By Daniel L. Robertson, Associate Attorney, and Steven M. Siros, Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

The California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) recently approved a revised Proposition 65 warning label requirement for the use of acrylamide in food and beverages. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the revision’s proponent, contends the language will resolve the First Amendment claims being asserted by the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) in federal district court in California.  Following OAL’s approval, OEHHA’s “safe harbor warning” for acrylamide will become operative on January 1, 2023.

Under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65 (Prop. 65), businesses are required to provide warnings to consumers about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.  As of February 25, 2022, almost 1,000 chemicals are subject to this requirement and one of these chemicals is acrylamide.

Acrylamide can form through a natural chemical reaction in high-temperature cooking processes such as frying, roasting, and baking, and is commonly found in food products such as coffee, grain and potato products.  Studies indicate that it has likely always been present in foods cooked at high temperatures.

In 2019, CalChamber sued the California Attorney General for violating its members’ First Amendment rights against compelled speech by requiring food products containing acrylamide to include a Prop. 65 cancer warning.  In its complaint, CalChamber alleges that acrylamide was identified as a carcinogen solely on the basis of laboratory animal studies, and that its members will be required to convey “to consumers the false and misleading message that consuming the products will increase consumers’ risk of cancer, even though there is no reliable evidence that exposure to dietary acrylamide increases the risk of cancer in humans.”  The Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) intervened in the matter to defend the Prop. 65 acrylamide warning.

In March 2021, the court issued a preliminary injunction that barred new Prop. 65 acrylamide lawsuits from being filed during the pendency of the litigation, noting that the Attorney General had not shown that the warning requirements were “purely factual and uncontroversial.”  CERT appealed the court’s ruling and on March 17, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling, thereby reinstating the district court’s preliminary injunction.  The Ninth Circuit specifically acknowledged statements by scientific bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration, American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and even the State of California to emphasize the “robust disagreement by reputable scientific sources” of whether acrylamide can be linked to cancer in humans. On October 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit denied CERT’s petition for rehearing en banc.

In direct response to CalChamber’s First Amendment challenge, on September 17, 2021, OEHHA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed the following “safe harbor warning” for acrylamide in food and beverages:

Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide, a probable human carcinogen formed in some foods during cooking or processing at high temperatures. Many factors affect your cancer risk, including the frequency and amount of the chemical consumed. For more information including ways to reduce your exposure, see www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/acrylamide.  

Notwithstanding OEHHA’s efforts to respond to CalChamber’s First Amendment challenge, the new “safe harbor warning” will not stop the ongoing litigation in that CalChamber claims that this new warning language continues to violate its members’ First Amendment rights.  As such, the CalChamber lawsuit will continue to move forward and any subsequent ruling by the court will provide additional clarification on potential First Amendment limitations on Prop. 65 warnings. 

We will continue tracking Proposition 65 developments through the Corporate Environmental Lawyer.  

By Arie Feltman-Frank

On September 29, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill No. 2247. The bill would have required manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or products or product components containing intentionally added PFAS to register the PFAS or products or product components on a publicly accessible data collection interface, along with other information. According to the bill’s findings and declarations, the registration requirement would, among other things, provide California with timely information that would help the state characterize the threats of further PFAS contamination and human exposure in California and develop best practices for addressing the threats in an expeditious manner.

“Manufacturer” was defined to include, in addition to manufacturers, importers of PFAS or products or product components containing intentionally added PFAS, persons or entities whose names appear on product labels, and persons or entities for whom the PFAS or products or product components are manufactured or distributed. Registration would have been required on or before July 1, 2026, and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter. The registration requirement would not have applied to certain products regulated by federal law, such as drugs, medical devices and equipment, dietary supplements, and certain products intended for animals.

In Governor Newsom’s veto message, he explained that the bill may be premature given that EPA is currently undergoing rulemaking to require reporting of PFAS and noted cost concerns.

On the same day as the veto, Governor Newsom approved both Assembly Bill No. 2771, which bans intentionally added PFAS in cosmetic products, and Assembly Bill No. 1817, which bans regulated PFAS in textile articles.

            Cosmetic Products

Assembly Bill No. 2771 will, beginning January 1, 2025, prohibit the “manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any cosmetic product that contains intentionally added” PFAS. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 108981.5. “Cosmetic product” is defined as “an article for retail sale or professional use intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.” Id. § 108982(a). “Intentionally added PFAS” means either “PFAS that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that have a functional or technical effect on the product” or “PFAS that are intentional breakdown products of an added chemical.” Id. § 108982(c).

            Textile Articles

 Assembly Bill No. 1817 states that, “commencing January 1, 2025, no person shall manufacture, distribute, sell, or offer for sale in the state any new, not previously used, textile articles that contain regulated . . . PFAS.” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 108971(a)(1). “Textile” is defined as “any item made in whole or part from a natural, manmade, or synthetic fiber, yarn, or fabric,” but the definition does not include “single-use paper hygiene products.” Id. § 108970(h).

“Textile Articles” are defined as “textile goods of a type customarily and ordinarily used in households and businesses,” but there are various identified exemptions. Id. § 108970(i). Regulated PFAS means either “PFAS that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a product and that have a functional or technical effect in the product” or the presence of PFAS in a product or product component, measured in total organic fluorine, at or above 100 parts per million (commencing January 1, 2025) and 50 parts per million (commencing January 1, 2027). Id. § 108970(g).

The enacted bill further provides that manufacturers “shall use the least toxic alternative, including alternative design, when removing regulated . . . PFAS in textile articles.” Id. § 108971(b). Lastly, it requires manufacturers to provide persons that offer the product for sale or distribution in California a certificate of compliance and protects distributers or retailers (that are not also manufacturers) that rely in good faith on these certificates from being held in violation of the chapter. Id. § 108971(c), (d).

The prohibition against regulated PFAS in textile articles does not apply to outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions until January 1, 2028, but commencing January 1, 2025, such apparel must be accompanied by a disclosure statement “Made with PFAS chemicals,” including for online listings. Id. § 108971(a)(2).

These new laws now join other legal developments in California that aim to regulate PFAS in consumer products. For example, Assembly Bill No. 1200 and Assembly Bill No. 652, both approved on October 5, 2021, address PFAS in food packaging and cookware and children’s products, respectively. As states like California continue to move forward with legal developments aimed at addressing PFAS, so is the federal government. We will continue tracking PFAS developments in the Corporate Environmental Lawyer. 

By Daniel L. Robertson, Associate Attorney, and Steven M. Siros, Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On September 16, 2022, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) submitted to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) a revised Proposition 65 warning label requirement for the use of acrylamide in food and beverages that OEHHA claims will resolve the First Amendment claims being asserted by the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) in federal district court in California.  OAL is expected to approve OEHHA’s “safe harbor warning” for acrylamide by the end of October 2022.     

Under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly referred to as Proposition 65 (Prop. 65), businesses are required to provide warnings to consumers about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.  As of February 25, 2022, almost 1,000 chemicals are subject to this requirement and one of these chemicals is acrylamide. 

Acrylamide can form through a natural chemical reaction in high-temperature cooking processes such as frying, roasting, and baking, and is commonly found in food products such as coffee, grain and potato products.  Studies indicate that it has likely always been present in foods cooked at high temperatures.

In 2019, CalChamber sued the California Attorney General for violating its members’ First Amendment rights against compelled speech by requiring food products containing acrylamide to include a Prop. 65 cancer warning.  In its complaint, CalChamber alleges that acrylamide was identified as a carcinogen solely on the basis of laboratory animal studies, and that its members will be required to convey “to consumers the false and misleading message that consuming the products will increase consumers’ risk of cancer, even though there is no reliable evidence that exposure to dietary acrylamide increases the risk of cancer in humans.”  The Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT) intervened in the matter to defend the Prop. 65 acrylamide warning.

