleading, or that the presence of PFAS must be disclosed on the label.

For example, both of these theories are at play in the case of Davenport v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. The complaint asserts that (1) the representations that L’Oreal’s waterproof mascaras are safe, effective, high quality, and appropriate for use on consumers’ eyelashes are false or misleading due to the presence of PFAS; and (2) L’Oreal failed to disclose to consumers that PFAS are present in detectable amounts in its waterproof mascaras.1

How is the Defense of PFAS Consumer Class Actions Similar to the Defense of Other Consumer Class Actions?

In most instances, the defense of consumer class actions involving PFAS allegations does not differ substantially from the defense of other types of consumer class actions. In the case of an alleged affirmative misrepresentation, the inquiry is the same on a pleadings challenge – whether the labeling is likely to mislead a reasonable person given the presence of PFAS in the product.

Moreover, plaintiffs typically assert a “premium price” theory, meaning the plaintiff claims he or she would not have purchased the item, or would have paid less, had the PFAS been properly disclosed. These allegations provide the defense with an opportunity to attack the damages model on class certification, similar to other types of consumer class actions.

How is the Defense of PFAS Consumer Class Actions Different From the Defense of Other Consumer Class Actions?

The defense of consumer class actions involving PFAS will differ from other consumer class actions in two key ways, depending on the allegations.

First, given the current lack of regulations governing the presence of PFAS in food and beverage products, the food and beverage industry should be aware that there is generally no duty to disclose the presence of PFAS in the absence of a relevant false or misleading statement on the product labeling. This lack of regulations provides an additional avenue for a pleadings challenge that may not otherwise succeed.

Second, scientific testing will be critical to determining whether there are any, or a uniform quantity of, PFAS present across the entire product line. PFAS variations between product exemplars may provide an additional avenue to defeat class certification.

Takeaway

Unfortunately, it appears that the food and beverage industry will see a new wave of class action litigation focused on the presence of PFAS in products. However, it also appears that many tried and true defense strategies will be applicable to such claims, and the unique nature of PFAS litigation will provide class defendants with additional strategies.

FOOTNOTES

1Davenport v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01195 (C.D. Cal.).

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates
Article By Matthew G. Ball with K&L Gates.
For more articles about litigation, visit the NLR Litigation section.

Wisconsin Judge Rules that the WDNR Lacks Authority to Regulate PFAS

On April 12, 2022, a Wisconsin judge ruled in the case of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc. and Leather Rich, Inc. v. WDNR, (Waukesha County Case 2021CV000342) that the WDNR lacks the authority to regulate PFAS chemicals because the Wisconsin Legislature has not established regulatory standards for them. According to the lawsuit, Leather Rich, Inc. entered into a voluntary WDNR environmental cleanup program in 2019, and the following year WDNR indicated that the businesses enrolled in the program were required to test for emerging contaminants, including PFAS. The plaintiffs in the case argued that because the WDNR had created a list of emerging contaminants without any legislative oversight or opportunity for public comment, and had not adopted regulatory standards through administrative rulemaking, the WDNR lacked the authority to require such testing. The judge’s ruling would require the WDNR to wait until legislators have established standards for PFAS through adoption of regulatory limits in state law or through administrative rules. It is estimated that the adoption of standards for PFAS could require 1-2 years. An attorney for the WDNR indicated that the WDNR plans to appeal the decision and file a motion to place the judge’s order on hold.

The WDNR has historically taken the position that the agency has authority under Wisconsin’s “Hazardous Substance Spill Act” (“Spill Act” – Wis. Stats. 292.11) to regulate PFAS even in the absence of established standards, as the Spill Act gives the WDNR broad authority to require testing and remediation of such chemicals. In late February, the WDNR’s Natural Resources Board (NRB)—the entity that sets policy for the WDNR—took steps toward the adoption of statewide standards for two of the most common PFAS compounds, which included an approval to adopt a drinking water standard of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for two of the most common PFAS compounds; perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and polyfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).

