WASHINGTON (December 6, 2024) – The American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued the following statement today on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) release of a final procedural rule for new chemicals reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA):
“EPA missed an opportunity to improve the predictability and timeliness of the TSCA New Chemicals program. EPA has not been able to make meaningful progress towards meeting its 90-day statutory timeline to clear Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) and unacceptable delays are ongoing. Investments in domestic production depend on being able to source critical chemistries made here in the United States.
“Delays aren’t just ongoing with respect to PMN reviews, either; the entire process continues to be bogged down. We therefore urge EPA to immediately begin tracking and releasing data publicly to show total “time to market” for PMN substances, which includes any time needed to complete a consent order or significant new use rule (SNUR).
“In addition, EPA’s removal of the low-volume exemption (LVE) creates an unnecessary hurdle for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that will further compound delays. LVEs for PFAS chemistries are critical in healthcare and pharmaceutical applications, semiconductor manufacturing, and in automotive and aerospace technologies. We strongly oppose EPA's latest approach to categorically eliminating LVEs and LoREXes for PFAS chemistries and subjecting them to the slow, broken new chemicals review process. It is a well-established fact that not all PFAS are the same.
“Individual chemistries have differing health and environmental profiles, making it scientifically inappropriate and grossly inaccurate to impose broad, sweeping regulations on the entire class. By adopting a one-size-fits-all strategy, EPA disregards scientific consensus and contradicts its own methodologies used in other regulatory frameworks, such as the Clean Air Act and the Agency’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap.
“This misguided approach to chemical regulation has been rejected by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and contradicts guidance from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which clearly states that the term “PFAS” does not determine a substance's potential harm.
“PFAS are a diverse group of chemistries essential to numerous national priorities, including defense, electronics, semiconductors, energy, healthcare, and agriculture. Unfortunately, EPA has hamstrung the ability to supply small quantities of critical substances to industries the Biden Administration has declared national priorities.
“Policymakers have increasingly recognized the critical importance of PFAS chemistries, with most state and federal regulatory efforts adopting a targeted approach. It is deeply disappointing that EPA would issue such a sweeping, unscientific regulation that threatens vital industries. We will actively work with policymakers to advocate for a science-based approach that is protective of human health and the environment that are mindful of our national security and global competitiveness.”