In March 2021, the court issued a preliminary injunction that barred new Prop. 65 acrylamide lawsuits from being filed during the pendency of the litigation, noting that the Attorney General had not shown that the warning requirements were “purely factual and uncontroversial.”  CERT appealed the court’s ruling and in March 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling, thereby reinstating the district court’s preliminary injunction.  The Ninth Circuit specifically acknowledged statements by scientific bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration, American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and even the State of California to emphasize the “robust disagreement by reputable scientific sources” of whether acrylamide can be linked to cancer in humans.

In direct response to CalChamber’s First Amendment challenge, on September 17, 2021, OEHHA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed the following “safe harbor warning” for acrylamide in food and beverages:

Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide, a probable human carcinogen formed in some foods during cooking or processing at high temperatures. Many factors affect your cancer risk, including the frequency and amount of the chemical consumed. For more information including ways to reduce your exposure, see www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/acrylamide.  

Notwithstanding OEHHA’s efforts to respond to CalChamber’s First Amendment challenge, the new “safe harbor warning” will not stop the ongoing litigation in that CalChamber claims that this new warning language continues to violate its members’ First Amendment rights.  As such, the CalChamber lawsuit will continue to move forward and any subsequent ruling by the court will provide additional clarification on potential First Amendment limitations on Prop. 65 warnings. 

We will continue tracking Proposition 65 developments through the Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog.  Regardless of OAL’s decision on the latest regulatory proposal, the current action and similar litigation relating to glyphosate establish a litigation roadmap for businesses that may otherwise be subject to Prop. 65 requirements based on disputed science.

As Gay Sigel walked through the doors at One IBM Plaza in Chicago, fresh out of law school and ready to launch her career as an attorney at Jenner & Block, she could not have envisioned the tremendous impact she would have on her clients, her colleagues, and her community over the next 39 years. Gay started her legal career as a general litigator, but Gay and Bob Graham were quick to realize how the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was creating a new and exciting area of the law that was increasingly important for the firm’s clients: Environmental Law. Gay and Bob saw an opportunity to specialize in that area and founded Jenner & Block’s Environmental Health and Safety Practice. Gay has been an ever-present force in the EHS community ever since.

Over her 39-year career at Jenner & Block, Gay has worked on some of the most significant environmental cases in the country for clients ranging from global Fortune 50 corporations to environmental organizations to individuals. For more than a decade, she taught environmental law at Northwestern University, helping shape the next generation of environmental lawyers. She has worked on issues of global impact, like those affecting climate change, issues of local impact like those related to combined sewer overflows to the Chicago River, and issues of individual impact like those involving employee safety and health. No matter the subject, Gay has always been a tireless advocate for her clients. We often describe her as the Energizer Bunny of environmental lawyers: she is the hardest working attorney we have ever met. 

Gay’s true passion is to make this world a better, more just place for others. So, throughout her career as an environmental, health, and safety lawyer, Gay has devoted her time, energy, and emotional resources to innumerable pro bono cases and charitable and advocacy organizations. Her pro bono work includes successfully protecting asylum applicants, defending criminal cases, asserting parental rights, and defending arts organizations in OSHA matters. Among her many civic endeavors, Gay was a founding member of the AIDS Legal Council of Chicago (n/k/a as the Legal Council for Health Justice); she was the Secretary and active member of the Board of Directors for the Chicago Foundation for Women; and she was on the Board of the New Israel Fund. Gay continues to promote justice wherever she sees injustice, including as an advocate for women’s rights, particularly for women’s reproductive rights.

In both her environmental, health, and safety practice as well as her pro bono and charitable work, Gay is a tremendous mentor to younger (and even older) attorneys. She is curious, committed, exacting, fearless, and demanding (though more of herself than of others). We all give Gay much credit for making us the lawyers we are today.

Gay is leaving Jenner & Block to embark on her next adventure. She is returning to public service as Assistant Corporation Counsel Supervisor with the City of Chicago's Department of Law where she will be focusing on environmental issues. The City and its residents will be well served as Gay will bring her vast experience and unparalleled energy to work tirelessly to protect the City and its environment. We will miss working with and learning from Gay on a daily basis, but we look forward to seeing the great things she will accomplish for the City of Chicago. We know we speak for the entire firm as we wish Gay bon voyage—we will miss you! 

Steven M. Siros, Allison A. Torrence, Andi S. Kenney

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On August 12, 2022, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed its review of U.S. EPA’s proposed rule to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as CERCLA hazardous substances.  Designation as a CERLA hazardous substances would have significant ramifications, including requiring the reporting of releases of reportable quantities of these substances and potentially resulting in the reopening of previously closed CERCLA sites.  These ramifications are discussed in a previous Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog.

OMB had previously designated the proposed rule as “other significant” which would not have required U.S. EPA to issue a regulatory impact analysis (RIA).  “Other significant” designations are reserved for rules expected to have costs or benefits less than $100 million annually.  In response to a number of comments, including comments from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that estimated annual costs in excess of $700 million, the OMB has changed its designation to “economically significant” which will require U.S. EPA to conduct an RIA. 

Although it is very unlikely that the requirement to conduct an RIA will deter U.S. EPA in proceeding with its plans to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances, it will require U.S. EPA to analyze whether its proposed rule is necessary and justified to achieve U.S. EPA’s goals and to clarify how its rule is the least burdensome and most cost-effective and efficient mechanism to achieve that goal.  OMB will review and comment on U.S. EPA’s RIA and may require that changes be made to U.S. EPA’s analysis. 

Again, the requirement to conduct the RIA is unlikely to derail U.S. EPA’s efforts to designate these chemicals as CERLA hazardous substances but it could jeopardize U.S. EPA’s summer 2023 deadline for finalizing its rule.  We will continue to track and report on PFAS related issues at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer.

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On May 18, 2022, U.S. EPA updated its Regional Screening Level tables to include five new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  The five new PFAS compounds added to the RSL tables are hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid and its ammonium salt (HFPO-DA – sometimes referred to as GenX chemicals), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS). U.S. EPA added its first PFAS substance, PFBS or perfluorobutanesulfonic acid, to the RSL tables in 2014 and updated that listing in 2021 when U.S. EPA released its updated toxicity assessment for PFBS.

The RSLs are risk-based screening values for residential and industrial soils and tap water that U.S. EPA relies upon to help determine if remediation is necessary.  Although U.S. EPA is quick to point out that the RSLs are not cleanup standards, regulators at both the state and federal levels rely on these RSLs to drive decision-making at contaminated sites.  The regulators also rely on these RSLs notwithstanding that U.S. EPA has yet to officially designate any PFAS as a CERCLA hazardous substance or RCRA hazardous waste (although efforts are ongoing on both fronts--CERCLA hazardous substances /  RCRA hazardous wastes).

U.S. EPA set the screening levels for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS based on the Minimal Risk Levels from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s toxicological profiles.  The screening level for HFPO-DA was set based on a final, peer-reviewed toxicity value.  For example, the screening level for PFOS is set at 38 parts per trillion for tap water and 1.6 parts per million for industrial soils and the screening level for PFOA is set at 60 parts per trillion for tap water and 2.5 parts per million for industrial soils   

As we await further U.S. EPA action with respect to regulating PFAS under RCRA and CERCLA, it is interesting to note that U.S. EPA is currently engaged in a significant information gathering exercise related to historical PFAS use.  Relying on its authority under CERCLA Section 104(e), U.S. EPA has recently issued scores of information requests seeking information regarding facilities’ past PFAS uses and practices.  The use of these information requests is consistent with the statements in U.S. EPA’s 2021 PFAS Roadmap where U.S. EPA indicated that it intended to rely on its various enforcement tools to identify and address PFAS releases. 

We will continue to provide timely updates on PFAS-related issues at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog. 