PFAS is an acronym for per- and polyfluorolalkyl substances, which are chemicals that were widely used from the 1960s to the early 2000s in the manufacture of a variety of consumer products, such as stain resistant carpets, non-stick cookware (e.g., Teflon), firefighting foam, food packaging (e.g., microwave popcorn bags/pizza boxes), water resistant clothing (e.g., pre-2000 GoreTex), water resistant repellent (e.g., Scotchgard) and dental floss. While the use of PFAS compounds has largely been phased out in the U.S., these compounds are still used in the manufacturing of many products worldwide. These substances, known as “forever chemicals,” have received considerable attention by federal and state environmental regulatory agencies because of their resistance to chemical breakdown due to the chemical bond between carbon and fluorine atoms in the PFAS compounds, which is one of the strongest in nature. Because of this, humans can still be exposed to PFAS long after the chemicals were released into the environment.

The WDNR has identified approximately 90 sites throughout Wisconsin with PFAS contamination, including municipalities such as Madison, Marinette, Peshtigo and Wausau with PFAS-contaminated groundwater.

©2022 von Briesen & Roper, s.c
For more articles about state lawsuits, visit the NLR Litigation section.

L’Oreal PFAS Lawsuit Again Shows ESG Risks of Marketing

In less than six months, L’Oreal has now found itself to be the target of PFAS lawsuits related to its mascara products. The latest L’Oreal PFAS lawsuit was filed in the New Jersey federal court on April 8, 2022. Cosmetics and PFAS is a topic that saw increased scrutiny from the scientific community, legislature, and the media in 2021. As we predicted in early 2021, the increased attention on the industry presented significant risks to the cosmetics industry, and our prediction was that the developments made the cosmetics industry the number two target for future PFAS lawsuits. In less than three months, four industry giants – Shiseido, CoverGirl, L’Oreal and Burt’s Bees – were hit with lawsuits related to their cosmetics and PFAS content in some of the companies’ products.  The industry, insurers, and investment companies interested in the consumer goods vertical with niche interest in cosmetics companies must pay careful attention to the cosmetics lawsuits and the increasing trend of lawsuits targeting the industry.

PFAS and Cosmetics: the 2021 Foundation

On June 15, 2021, a scientific study in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Letters published conclusions regarding testing of a variety of cosmetics products from the United States and Canada for PFAS content, and found PFAS present in over half of the products. On the same day that the study was published, the No PFAS In Cosmetics Act 2021 was introduced in the Senate by U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Angus King (I-ME). The bill sought to ban PFAS in cosmetics.

These two developments led us to conclude “with these developments, our prediction that cosmetics is the number two target for PFAS litigation issues behind water rings true.”

Why PFAS In Cosmetics Is A Concern

PFAS content in cosmetics raises concerns for human health in scientific communities due to the fact that PFAS are capable of entering the bloodstream in ways other than direct oral ingestion, and one of these ways includes dermal absorption. Concerns have also been raised regarding absorption of PFAS into the bloodstream by way of tear ducts. The absorption issue is one that is being studied fairly extensively through various pending scientific studies. At the end of 2021, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) went so far as to recommend that citizens in Southern New Hampshire reduce their risk of further PFAS exposure by avoiding the use of certain consumer goods, including cosmetics.

L’Oreal PFAS Lawsuit

On April 8, 2022, plaintiff Rebecca Vega filed a lawsuit in the New Jersey federal court seeking a proposed class action lawsuit against LOreal. The L’Oreal PFAS lawsuit alleges that the company does not disclose to consumers that its mascara and other products contain PFAS. Instead, the lawsuit states, the products were fraudulently and misleadingly marketed as safe for consumers and environmentally friendly, in violation of federal and state consumer laws. The Complaint details several examples of L’Oreal marketing indicating the safe nature of the products.

The plaintiff seeks certification of the class action lawsuit, injunctive relief, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. The proposed class is any consumer in the United States, or in the subclass of New Jersey, who purchased the relevant L’Oreal products.