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On April 21^st, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed into law Senate Bill 113 that provides a cause of action for medical monitoring for individuals exposed to toxic chemicals.  The new law specifically provides persons without a present injury or disease with a cause of action for medical monitoring if the following conditions are demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence:

• Exposure to a toxic substance at a rate greater than the general population;
• The exposure is a result of tortious conduct of the defendant;
• As a result of the exposure, plaintiff has suffered an increased risk of contracting a serious disease;
• The increased risk makes it medically necessary for plaintiff to undergo periodic medical examinations different from that prescribed for the general population; and
• Monitoring procedures exist that are reasonable in cost and safe for use.

The bill also provides for an award of attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs. 

The new law comes on the heels of a Vermont federal court's approval of a $34 million dollar class action settlement relating to alleged PFAS exposures that included a $6 million dollar medical monitoring fund. 

With its new law, Vermont joins Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah and West Virginia as states that specifically allow lawsuits seeking reimbursement for medical monitoring costs in the absence of present injury or disease.   However, unlike these other states where the right to medical monitoring is a right recognized by the courts, Vermont is one of first states in the nation to provide that right via statute.  Other states may well follow Vermont’s lead and there have been ongoing albeit unsuccessful efforts to create a federal cause of action for medical monitoring for exposure to certain toxic chemicals at the federal level.

We will continue to provide updates on federal and state efforts to codify the ability to bring claims seeking medical monitoring relief at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog.   

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On the 60^th anniversary of the publication of Rachel Carlson’s groundbreaking book “Silent Spring”, the world continues to struggle to manage the human health and environmental risks associated with newly discovered emerging contaminants.  Silent Spring focused on the challenges associated with managing the risks associated with pesticides (and more specifically DDT), and even today, many of the largest personal injury verdicts are associated with alleged exposure to pesticides. 

Over the many years since Silent Spring, numerous contaminants have moved through the emerging contaminant life cycle, including asbestos, dioxins, PCBs, MTBE, BPA, 1,4-dioxane, and most recently, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) (although PFAS seems stuck in the middle of the life cycle).      

The life cycle journey of emerging contaminants has been influenced significantly by our improved ability to understand the potential impacts of these emerging contaminants on human health and the environment.  As new contaminants are identified, resources are devoted to better understanding the potential environmental and health risks associated with these contaminants and regulations generally evolve to mitigate identified risks.  In response to increased regulatory pressure, industry’s use of chemicals evolves and the risks are mitigated.  Of course, industry’s use of these chemicals also evolves and is influenced by lawsuits when the regulations and/or the enforcement of the regulations lags.  

In addition to improved understanding of the risks posed by some of these emerging contaminants, the fact that we are able to measure smaller and smaller quantities of these contaminants also impacts the life-cycle journey of these emerging contaminants.  When I started practicing environmental law in the dark ages, contaminants in soil and groundwater were measured in parts per thousand.  As science evolved to detect lower and lower levels, regulatory levels moved from parts per million to parts per billion, and then parts per trillion, and PCBs are now regulated in parts per quadrillion.   As detection levels drop, the number of new emerging contaminants will increase and the life-cycle journey for each of these contaminants begins.  

A lot can be said for the progress that has been made since the summer of 1962.  Although some will argue it should still be faster, the time from discovery of the contaminant to identification of risks and regulation of these identified risks has greatly improved since the 1960s.  This is due in part to the fact society has a much lower tolerance for risks posed by emerging contaminants and is much quicker to demand a response from the regulators now than was the case in the 1960s when environmental laws in the United States were in their infancy. A reformed TSCA is better situated to address both environmental and health and safety impacts of chemicals (both newly manufactured chemicals and new chemical uses).   U.S. EPA, working in collaboration with manufacturers, implemented a global stewardship program to eliminate the manufacture and import of long-chain PFAS compounds.  In October 2021, U.S. EPA announced its PFAS Strategic Roadmap intended to implement a whole-of-agency approach to addressing PFAS.

As our understanding of risks evolves and our detection levels drop, it is inevitable that we will continue to identify new emerging contaminants that need to be regulated.  However, I think Rachel Carlson would be proud of the progress we have made and continue to make to ensure that the world is a safer place for everyone. 

By Allison A. Torrence

As we near Earth Day 2022, the United States may be headed toward a profound change in the way EPA and similar administrative agencies regulate the complex areas of environmental law. EPA began operating more than 50 years ago in 1970, and has been tasked with promulgating and enforcing some of the most complex regulations on the books. From the Clean Air Act to the Clean Water Act; to CERCLA and RCRA and TSCA; and everything in between.

EPA has penned voluminous regulations over the past 50 years to implement vital environmental policies handed down from Congress—to remarkable effect. While there is certainly progress left to be done, improvements in air and water quality in the United States, along with hazardous waste management, has been impressive. For example, according to EPA data, from 1970 to 2020, a period in which gross domestic product rose 272% and US population rose 61%, aggregate emissions of the six criteria pollutants decreased by 78%.

(source: epa.gov)

For the past 50 years the environmental administrative law process has worked mostly the same way: First, Congress passes a law covering a certain environmental subject matter (e.g., water quality), which provides policy objectives and a framework of restrictions, prohibitions and affirmative obligations. Second, EPA, the administrative agency tasked with implementing the environmental law, promulgates detailed regulations defining terms used in the law and explaining in a more comprehensive fashion how to comply with the obligations outlined in the statute. Depending on the subject matter being addressed, Congress may leave more details up to EPA, as the subject matter expert, to fill in via regulation. In some instances, there is a third step, where additional authority is delegated to the states and tribes to implement environmental regulations at the state-level based on the framework established by Congress and EPA. Occasionally someone thinks EPA overstepped its authority under a given statute, or failed to act when it was supposed to, and litigation follows to correct the over or under action.

Currently, this system of administrative law is facing challenges from parties that believe administrative agencies like EPA have moved from implementing Congress’s policy to setting their own. The most significant such challenge has come in the consolidated Clean Air Act (“CAA”) cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia v. EPA, Nos. 20-1530, 20-1531, 20-1778, 20-1780.^[1] In West Virginia v. EPA, challengers object to the Obama-EPA’s Clean Power Plan (“CPP”), which used a provision in the New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) section of the CAA to set greenhouse gas emission standards for existing power plants. The biggest issue with the CPP, according to challengers, is that the new standards would require many operators to shut down older coal-fired units and shift generation to lower-emitting natural gas or renewable units. Challengers, which include several states, power companies and coal companies, argue the CPP implicates the “major questions doctrine” or “non-delegation doctrine”. These doctrines provide that large-scale initiatives that have broad impacts can't be based on vague, minor, or obscure provisions of law. Challengers argue that the NSPS provision used as the basis for the CPP is a minor provision of law that is being used by EPA to create a large-scale shift in energy policy. EPA argues that, although it is currently revising its greenhouse gas regulations, the actions taken in the CPP were authorized by Congress in the CAA, are consistent with with the text of the CAA as written, and do not raise the specter of the major questions or non-delegations doctrines.

While this case will certainly dictate how EPA is permitted to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA, it will likely have broader impacts on administrative law. On the one hand, the Court may issue a narrow opinion that evaluates the CPP based on the regulations being inconsistent with the text or intent of the CAA. On the other hand, the Supreme Court may issue a broader opinion that invokes the major questions or non-delegation doctrines to hold that based on the significant-impacts of the regulation, it is an area that should be governed by Congress, not an administrative agency. If the Supreme Court takes the latter route, it could set more limits on Congress’s ability to delegate regulatory authority to administrative agencies like EPA.

Indeed, in the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the OSHA emergency temporary standard on employer vaccine or test mandate (“the OSHA ETS”), Ohio v. Dept. of Labor, et al., 595 U.S. ____ (2022), the Court struck down an administrative regulation in a preview of what might be coming in the EPA CAA case. As everyone knows by now, the Supreme Court struck down the OSHA ETS, holding it was an overstep of the agency’s authority to regulate safety issues in the workplace. The Court’s opinion focused on the impact of the OSHA ETS—that it will impact 84 million employees and it went beyond the workplace—instead of the statutory language. The Court stated, “[i]t is telling that OSHA, in its half century of existence, has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind—addressing a threat that is untethered, in any causal sense, from the workplace.” Slip op. at 8.  

Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch invoked the major questions doctrine in their concurring opinion, stating that Congress must speak clearly if it wishes to delegate to an administrative agency decisions of vast economic and political import. In the case of OSHA and COVID-19, the Justices maintained that Congress did not clearly assign to OSHA the power to deal with COVID-19 because it had not done so over the past two years of the pandemic. Notably, the fact that when Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it authorized OSHA to issue emergency regulations upon determining that “employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” and “that such emergency standard[s] [are] necessary to protect employees from such danger[s]”, was not a sufficient basis for the Court or the three consenting Justices. In their view, in order to authorize OSHA to issue this vaccine or test mandate, Congress had to do more than delegate to OSHA general emergency powers 50 years ago, but instead would have had to delegate authority specific to the current pandemic.

Applying this logic to EPA and the currently-pending CAA case, Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch may conclude that provisions of the CAA written 50 or 30 years ago, before climate change was fully on Congress’s radar, should not be used to as the basis for regulations that impact important climate and energy policy. Of course, many questions remain: Will a majority of the court adopt this view, and how far they will take it? If Congress can’t delegate climate change and energy policy, what else is off the table—water rights? Hazardous waste? Chemical management? If Congress can’t delegate to EPA and other administrative agencies at the same frequency as in the past, how will Congress manage passing laws dealing with complex and technical areas of law?

All of these questions and more may arise, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in West Virginia v. EPA. For now, we are waiting to see what will happen, in anticipation of some potentially significant changes on the horizon.

[1] Jenner & Block filed an Amicus Curiae brief in this case on behalf of Former Power Industry Executives in support of EPA.

By Gabrielle Sigel, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health and Safety Law Practice

On this 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, I am not writing yet another, typically not very funny, riff on one of Shakespeare’s most famous lines.^[1] Instead, I am inspired by one of the most popular of our blogs, written in 2017 by our talented former partner, E. Lynn Grayson, “Imagine a Day Without Water.” To start our Earth Week series of daily blogs by our firm’s EHS department, I offer words of hope and gratitude for the vast amount of work that has been done to improve and protect the environment – work done by lawyers, scientists, policy makers, and members of the public, to name a few.

Imagine what lawyers and scientists faced in 1970, the year of the first Earth Day. There was oppressive soot and polluted air throughout urban and industrial areas in the United States. The Cuyahoga River was so blighted it had caught fire. Although there was a new federal Environmental Protection Agency and two new environmental statutes – the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act, one of the most highly complex and technical statutes ever written – both needed an entire regulatory structure to be created in order to be operationalized and enforced. This foundational work had to be done when there was not even an accepted method for determining, much less regulating, environmental and public health risk. Then two years later, in 1972, a comprehensively overhauled Clean Water Act was enacted, followed within the next decade by TSCA, RCRA, and CERCLA, to address the consequences of past waste and chemical use, and to control their future more prudently. Other laws were also passed in that time period, including the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Although Earth Day was created in the U.S. – the idea of Senator Gaylord Nelson (WI-D) and supported by Representative Pete McCloskey (CA-R) (both lawyers) and grass roots organizers – environmental consciousness also was growing worldwide. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration, from the first UN Conference of the Human Environment, recognized the importance of environmental protection amid the challenge of economic disparities. That work, including of the United Nations Environment Programme, led to the 1992 “Earth Summit” issuing the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which adopted a focus on sustainable development and the precautionary approach to protecting the environment in the face of scientific uncertainty, and creating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which itself led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as other global efforts focusing on climate change and resource conservation.

Thus, within a split-second on our earth’s timeline, humans were able to tangibly improve and focus attention on the environment, through laws, agreements, governmental and private commitments, and public support. I note these developments, which were stimulated by lawyers on all sides, not to naively suggest that the global climate change, water accessibility, toxic exposure, and other environmental challenges that we face today can easily be solved, nor do I suggest that only lawyers can provide the solution. Instead, let’s take hope from the fact that in fewer years than the average for human life expectancy, there have been significant environmental improvements in our air, land, and water, and our collective focus on preserving the planet has been ignited.

These past efforts have improved the environment – not perfectly, but demonstrably. The legal structure that helped make these improvements happen has worked – not perfectly, but demonstrably. Hopefully, we will continue to work on these issues, despite their seeming intractability, under a system of national laws and global agreements. The alternative is too painful to contemplate.

Closing on a personal note, our firm’s Environmental Law Practice lost one of the best environmental lawyers in the profession, when Stephen H. Armstrong passed away last week. Steve was one of the first in-house environmental counsel I had the opportunity to work with when I began my focus on environmental law in the 1980s. He demonstrated how to respect the science, embrace the legal challenges, fight hard for your client, and always act with integrity. Although I was a young woman in a relatively new field, he consistently valued my opinions, supported my professional development, and with his deep, melodious laugh and sparkle in his eye, made working together feel like we shared a mission. And a ”mission” it was for him; I have never met any lawyer who cared more or wrestled harder about their clients’ position, while always undergirded by a deep reverence for doing the right thing. Once he joined our firm more than a decade ago, he continued being a role model for all of us. Our firm’s Environmental Law Practice, and all those who worked with him, will miss having him as a devoted colleague, friend, and mentor. Our earth has been made better for his life on it.

[1]“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act Iv, Scene 2 (circa 1591).

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On April 8, 2022, U.S. EPA added the industrial solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) to its list of CERCLA hazardous substances; this listing was triggered by U.S. EPA’s decision to add 1-BP to the Clean Air Act’s list of hazardous air pollutants in January 2022. The addition of 1-BP to the Clean Air Act’s list of hazardous air pollutants may have come as a bit of a surprise since U.S. EPA hasn’t added a new pollutant to the hazardous air pollutant list since the list was originally promulgated in 1990. However, once on the Clean Air Act list of hazardous air pollutants, the pollutant automatically falls with the CERCLA definition of “hazardous substances”. In addition to adding 1-BP to the list of hazardous substances in Table 302.4 in the Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. EPA set a CERCLA reportable quantity for 1-BP at one pound (the CERCLA statutory default).

The manner in which U.S. EPA treats 1-BP at CERCLA sites may be illustrative as to how U.S. EPA will treat PFOS and PFOA, two PFAS compounds that are currently under consideration for listing as CERCLA hazardous substances. Will U.S. EPA add 1-BP to the CERCLA required analyte list at all Superfund sites or will U.S. EPA adopt a more selective approach by relying on Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to identify nearby sites or manufacturing facilities that may have used the industrial solvent? The more likely scenario is that U.S. EPA will utilize some screening criteria to determine whether to sample for 1-BP but how wide of a  1-BP net that U.S. EPA decides to cast remains to be seen.

1-BP is also a volatile substance so U.S. EPA could also rely on the new listing to reopen and investigate sites for potential vapor intrusion concerns. However, it is unlikely that a site would be reopened solely on the basis of 1-BP vapor intrusion risks.

We will continue to track how U.S. EPA elects to address 1-BP at Superfund sites in an effort to gain insight as to how U.S. EPA may approach future hazardous substance designations at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer.

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On March 22, 2022, U.S. EPA released a new web tool designed to ensure that information regarding environmental violations and enforcement actions is more readily available to the public. The new tool, called ECHO Notify, allows users to sign up for weekly emails when new information is available with respect to violations of environmental statutes or enforcement actions in a specific geographic area or with respect to a particular facility. 

ECHO Notify provides information on both state and federal enforcement and compliance activities under the following programs: Clean Air Act (stationary sources), Clean Water Act (point sources), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (hazardous waste handlers), and Safe Drinking Water Act (public water system). The tool provides U.S. EPA-specific enforcement-related information with respect to other environmental statutes. 