Just the Beginning For Cosmetics Industry

With studies underway, legislation pending that targets cosmetics, and increasing media reporting on cosmetics concerns to human health, the cosmetics industry has a target on its back with respect to PFAS that will have impacts on the industry’s involvement in litigation. Twelve months ago, we made this prediction: “Personal injury / products liability cases, false advertising, and failure to disclose theories of liability are some of the more prominent allegations that cosmetics companies are likely to face. Further, the cosmetics industry is concerned about federal and state level regulatory enforcement action for environmental pollution remediation costs stemming from placing PFAS waste into the environment as a by-product of the manufacturing process.”

The first part of our prediction is becoming reality, as four significant cosmetics industry players now find themselves embroiled in litigation focused on false advertising, consumer protection violations, and deceptive statements made in marketing and ESG reports. The lawsuits may well serve as a test case for plaintiffs’ bar to determine whether similar lawsuits will be successful in any (or all) of the fifty states in this country. Each cosmetics company faces the stark possibility of needing to defend lawsuits involving plaintiffs in all fifty states for products that contain PFAS.

It should be noted that these lawsuits would only touch on the marketing, advertising, ESG reporting, and consumer protection type of issues. Separate products lawsuits could follow that take direct aim at obtaining damages for personal injury for plaintiffs from cosmetics products. In addition, environmental pollution lawsuits could seek damage for diminution of property value, cleanup costs, and PFAS filtration systems if drinking water cleanup is required.

Conclusion

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the cosmetics industry evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Now, the first wave of lawsuits take direct aim at the cosmetics industry. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are therefore becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
Article By John Gardella with CMBG3 Law.
For more articles on ESG lawsuits, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

EPA Will Propose to Ban Ongoing Uses of Asbestos

The U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) announced on April 5, 2022, that it will propose to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the only known form of asbestos currently imported into the United States. EPA notes that the proposed rule will be “the first-ever risk management rule issued under the new process for evaluating and addressing the safety of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that was enacted in 2016.” EPA will propose to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos for all ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos. EPA will also propose targeted disposal and recordkeeping requirements in line with industry standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, and the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). EPA has posted a pre-publication version of the proposed rule. Publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register will begin a 60-day comment period.

Background

As reported in our January 4, 2021, memorandum, EPA released on December 30, 2020, the final risk evaluation for asbestos, part 1: chrysotile asbestos (Asbestos RE Part 1). Of the six use categories evaluated (chlor-alkali diaphragms, sheet gaskets, other gaskets, oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/linings, and other vehicle friction products), EPA found that there is unreasonable risk to workers, occupational non-users (ONU), consumers, and/or bystanders within each of the six chrysotile asbestos use categories. EPA found no unreasonable risk to the environment. According to the final risk evaluation, chrysotile is the prevailing form of asbestos currently mined worldwide, and “so it is assumed that a majority of commercially available products fabricated overseas that contain asbestos are made with chrysotile. Any asbestos being imported into the U.S. in articles is believed to be chrysotile.” The other five forms of asbestos are now subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR), as reported in our April 18, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Announces Final SNUR for Asbestos Will ‘Close Loophole and Protect Consumers.’”

Proposed Rule

EPA will propose a rule under TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos in bulk or as part of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect two years after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will also propose pursuant to TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos-containing brake blocks used in the oil industry, aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings, other chrysotile asbestos-containing vehicle friction products (not including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Super Guppy Turbine aircraft use), and other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will further propose pursuant to TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of: aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings for consumer use, and commercial use of other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets for consumer use. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will also propose disposal and recordkeeping requirements under which regulated parties would document compliance with certain proposed prohibitions. EPA states that it does not intend the proposed prohibitions on processing or distribution in commerce to prohibit any processing or distribution in commerce incidental to disposal of the chrysotile asbestos waste in accordance with the proposed requirements.

According to EPA, because a determination has been made that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to health within the United States or to the environment of the United States, pursuant to TSCA Section 12(a)(2), the proposed rule would apply to chrysotile asbestos even if being manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce solely for export from the United States.

Commentary

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) commends EPA on this historical achievement. Unsurprisingly, there are aspects of this precedent-setting proposed rule that invite discussion and warrant comment from affected parties. Key among these issues is a potential significant legal vulnerability in the underlying risk evaluation (i.e., Asbestos RE Part 1) for the proposed rule, an issue that may overshadow this historic achievement in a manner reminiscent of EPA’s failed ban of asbestos in 1991 (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir., 1991)).

EPA proposed that the prohibition on specific conditions of use (e.g., chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry) would take effect two years after the effective date of the final rule. EPA stated that it “believes an aggressive transition away from chrysotile asbestos will spur adoption of superior technology [e.g., membrane cells with increased concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)].” The clear need to consider EPA’s intended action on asbestos in the context of its ongoing actions on PFAS is of course not lost on the Agency. EPA acknowledged that “the transition away from asbestos-containing diaphragms could result in greater usage and release of PFAS.”

B&C notes that innovative new technologies, such as alternative membrane cells, may be available in the future, but those technologies must be proven to be economically and technically viable. Once proven effective, the underlying chemical substances must be reviewed as new chemicals if so classified under TSCA. The development, review, and approval are all on indeterminate timelines, so it is speculative when novel, non-PFAS-based technologies will be commercially available and, of course, whether that time will be prior to the effective date of EPA’s proposed ban on asbestos.

EPA requested comment on specific aspects of the proposed rule that B&C encourages potentially impacted parties to consider. For example, EPA discussed its authority under TSCA Section 6(g) to grant a time-limited exemption for a specific condition of use, such as the chlor-alkali industry, where EPA finds “that compliance with the proposed requirement would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or critical infrastructure.”

EPA also requested comment on a primary alternative regulatory option that EPA discussed for the chlor-alkali diaphragm and sheet gasket categories that would allow a prohibition to take effect five years after the effective date of the final rule. As part of this option, EPA would include establishment of a risk-based performance standard known as an existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL). EPA developed an eight-hour time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) ECEL of 0.005 fibers/cubic centimeter (f/cc) for inhalation exposures to chrysotile asbestos as an eight-hr TWA ECEL-action level of 0.0025 f/cc, with associated requirements for initial and periodic monitoring and respirator usage/type if exceedances are found.

As part of the monitoring requirements, EPA stated that it would “require use of appropriate sampling and analytical methods to determine asbestos exposure, including: … Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards at 40 CFR Part 792,” despite the fact that EPA acknowledges that other standards, such as Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (IHLAP), are more appropriate for industrial hygiene monitoring. EPA’s TSCA Section 5(e) order template states the following under Section III.D:

Compliance with TSCA GLPS, however, is not required under this New Chemical Exposure Limit Section where the analytical method is verified by a laboratory accredited by either: the American Industrial Hygiene Association (“AIHA”) Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (“IHLAP”) or another comparable program approved in advance in writing by EPA.

EPA devoted one paragraph in the proposed rule to “TSCA section 26(h) considerations.” EPA stated, in part, that its unreasonable risk determination “was based on a risk evaluation, which was subject to peer review and public comment, was developed in a manner consistent with the best available science and based on the weight of the scientific evidence as required by TSCA sections 26(h) [and 26(i)] and 40 CFR 702.43 and 702.45.”

B&C notes that EPA stated in the Asbestos RE Part 1 the following:

TSCA § 26(h) and (i) require EPA, when conducting Risk Evaluations, to use scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies and models consistent with the best available science and base its decisions on the weight of the scientific evidence. To meet these TSCA § 26 science standards, EPA used the TSCA systematic review process described in the [2018] Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document [citation omitted] [2018 SR Document].

Prior to completing Asbestos RE Part 1, EPA requested the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to review the 2018 SR Document. In February 2021, NASEM released its consensus study report on EPA’s 2018 SR Document and concluded that it did not meet the criteria of “comprehensive, workable, objective, and transparent” and that “The OPPT approach to systematic review does not adequately meet the state-of-practice.”

NASEM recommended that “With regard to hazard assessment for human and ecological receptors, OPPT should step back from the approach that it has taken and consider components of the OHAT, IRIS, and Navigation Guide methods that could be incorporated directly and specifically into hazard assessment.”