In a press release that accompanied the release of the new tool, U.S. EPA Administrator Michael Regan stated that “EPA is committed to empowering communities with the information they need to understand and make informed decisions about their health and environment.” Administrator Regan went on to state “EPA has developed ECHO Notify so that finding updates on environmental enforcement and compliance activities is as easy as checking your email.” 

This new tool is another example of U.S. EPA’s continued focus on environmental justice communities and its desire to ensure that information regarding environmental compliance and enforcement activities is readily available to those communities. We will continue to provide updates regarding U.S. EPA initiatives at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer.

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

In connection with the release of its 2020 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) National Analysis that evidenced a 10% decline in environmental releases of TRI chemicals between 2019 and 2020, U.S. EPA announced that it intends to initiate a rulemaking that will, among other things, remove the de minimis exemption for reporting the 172 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that were added to TRI by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The TRI analysis report noted that 38 facilities reported managing 800,000 pounds of PFAS in 2020 but only 9,000 pounds of PFAS were reported as having been released. In response to what U.S. EPA claims to be a “seemingly limited scope of PFAS reporting”, U.S. EPA stated that it intends to “use existing data to generate lists of potential productions and recipients of PFAS waste, and has contacted facilities with potential reporting errors, as well as those that were expected to report but did not.” In addition, U.S. EPA claims that “the elimination of the de minimis exemption will result in a more complete picture of [PFAS] releases and other waste management quantities for these chemicals."

The de minimis exemption, which allows covered facilities to disregard certain minimal levels of listed toxic chemicals in mixtures or trade name products, has been strongly criticized by a number of environmental groups. The de minimis level for perfluorooctanoic acid is 0.1% and for all other TRI-listed PFAS is 1.0%. Litigation is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging U.S. EPA’s inclusion of the de minimis PFAS reporting threshold and this rulemaking may be an effort by U.S. EPA to respond to that litigation. 

We will continue to provide updates on U.S. EPA’s efforts to strip the de minimis TRI reporting exemption for PFAS as well as other PFAS-related issues on the Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog.

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On January 10, 2022, U.S. EPA forwarded to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a proposed rule that seeks to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  Although not unexpected since this was of the key elements of U.S. EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, U.S. EPA’s proposed rule is unique in that it represents one of the first times that U.S. EPA has by rule sought to designate a chemical as a CERCLA hazardous substance.  U.S. EPA's actions in sending the proposed rule to OMB may also be foreshadowing for a similar effort to designate PFOA and PFOS as "hazardous wastes" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which would subject these substances to RCRA's cradle to grave regulatory scheme.     

The effect of listing PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA “hazardous substances” is significant for the following reasons:  

• New Sites: By designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA “hazardous substances”, due to the ubiquitous nature of these contaminants in the environment, hundreds of sites could become CERCLA Superfund sites. For example, PFAS chemicals can be found in the soil and groundwater at sites that historically used firefighting foams, including airports, refineries, and military installations. It is also a contaminant of concern at manufacturing operations associated with cookware, stain-resistant clothing, and various packaging products. Finally, it may be a concern at municipal landfills and wastewater treatment facilities. There may also be trickle-down effects at the state level since many states automatically include federally-designated substances in the state definition of hazardous substances.  

• Existing/Closed Sites: Moreover, at existing Superfund sites (including sites where a final remedy has been selected and is being  implemented), U.S. EPA can require that the sites be investigated for PFOA and PFOS.  If found, U.S. EPA can require that existing remedial strategies be modified to address these contaminants in the soil or groundwater.  Similarly, even at sites where remedial measures have been completed, U.S. EPA could still seek to reopen the sites and require that these newly designated hazardous substances be remediated.  

• Cost-Recovery Claims:  Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances would open the door for both U.S. EPA and private-party PRPs to bring CERCLA cost recovery and/or contribution claims to pay for the costs to investigate and remediate these chemicals. In light of the increased scrutiny of these compounds in drinking water supplies, one could expect numerous CERCLA cost-recovery lawsuits by drinking water providers to recover the costs to treat public drinking water system. 

• Reporting Requirements: Designation as a CERCLA hazardous substance also triggers release reporting under CERCLA. CERCLA § 103 (42 U.S.C.  § 9603) requires that releases of “reportable quantities” (RQ) of CERCLA hazardous substances be reported to the National Response Center. Until such time as U.S. EPA promulgates a specific RQ  for PFOA and PFOS, the default RQ for these chemicals will be one pound.  Although many states are moving towards banning the use of fire-fighting foam that contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, if PFOA and/or PFOS are designated as CERCLA "hazardous substances", it is likely that any use of fire-fighting foam containing these substances would trigger CERCLA release reporting.    

Once U.S. EPA receives the review back from OMB  and publishes the proposed rule for comment in the Federal Register, U.S.EPA can expect to receive robust comments both against and in favor of the designation.  We will continue to follow U.S. EPA’s efforts to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA “hazardous substances” at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog. 

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice

On December 20, 2021, U.S. EPA finalized its Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) that will require public water systems (PWS) to collect monitoring data for 29 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and lithium in drinking water. Every five years, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires U.S. EPA to publish a new list of unregulated contaminants that will be monitored by PWS.  UCMR 5 focuses almost exclusively on PFAS and targets 29 of the more than 4,700 PFAS that have been identified to date. 

Starting in 2023, all PWSs serving more than 10,000 customers are obligated to monitor for these UCMR 5 contaminants while smaller PWSs (those serving less than 10,000 customers) must monitor subject to availability of appropriations (U.S. EPA is responsible for all analytical costs associated with PWSs serving less than 10,000 customers) and laboratory capacity. In response to comments on the draft UCMR 5 expressing concern about the lack of laboratory capacity to support the PFAS monitoring, the final rule notes that U.S. EPA expects laboratory capacity to quickly grow to meet UCMR demand. The final rule identifies applicable U.S. EPA test methods for each of the 29 targeted PFAS compounds. However, some commenters were critical that the final rule did not identify a testing technique to determine “total PFAS” in drinking water. The final rule acknowledges this issue but notes that U.S. EPA “has not identified a complete, validated peer-reviewed aggregate PFAS method” at this time. 

The data collected is expected to inform U.S. EPA as it evaluates whether to set a specific drinking water limit or treatment standard under the SDWA for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). U.S. EPA has committed to establishing a national drinking water regulation for PFOA and PFOS by the fall of 2023 and it is likely that additional PFAS will be in the SDWA regulatory pipeline in the near future. 

We will continue to track U.S. EPA regulatory agenda at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog.

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law Practice 

As part of the infrastructure package that was just approved on a bi-partisan basis by the Senate and is now moving on to the House, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (“GLRI”) could receive approximately $1 billion for the remediation of impacted site and waterways in the Great Lakes region.   

Since its inception in 2010, the GLRI has provided funding to 16 federal organizations to strategically target the biggest threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem and to accelerate progress toward achieving long term goals:

• Fish safe to eat;
• Water safe for recreation;
• Safe source of drinking water;
• All Areas of Concern delisted;
• Harmful/nuisance algal blooms eliminated;
• No new self-sustaining invasive species;
• Existing invasive species controlled; and
• Native habitat protected and restored to sustain native species.

One of the primary areas of focus of GRLI’s most recent action plan is the remediation of “Areas of Concern” (“AOCs”) that are defined as "geographic areas designated by the Parties where significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level."  There are currently more than 26 AOCs in the Great Lakes basin that could be cleaned up using monies appropriated in the current version of the infrastructure bill. 

We will continue to track the progress of the infrastructure bill and the availability of funds to address AOCs in the Great Lake basin at the Corporate Environmental Lawyer.

By Allison A. Torrence

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case of Guam v. United States, No. 20-382, 593 U.S. __ (2021), that a party must resolve “CERCLA-specific liability” in order to trigger contribution rights under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).