In response to the NASEM review, EPA revised its systematic review method. On December 20, 2021, EPA released the “Draft Systematic Review Protocol Supporting TSCA Risk Evaluations for Chemical Substances” (2021 Draft Protocol) for public comment. EPA acknowledged in the 2021 Draft Protocol that:

Previously [in the 2018 SR Document], EPA did not have a complete clear and documented TSCA systematic review (SR) Protocol. EPA is addressing this lack of a priori protocol by releasing [the 2021 Draft Protocol].

EPA further stated that the:

[2021 Draft Protocol] is significantly different [from the 2018 SR Document] in that it includes descrition [sic] of the Evidence Integration process…, which was not previously included in the [2018 SR Document].

B&C recognizes that the scientific methods used to inform systematic review are not static and that updates will be required as the science evolves. In this instance, however, many of the documents cited as supporting information for updating the 2021 Draft Protocol (e.g., Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), 2015) were available prior to EPA issuing the 2018 SR Document. Rather than utilizing these documents at the time, EPA developed the 2018 SR Document de novo. In other words, EPA chose to develop its own methodology in 2018 rather than incorporating and adapting existing methodologies that represented the best available science at the time.

These issues raise interesting procedural questions and issues around whether EPA demonstrated that Asbestos RE Part 1 was based on the best available science and weight of scientific evidence, as required under TSCA Sections 26(h) and 26(i) and the implementing regulation under 40 C.F.R. Part 702.

B&C encourages stakeholders to review EPA’s proposed risk management rule on chrysotile asbestos, even for entities that do not manufacture, process, distribute, or use this substance. We urge this review because of the precedential nature of EPA’s decisions. B&C also encourages interested parties to provide public comments on the proposed rule, given that risk management decisions in the proposed rule will likely serve as a basis from which EPA regulates other chemical substances EPA is evaluating under TSCA Section 6.

Article By: the Government Regulation practice at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

President Biden’s FY 2023 Budget Request Would Strengthen TSCA and Tackle PFAS Pollution

On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration submitted to Congress President Biden’s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2023. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) March 28, 2022, press release, the budget makes critical investments, including:

  • Strengthening EPA’s Commitment and Ability to Implement Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Successfully: The budget provides $124 million and 449 full time equivalents (FTE) for TSCA efforts “to deliver on the promises made to the American people by the bipartisan Lautenberg Act.” According to the budget, “[t]hese resources will support EPA-initiated chemical risk evaluations and protective regulations in accordance with statutory timelines.”
  • Tackling Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pollution: PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that threaten the health and safety of communities across the United States. As part of the President’s commitment to tackling PFAS pollution, the budget provides approximately $126 million in FY 2023 for EPA to increase its understanding of human health and ecological effects of PFAS, restrict uses to prevent PFAS from entering the air, land, and water, and remediate PFAS that have been released into the environment. EPA states that it will continue to act on its PFAS Strategic Roadmap to safeguard communities from PFAS contamination.

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

PFAS Air Regulations Proposed By House

In the latest federal legislative move to try to force the EPA to take quicker action than contemplated by the agency’s PFAS Roadmap of 2021, a bill was recently introduced in the House that would require the EPA to set air emission limits for all PFAS under the Clean Air Act. PFAS air regulations are something that advocates concerned about PFAS pollution issues beyond just drinking water have advocated for in the past few years. There are barriers, though, to achieving the desired results even if the legislation passes. Nevertheless, the federal legislative activity underscores the need for all companies that are currently using PFAS in their manufacturing or industrial processes to understand the full scope of compliance needs when and if PFAS air regulations become a reality.

House Bill For PFAS Air Regulations

On March 17, 2022, a bipartisan group in the House introduced the “Prevent Release Of Toxics Emissions, Contamination, and Transfer Act of 2022” (also known as the PROTECT Act of 2022 or HR 7142). The aim of the bill is to require the EPA to list all PFAS as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act. If passed, the designation as HAPs would require the EPA to develop regulatory limits for the emission of PFAS into the air.