The question before the Court was whether a settlement between Guam and the United States that resolved claims under the Clean Water Act could be the basis for a contribution claim under § 113(f)(3)(B) of CERCLA. In this case, Guam and the U.S. EPA had entered into a Consent Decree following a Clean Water Act lawsuit, settling the United States’ Clean Water Act claims against Guam and requiring Guam take actions to close and cover a dump site. Thirteen years later Guam sued the United States under CERCLA for cost recovery and contribution, claiming the United States’ earlier use of the dump site exposed it to liability. The district court, in a ruling affirmed by the court of appeals, ruled that Guam had a contribution claim at one point, based on its Clean Water Act Consent Decree because that Decree required remedial measures and provided a conditional release, which sufficiently resolved Guam’s liability for the dump site and triggered a CERCLA contribution claim under § 113(f)(3)(B). However, the Decree also triggered the three-year statute of limitations, which had expired, leaving Guam without any viable claims.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, rejecting the notion that the Clean Water Act Consent Decree was sufficiently similar to a CERCLA settlement to trigger contribution liability. The Court focused on a textual analysis of the statute, which states in relevant part that:

A person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State for some or all of a response action or for some or all of the costs of such action in an administrative or judicially approved settlement may seek contribution from any person who is not party to a [qualifying] settlement.

42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(3)(B).

Of particular note to the Court was the reference in § 113(f)(3)(B) to “response action”, which is a term of art in CERCLA, and appears throughout the Act. The Court reasoned that this language “is best ‘understood only with reference’ to the CERCLA regime.” Guam, slip op. at 6, quoting United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U. S. 128, 135 (2007). Thus, according to the Court’s reasoning, to resolve liability for a “response action,” a party must engage in a CERCLA-specific settlement, not “settle an environmental liability that might have been actionable under CERCLA.” Id. at 7.

In conclusion, the Court held that “[t]he most natural reading of §113(f)(3)(B) is that a party may seek contribution under CERCLA only after settling a CERCLA-specific liability.” Id. at 9.

Like most major CERCLA decisions, the Court’s ruling answers one question but raises many more. We can expect future litigation on the precise bounds of how specific a settlement need be to qualify as “CERCLA-specific” under the Court’s holding. There will also likely be litigation regarding how this ruling may apply to other provision of CERCLA beyond §113(f )(3)(B). As always, the Corporate Environmental Lawyer Blog will be monitoring these important developments and reporting on what you need to know.

By Matthew G. Lawson

On Friday, April 30, 2021, the Biden Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced significant steps the agency intends to take under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program to implement expanded reporting requirements for companies that store and utilize hazardous chemicals, including new obligations to report the storage, use and any releases of ethylene oxide, a commonly used industrial chemical and sterilant for medical equipment and supplies.  The TRI Program, which was established under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), serves as a resource for the public to learn about annual chemical releases, waste management, and pollution prevention activities reported by nearly 22,000 industrial and federal facilities.  Under the TRI Program, U.S. facilities operating in various industry sectors must report annually the quantity of certain chemicals they release to the environment and/or manage through recycling, energy recovery and treatment.  A “release” of a chemical in the context of the TRI Program means that the chemical is emitted to the air or water, or placed in some type of land disposal.

A major component of EPA’s announcement is the agency’s intent to regulate ethylene oxide. The use and release of ethylene oxide by medical device sterilization companies have prompted a number of recent high-profile lawsuits alleging that releases of the chemical into the environment have caused increased cancer rates in communities adjacent to the facilities.  EPA’s announcement notes that many existing sterilization facilities “are located near areas with Environmental Justice concerns,” and that individuals living adjacent to these facilities may be at a heightened risk from exposure to ethylene oxide.  “Every person in the United States has a right to know about what chemicals are released into their communities,” EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan stated.  “By requiring new and more data on chemical releases from facilities, EPA and its partners will be better equipped to protect the health of every individual, including people of color and low-income communities that are often located near these facilities but have been left out of the conversation for too long.”  In the coming months, EPA will provide further details regarding the specific actions the agency intends to take to require sterilization facilities that use ethylene oxide to report under the TRI Program.

In addition to implementing new reporting requirements for companies utilizing ethylene oxide, EPA announced several other steps the agency plans to take that will increase reporting and public access to information under the TRI Program, including:

• Finalizing a longstanding proposed rule that will add natural gas processing facilities to the industry sectors covered under the TRI Program thereby increasing the publicly available information on chemical releases and other waste management activities of TRI-listed chemicals from this sector;
• Continuing to add new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) to the list of chemicals that require reporting under the TRI Program, including the addition of perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) following EPA’s toxicity assessment of the substance;
• Proposing a new rule to add high-priority substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and chemicals included in the TSCA workplan to the list of chemicals that require reporting under the TRI Program; and
• Increasing public access to TRI data through improved search functionality and improved website interface.

EPA’s announcement marks the most recent step by the agency to implement the Biden Administration’s focus on environmental justice as a top priority of its environmental agenda.  On the same day that EPA announced the agency’s updated TRI policy, EPA circulated a memorandum to all EPA-staff, indicating the additional actions the agency intends to take to fulfill its environmental justice commitment.  These actions include: (1) increasing inspections of facilities that pose the most serious threats to overburdened communities; (2) focusing on implementing remedies that benefit communities, including through the incorporation of supplemental environmental projects; (3) increasing communications with overburdened communities to develop improved cleanup and non-compliance solutions; and (4) identifying locations where state regulators are not adequately protecting local communities and taking increased enforcement actions to “pick up the slack” if state regulators have not taken appropriate or timely actions.

The Corporate Environmental Blog will continue to follow developments on this issue in the coming months as EPA provides additional details on the specific actions it intends to take to expand the TRI Program.

By Steven M. Siros and Matthew G. Lawson

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is continuing to investigate an unexplained source of per-fluorinated compounds (PFAS) contamination that may be associated with the deployment of a fire-fighting compound in response to a major gasoline release by the Colonial Pipeline system on August 14, 2020.  The Colonial Pipeline, which spans 5,500 miles from Houston, Texas, to Linden, New Jersey, runs through a number of southern and mid-Atlantic states, including North Carolina.  The active pipeline delivers an average of 100 million gallons of liquid petroleum products each day.  On August 14, 2020, a leak in the pipeline resulted in the release of approximately 1.2 million gallons of gasoline into the environment near the town of Huntersville, North Carolina.  The release was the largest onshore gasoline spill in the United States in over 20 years and in connection with Colonial Pipeline’s emergency response to that release, Colonial Pipeline sprayed a commonly used fire suppressant known as F-500 encapsulate on the contaminated land to minimize the risk that vapors from the release would ignite. 

However, following Colonial Pipeline’s initial emergency response, new questions have emerged regarding PFAS that was detected at the release site.  As part of the ongoing efforts to investigate the nature and extent of the gasoline release, DEQ directed Colonial Pipeline to collect samples from the F-500 encapsulate and test that encapsulate for various PFAS formations.  The resulting test data found elevated levels—as high as 22,600 parts per trillion (“ppt”)—of at least three different PFAS compounds.  Samples of a nearby surface water showed PFAS concentrations ranging from 1 ppt to 14.9 ppt.

The source of the PFAS is not readily apparent, however, because as verified by the Safety Data Sheet , F-500 is not known to contain PFAS compounds.  In fact, F-500 acts differently than aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) to fight fires.  AFFF is intended to separate oxygen from the fuel while F-500 works by removing the heat, neutralizing the fuel, and interrupting the free radical chain reaction.  As such, it does not rely on fluorine compounds for effectiveness.

It is possible that the source of the PFAS identified by Colonial Pipeline was a result of residual AFFF residing in the storage tank or in the fire-fighting equipment that was used to dispense the F-500 encapsulating agent.  The F-500 was transported to the site by the Pelham Alabama fire department and the fire-fighting equipment that sprayed the F-500 was supplied by the Hunterville Fire Department.  However, notwithstanding that the equipment was supplied by the municipal fire departments and that the F-500 is not known to contain PFAS compounds, DEQ has still requested that Colonial Pipeline provide data demonstrating that there have been no PFAS impacts to soil or groundwater as a result of the emergency response. 

This a cautionary tale for environmental health and safety professionals charged with maintaining emergency spill response materials, including fire suppressant products, for their respective organizations.  Such professionals are faced with a unique challenge of ensuring that products maintained for spill containment or remediation purposes are not only fit for these purposes, but also that these products do not contain chemicals that pose a potential threat to human health or the environment.  This challenge is particularly acute with PFAS, of which there are over 5,000 different formulations which can be found in a large variety of different consumer and industry products.  Even if a decision is made to swap out one product that may historically contained PFAS with a new product that is purportedly PFAS-free, care should be taken to ensure that product distribution equipment is PFAS-free.  Otherwise, one might find oneself in the unfortunate position of having to defend against claims relating to PFAS impacts in the environment. 

By Gabrielle Sigel, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health and Safety Law Practice

On his first full day in office, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Protecting Worker Health and Safety, which required OSHA to “consider whether any emergency temporary standards on COVID‑19, including with respect to masks in the workplace, are necessary,” and if so, to issue such emergency temporary standards (ETS) by March 15, 2021. Executive Order 13999, § 2(b) (Jan. 21, 2021), 86 FR 7211 (Jan. 26, 2021). An ETS, which skips the initial notice and comment process before it is in effect, can be issued pursuant to Section 6(c) of the OSH Act if OSHA determines that employees are exposed to “grave danger” and that an emergency standard is necessary to protect them from the grave danger. 29 U.S.C. § 655(c).

Putting aside that OSHA has not successfully issued an ETS since 1978, including that the last attempt to issue an ETS, regulating asbestos exposure, was invalidated by the US Court of Appeals in 1984,[1] OSHA now has several models for a COVID‑19 ETS from which it may draw. Specifically, California, Michigan, Oregon, and Virginia are among the 22 states and territories that administer and enforce their own state-plan OSHA, rather than rely solely on federal standards and enforcement.[2] These four states have developed their own COVID‑19 safety regulations that apply to most, if not all, workplaces in their respective states, and have both distinctive features and commonalities. Employers would be well-advised to be aware of each of the states’ specific standards, not only to comply with regulatory requirements in that state, but to consider whether their workplace is ready for potential, nationwide regulations which may incorporate elements of these states’ approaches.

With OSHA under a Presidential deadline to issue a nationwide COVID-19 safety regulation, we review the current status of OSHA guidance; describe the basic elements of the four states’ regulations; and look at recent federal orders by other agencies to anticipate what employers nationwide may soon be facing.

US OSHA: COVID‑19 Regulation and Guidance in the Prior Administration

By Matthew G. Lawson

On February 5, 2021, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a proposed rule updating its Hazard Communication (“Haz Com”) Standard to align its rules with those in the seventh version of the United Nation’s Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS), published in 2017.  OSHA’s proposed regulatory update is being issued as the United States’ major international trading partners, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and those in Europe, similarly prepare to align their own hazard communications rules with the seventh version of the GHS.

Originally established in 1983, OSHA’s Haz Com Standard provides a systematized approach to communicating workplace hazards associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals.  Under the Haz Com Standard, chemical manufacturers and/or importers are required to classify the hazards of chemicals which they produce or import into the United States, and all employers are required to provide information to their employees about the hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed, by means of a hazard communication program, labels and other forms of warning, safety data sheets, and information and training.  At an international level, the GHS provides a universally harmonized approach to classifying chemicals and communicating hazard information.  Core tenants of the GHS include universal standards for hazard testing criteria, warning pictograms, and safety data sheets for hazardous chemicals.

In a pre-published version of the proposed rule, OSHA’s proposed modifications to the Haz Com Standard include codifying enforcement policies currently in OSHA’s compliance directive, clarifying requirements related to the transport of hazardous chemicals, adding alternative labeling provisions for small containers and adopting new requirements related to preparation of Safety Data Sheets.  Key modifications included in the proposed rule, include:

• New flexibility for labeling bulk shipments of hazardous chemicals, including allowing labels to be placed on the immediate container or transmitted with shipping papers, bills of lading, or by other technological or electronic means that are immediately available to workers in printed form on the receiving end of the shipment;
• New alternative labeling options where a manufacturer or importer can demonstrate that it is not feasible to use traditional pull-out labels, fold-back labels, or tags containing the full label information normally required under the Haz Com Standard, including specific alternative requirements for containers less than or equal to 100ml capacity and for containers less than or equal to 3ml capacity; and
• New requirements to update the labels on individual containers that have been released for shipment but are awaiting future distribution where the manufacturer, importer or distributer becomes aware of new significant information regarding the hazards of the chemical.  

OSHA last updated its Haz Com Standard in 2012, to align the standard with the then recently published third version of GHS.  In its newly proposed rule, OSHA clarifies that it is “not proposing to change the fundamental structure” of its Haz Com Standard, but instead seeking to “address specific issues that have arisen since the 2012 rulemaking” and to provide better alignment with international trading partners.  According to OSHA, its proposed modifications to the Haz Com Standard “will increase worker protections, and reduce the incidence of chemical-related occupational illnesses and injuries by further improving the information on the labels and Safety Data Sheets for hazardous chemicals.” 

OSHA is currently accepting comments on its proposed rule until April 19, 2021.  Comments may be submitted electronically to Docket No. OSHA-2019-0001at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

By Steven M. Siros, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health and Safety Law Practice

The Trump administration continues its efforts to issue new regulations in advance of January 20, 2021, with the Department of Energy (DOE) issuing a final rule that will exempt certain liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects from National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review.  The final rule, published in the Federal Register on December 4, updates DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures with respect to authorizations issued under the Natural Gas Act in accordance with the recent revisions to the NEPA regulations as further described below.

According to DOE, the focus of the new rule is to clarify the scope of DOE’s NEPA obligations with respect to LNG projects and more specifically, to eliminate from the scope of DOE’s NEPA review potential environmental effects that the agency has no authority to prevent.  Because DOE’s discretionary authority under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act is limited to the authorization of exports of natural gas to non-free trade agreement countries, the rule limits the scope of environmental impacts that DOE must consider to the impacts associated with the marine transport of the LNG commencing at the point of export.    

To that end, the final rule revises DOE’s existing Categorical Exclusions (CATEX) to reflect that the only elements of LNG projects subject to NEPA review is the following:

B5.7 Export of natural gas and associated transportation by marine vessel.

Approvals or disapprovals of new authorizations or amendments of existing authorizations to export natural gas under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and any associated transportation of natural gas by marine vessel.

Based on prior NEPA reviews and technical reports, DOE has determined that the transport of natural gas by marine vessel normally does not pose the potential for significant environmental impacts and therefore qualifies for a CATEX.  As such, the only reason that DOE would be obligated to engage in a NEPA review of a LNG project would be if “extraordinary circumstances” were deemed to be present that could not be mitigated and therefore would preclude DOE's reliance on this CATEX.

The revised CATEX also removes the reference to import authorizations from CATEX B5.7 because DOE has no discretion with respect to such approvals.  Finally, the final rule also removes and reserves CATEX B5.8 and classes of actions C13, D8, D9 because these actions are outside of the scope of DOE’s authority or are covered by the revised CATEX B5.7.

Interestingly, although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has responsibility for approving the construction of LNG export terminals, it has previously declined to analyze the greenhouse emissions associated with such projects, noting that DOE is the appropriate agency to consider such impacts.  However, with DOE now concluding that these projects are categorically excluded from such reviews, it remains to be seen if FERC will reconsider its approach to these operations.

The final rule is scheduled to take effect on January 4, 2021 and it remains to be seen what if any action a new Biden administration might take in response to this rule.  Assuming that the Republicans retain control of the Congress, DOE would be required to go through the formal withdrawal process.  Alternatively, if the Democrats take control of the Senate, the regulation could be repealed pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 

We will continue to track the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to finalize regulations in advance of January 20^th as well as efforts by any new administration to rollback these regulations on the Corporate Environmental Lawyer.

By Steven M. Siros

The chemical industry has received some relief from a November 30^th deadline to submit information to U.S. EPA pursuant to the Chemical Data Reporting Rule (“CDR”).  Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) authorizes U.S. EPA to promulgate rules pursuant to which manufacturers and processors of chemical substances must maintain records and submit information to U.S. EPA.  To that end, U.S. EPA promulgated the CDR that requires entities that manufacture certain chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory in excess of 25,000 pounds annually (lower thresholds apply for certain listed chemicals) to report basic production information to U.S. EPA every four years.  The 2020 reporting deadline had been November 30, 2020.

U.S. EPA recently revised the CDR to comply with the 2016 TSCA amendments.  These revisions were intended to improve the reliability and usefulness of the data collected and reduce the overall reporting burden on regulated entities.  For example, the revised rule allows for the use of data and processing codes based on those already in use by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  The rule also incorporates exemptions for certain byproducts and amends the requirements to claim that the submitted data constitutes confidential business information (“CBI”) (requiring the upfront substantiation of all CBI claims).    

On October 26^th, the American Chemical Council requested a 60-day extension from the November 30^th deadline, noting significant technical issues with the electronic CDR submission platform.  Notwithstanding objections from a variety of environmental groups, U.S. EPA has extended the CDR reporting deadline to January 29, 2021.  The extension is good news for the regulated community as it works to compile the substantial information necessary to comply with the CDR requirements. 

We will continue to track and provide updates on the CDR and other reporting obligations for chemical manufacturer on Jenner & Block’s Corporate Environmental Lawyer blog.          

By Gabrielle Sigel, Co-Chair, Environmental and Workplace Health and Safety Law Practice

I.  The New CDC Definition of Close Contacts

On October 21, 2020, the CDC published a new definition of “Close Contact” for contact tracing purposes.  This new definition will affect how employers determine Close Contacts for purposes of internal contract tracing to limit and prevent exposures and spread of the coronavirus within the workplace.  The new CDC definition can be found here:  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact  Quoting from the CDC link:

“Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period* starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to test specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.

* Individual exposures added together over a 24-hour period (e.g., three 5-minute exposures for a total of 15 minutes). Data are limited, making it difficult to precisely define “close contact;” however, 15 cumulative minutes of exposure at a distance of 6 feet or less can be used as an operational definition for contact investigation. Factors to consider when defining close contact include proximity (closer distance likely increases exposure risk), the duration of exposure (longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk), whether the infected individual has symptoms (the period around onset of symptoms is associated with the highest levels of viral shedding), if the infected person was likely to generate respiratory aerosols (e.g., was coughing, singing, shouting), and other environmental factors (crowding, adequacy of ventilation, whether exposure was indoors or outdoors). Because the general public has not received training on proper selection and use of respiratory PPE, such as an N95, the determination of close contact should generally be made irrespective of whether the contact was wearing respiratory PPE.  At this time, differential determination of close contact for those using fabric face coverings is not recommended.”

Previously, CDC had defined “Close Contact” to mean someone who spent at least 15 consecutive minutes within six feet of a person confirmed to be have COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

II. What Does the New Definition Mean for Employers (Outside the Healthcare Industry)

Under CDC guidance, an employer should quarantine any Close Contact employee, i.e., the Close Contact employee should not be allowed on the worksite and should be told to quarantine per CDC guidance.  If the Close Contact develops symptoms or tests positive, in which case the Close Contact becomes an infected person who is in isolation per CDC guidance. Notably, the CDC also states that, at this time, whether an infected person or the exposed person was wearing a mask during the exposure period does not affect the determination of a Close Contact for these purposes.  However, the CDC does recognize that the determination of a Close Contact is “difficult to precisely define” and suggests that other factors may be considered, such as whether the infected person had symptoms at the time of exposure, whether the infected person was engaged in activities “likely to generate respiratory aerosols,” and environmental conditions, such as whether the exposure occurred indoors and the adequacy of indoor ventilation.

Per CDC guidance, the quarantine period is for 14 days, which typically means that the employee is not at the worksite, but can work remotely if their circumstances, including any labor agreement, so allows.  The CDC recognizes, however, that a mandatory worksite quarantine period for Close Contacts could cause severe consequences for employers of “Critical Infrastructure Workers,” typically as defined by the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”).  Thus, the CDC provides an exception to the 14-day worksite quarantine for asymptomatic Critical Infrastructure Workers – they may continue to work at the standard workplace(s) if they adhere to protective measures  prior to and during their work shift, including: pre-screening and regular monitoring for fever and other symptoms; wearing a face mask “at all times while in the workplace;” maintaining at 6-foot distance and practice social distancing “as work duties permit;” and working in areas that are frequently cleaned, including common areas and commonly shared equipment.

Although the CDC suggests that determinations of close contact can be affected by factors other than proximity and duration of exposure, it provides no guidance on how to account for those other factors in the course of the determination.  Most employers are going to need to rely on clearly defined and easily understood rules, so that a workplace contact tracing program can be appropriately administered. Thus, most employers likely will continue to rely only on the more easily determined proximity and duration factors.

As a result of CDC’s change to the definition of Close Contact to include anyone in close proximity within a cumulative 15-minute period, rather than a consecutive 15-minute period, more employees may be designated as Close Contacts and, therefore, more employees may need to be precluded from working on-site, particularly those who cannot be classified as Critical Infrastructure Workers.  Although an employer typically cannot prevent an exposure from occurring outside the workplace, an employer’s best “defense” to potential coronavirus exposure in the workplace, and the resulting Close Contact designation, is adherence to and enforcement of 6-foot distancing for all workplace activities, both during more social activities (such as in breakrooms, cafeterias, restrooms) and during job tasks. 

Other Related CDC Sites:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/guidance-manufacturing-workers-employers.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/non-healthcare-work-settings.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/critical-workers/implementing-safety-practices.html

Questions?  Please contact Gabrielle Sigel, 847-710-3700, GSigel@jenner.com

Jenner & Block’s Corporate Environmental Lawyer will continue to update on these matters, as well as other important COVID‑19 related guidance, as they unfold.

By Steven M. Siros

On August 30, 2020, the California legislature passed the Toxic Free Cosmetics Act making California the first state to ban certain chemicals from cosmetics.  Governor Newson signed the bill into law on October 1, 2020. The new law amends existing regulatory programs in California and provides that cosmetics containing any of a specific list of 24 chemicals will be considered “adulterated” and therefore unable to be sold in California. The specific list of chemicals includes certain phthalates and formaldehyde. However, the chemicals that have received the most attention are various per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances. Although some states have previously implemented legislation banning certain chemicals in cosmetic products (Minnesota banned formaldehyde in certain children’s personal care products; Washington requires that certain chemicals in children’s products be reported), California has become the first state to implement such a broad ban on these listed chemicals in cosmetics generally. 

The ban will take effect on January 1, 2025 providing companies with time to take the necessary steps to eliminate any of the 24 listed chemicals from their cosmetic products. Of course, many companies have already taken steps to eliminate these chemicals from their products especially since many of these chemicals are already on California’s Proposition 65 list. However, unlike with Proposition 65 where compliance can be demonstrated by the provision of the requisite warnings, the Toxic Free Cosmetics Act will require elimination of these chemicals (with the exception of unavoidable trace quantities). 

We will continue to provide regulatory updates as more states are likely to follow California’s lead in regulating these chemicals in various personal care products.