The proposed steps, however, go well beyond the EPA’s own plan for potential PFAS air regulations as detailed in the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap 2021. In the PFAS Roadmap, the EPA indicates that it commits to performing ongoing investigation to:

  • Identify sources of PFAS air emissions;
  • Develop and finalize monitoring approaches for measuring stack emissions and ambient concentrations of PFAS;
  • Develop information on cost-effective mitigation technologies; and
  • Increase understanding of the fate and transport of PFAS air emissions to assess their potential for impacting human health via contaminated groundwater and other media pathways.

The EPA committed to using this information and data in order to, by the Fall of 2022, “evaluate mitigation options”, which could include listing “certain PFAS” as HAPs. However, the EPA also indicated that it might use other regulatory or non-regulatory tools to achieve results similar to formal PFAS air regulations under the Clean Air Act.

The bill, therefore, would considerably accelerate the EPA’s process for potential HAPs, which in turn could result in legal challenges to any rushed HAPs, as the EPA would not have had the opportunity to collect all necessary data and evaluate the soundness of the science behind any HAP designation.

Impact On Business

Any designation of PFAS as HAPs under the Clean Air Act will of course immediately impact companies that are utilizing PFAS and emitting PFAS into the air. While it remains to be seen whether the PROTECT Act will pass, if it were to pass and the EPA’s HAP designations were to survive any legal challenges, the impacts on businesses would be significant. Companies would need to undertake extensive testing of air emissions to determine their risk of Clean Air Act violations, which will be complicated due to limitations on current technology to do this type of testing. Companies may also need to pivot their production practices to reduce or limit PFAS air emissions, which would add unplanned costs to balance sheets. Finally, companies may wish to explore substitutes for PFAS rather than navigate Clean Air Act regulatory compliance, which is a significant undertaking that takes time and money.

It is also worth noting that a designation as a HAP for any PFAS would also trigger significant regulatory challenges to businesses that might have nothing to do with air emissions. Any substance listed as a HAP under the Clean Air Act is automatically designated as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA (the Superfund law). Once a substance is classified as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA, the EPA can force parties that it deems to be polluters to either cleanup the polluted site or reimburse the EPA for the full remediation of the contaminated site. Without a PFAS Superfund designation, the EPA can merely attribute blame to parties that it feels contributed to the pollution, but it has no authority to force the parties to remediate or pay costs. The designation also triggers considerable reporting requirements for companies. Currently, those reporting requirements with respect to PFAS do not exist, but they would apply to industries well beyond just PFAS manufacturers. Superfund site cleanup costs can be extensive, even as high as hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the scope of pollution at issue and the amount of territory involved in the site.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

EV Buses: Arriving Now and Here to Stay

In the words of Miss Frizzle, “Okay bus—do your stuff!”1 A favorable regulatory environment, direct subsidy, private investment, and customer demand are driving an acceleration in electric vehicle (EV) bus adoption and the lane of busiest traffic is filling with school buses. The United States has over 480,000 school buses, but currently, less than one percent are EVs. Industry watchers expect that EV buses will eventually become the leading mode for student transportation. School districts and municipalities are embracing EV buses because they are perceived as cleaner, requiring less maintenance, and predicted to operate more reliably than current fossil fuel consuming alternatives. EV bus technology has improved in recent years, with today’s models performing better in cold weather than their predecessors, with increased ranges on a single charge, and requiring very little special training for drivers.2 Moreover, EV buses can serve as components in micro-grid developments (more on that in a future post).

The Investment Incline

Even if the expected operational advantages of EV buses deliver, the upfront cost to purchase vehicles or to retrofit existing fleets remains an obstacle to expansion.  New EV buses price out significantly more than traditional diesel buses and also require accompanying new infrastructure, such as charging stations.  Retrofitting drive systems in existing buses comparatively reduces some of that cost, but also requires significant investment.3

To detour around these financial obstacles, federal, state, and local governments have made funding available to encourage the transition to EV buses.4 In addition to such policy-based subsidies, private investment from both financial and strategic quarters has increased.  Market participants who take advantage of such funding earlier than their competitors have a forward seat to position themselves as leaders.

You kids pipe down back there, I’ve got my eyes on a pile of cash up ahead!

Government funding incentives for electrification are available for new EV buses and for repowering existing vehicles.5 Notably, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed $5 billion over five years to replace existing diesel buses with EV buses. Additionally, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act provided $18.7 million in rebates for fiscal year 2021 through an ongoing program.

In 2021, New York City announced its commitment to transition school buses to electric by 2035.  Toward that goal, the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program provides vouchers to eligible fleets towards electric conversions and covers up to 80% of those associated costs.6  California’s School Bus Replacement Program had already set aside over $94 million, available to districts, counties, and joint power authorities, to support replacing diesel buses with EVs, and the state’s proposed budget for 2022-23 includes a $1.5 billion grant program to support purchase of EV buses and charging stations.

While substantial growth in EV bus sales will continue in the years ahead, it will be important to keep an eye out for renewal, increase or sunset of these significant subsidies.

Market Players and Market Trends, OEMs, and Retrofitters

The U.S is a leader in EV school bus production:  two of the largest manufacturers, Blue Bird and Thomas Built (part of Daimler Truck North America), are located domestically, and Lion Electric (based in Canada) expects to begin delivering vehicles from a large facility in northern Illinois during the second half of 2022.  GM has teamed up with Lighting eMotors on a medium duty truck platform project that includes models prominent in many fleets, and Ford’s Super Duty lines of vehicles (which provide the platform for numerous vans and shuttle vehicles) pop up in its promotion of a broader electric future. Navistar’s IC Bus now features an electric version of its flagship CE series.

Additionally, companies are looking to a turn-key approach to deliver complete energy ecosystems, encompassing vehicles, charging infrastructure, financing, operations, maintenance, and energy optimization. In 2021, Highland Electric Transportation raised $253 million from Vision Ridge Partners, Fontinalis Partners (co-founded by Bill Ford) and existing investors to help accelerate its growth, premised on a turn-key fleet approach.7

Retrofitting is also on the move.  SEA Electric (SEA), a provider of electric commercial vehicles, recently partnered with Midwest Transit Equipment (MTE) to convert 10,000 existing school buses to EVs over the next five years.8 MTE will provide the frame for the school uses and SEA will provide its SEA-drive propulsion system to convert the buses to EV.9 In a major local project, Logan Bus Company announced its collaboration with AMPLY Power and Unique Electric Solutions (UES) to deploy New York City’s first Type-C (conventional) school bus.10

Industry followers should expect further collaborations, because simplifying the route to adopting an EV fleet makes it more likely EV products will reach customers.

Opportunities Going Forward

Over the long haul, EV buses should do well. Scaling up investments and competition on the production side should facilitate making fleet modernization more affordable for school districts while supporting profit margins for manufacturers. EVs aren’t leaving town, so manufacturers, fleet operators, school districts and municipalities will either get on board or risk being left at the curb.

Article By Michael J. Small and Samantha Ruppenthal at Foley & Lardner LLP

For more utilities and transportation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

 

 

1https://shop.scholastic.com/parent-ecommerce/series-and-characters/magic-school-bus.html

2https://www.busboss.com/blog/having-an-electric-school-bus-fleet-is-easier-than-many-people-think

3https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/570326-electric-school-bus-investments-could-drive-us-vehicle

4https://info.burnsmcd.com/white-paper/electrifying-the-nations-mass-transit-bus-fleets

5https://stnonline.com/partner-updates/electric-repower-the-cheaper-faster-and-easier-path-to-electric-buses/

6https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/296-21/recovery-all-us-mayor-de-blasio-commits-100-electric-school-bus-fleet-2035

7https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2021-02-16/highland-electric-transportation-raises-253-million-from-vision-ridge-partners-fontinalis-partners-and-existing-investors

8https://www.electrive.com/2021/12/07/sea-electric-to-convert-10k-us-school-buses/#:~:text=SEA%20Electric%20and%20Midwest%20Transit,become%20purely%20electric%20school%20buses.

9 Id.

10https://stnonline.com/news/new-york-city-deploys-first-type-c-electric-school-bus/

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP