EPA Further Delays Requirements for Industrial Uses of TCE

The effective date for certain requirements of EPA’s risk management rule for the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) is again delayed, the agency announced in June. EPA’s action postpones the Toxic Substances Control Act section 6(g) exemptions in the rule for an additional 60 days, until Aug. 19, 2025. Under the final rule, most uses of TCE, including its manufacture and processing for all consumer and most commercial products, will be prohibited within one year. But the TSCA section 6(g) exemptions permit several industrial uses to continue for longer periods under certain restrictions, including a workplace chemical protection program and controls intended to limit occupational exposure to TCE. For example, one exemption for TCE is its use as a processing aid for specialty polymeric microporous sheet material manufacturing.

 

The workplace conditions required by the TSCA section 6(g) exemptions for TCE are the subject of ongoing legal challenges to the rule. EPA received several petitions for review of the TCE final rule in various circuits of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, including from battery-separator manufacturers arguing that “the interim workplace conditions are impracticable and function as a total ban.”

 

“Petitioners allege that because the interim workplace conditions would require petitioners to reduce TCE exposure levels to the [interim exposure level] of 0.2 ppm, the final rule effectively requires the use of personal protective equipment that cannot feasibly be worn all day, and therefore could cause petitioners to cease operations,” EPA explained in an earlier Federal Register notice.

 

While this litigation is pending, EPA’s latest postponement is intended to “temporarily preserve the status quo,” according to last month’s Federal Register notice addressing TCE.

 

The notice from June also indicates that EPA “intends to reconsider the final rule … through notice-and-comment rulemaking.” A document from the court case (PDF) further clarifies that the agency intends to revisit the rule’s exposure limit for uses of TCE permitted under TSCA section 6(g) exemptions. The inhalation exposure limit of 0.2 ppm as an eight-hour time-weighted average was set as part of EPA’s workplace chemical protection program for TCE.

 

 

Insufficient process safety management systems contributed to the fatal explosion and eruption at a liquid nitriding facility in Tennessee in May 2024, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Investigation Board has found. The results of CSB’s investigation of the incident are detailed in a final report that was released last month. Treating metal parts in the liquid nitriding process at the Techniques Surfaces USA (TS USA) facility involves a reaction to harden the surface of the metal, the report explains. According to CSB, the explosion happened while workers were processing rollers with cavities. A roller cavity containing water was introduced to an 800ºF oxidizing salt bath, where the hot salt caused the water in the cavity of the roller to expand and boil. This led to a steam explosion and an eruption of molten salt, which engulfed and fatally injured a line operator at the facility. The incident also caused more than $1 million in property damage and shut down the facility for about eight months.

 

CSB’s investigation found that TS USA lacked awareness of the accumulation hazards associated with the rollers with cavities. The agency also found that the facility and its parent company, HEF Groupe, did not have robust process safety management systems, as the systems in place did not include adequate procedures, training, hazard analyses, or incident investigations.

 

“Also contributing to the incident was HEF Groupe’s ineffective corporate governance and safety knowledge management, which did not ensure that critical safety information was communicated and accessible to all TS USA facilities, including details of prior safety incidents and the results of those investigations,” the CSB report concludes.

 

In addition to installing physical barriers around molten salt baths to protect workers from hazardous releases at all locations where liquid nitriding occurs, CSB recommends that TS USA implement a comprehensive safety management system that incorporates industry standards, including a hazard analysis program for assessing the nitriding process. The agency report also describes “key lessons” for the industry. For example, CSB urges companies in the industry to incorporate inherently safer design concepts into hazard analyses, which the agency says will help “ensure that there are effective and reliable controls to protect employees from process hazards.”

 

 

One final rule and 25 proposed rules were published by OSHA on Tuesday as part of what the Department of Labor describes as “aggressive deregulatory efforts.” The final rule is related to the role of a committee intended to advise OSHA’s assistant secretary of labor on construction standards and policy, and many of the proposed rules address respiratory protection requirements.

 

The final rule revokes 29 CFR 1911.10, which required the head of OSHA “to consult with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) in the formulation of rules to promulgate, modify, or revoke standards applicable to construction work.” The rule also revokes the general regulations in 29 CFR 1912.3 that governed the committee, including its composition. OSHA’s website describes ACCSH as “a continuing advisory body established by statute” while the text of the final rule states that this week’s changes are intended to “remove unnecessary procedural requirements … which are not statutorily required.”

 

One of OSHA’s new proposed rules seeks to amend the respiratory protection standard to remove some medical evaluation requirements for filtering-facepiece respirators (FFRs) and loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs).

 

Sixteen more proposed rules affect provisions regarding respiratory protection in some of OSHA’s substance-specific standards. For 13 substance-specific standards—including those for methylenedianiline, methylene chloride, lead, inorganic arsenic, ethylene oxide, cotton dust, coke oven emissions, cadmium, benzene, asbestos, 1,3-butadiene, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane, and 13 carcinogens (4-nitrobiphenyl, etc.)—the agency is proposing to revise requirements to allow different types of respirators to be used. According to the Federal Register notices, these changes are intended to “better [align] these standards with OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard.” Proposed changes to the vinyl chloride and formaldehyde standards have to do with removing language or requirements that OSHA says are duplicative with its respiratory protection standard, and the changes proposed for the agency’s acrylonitrile standard are meant to clarify policies and procedures for employers when implementing a respiratory protection program in conjunction with the standard.

 

Other rules proposed by OSHA on July 1 aim to rescind the agency’s construction illumination requirements and remove the COVID-19 emergency temporary standard and its associated recordkeeping and reporting provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations. The agency has also withdrawn a proposal to add a column to the OSHA 300 Log to record work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

 

A separate proposed rule seeks to codify “the principle that the General Duty Clause does not authorize OSHA to prohibit, restrict, or penalize inherently risky activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.” According to OSHA, sectors that may include workers engaged in “inherently risky employment activities” include live entertainment and performing arts, animal handling and performance, and professional and extreme sports. The proposal also lists “hazard-based media and journalism activities” as a sector for which the General Duty Clause may not require employers to remove hazards arising from “inherently risky” professional activities.

 

A full list of notices of the final rule and proposed rules published on July 1 can be found on the website of the Federal Register. OSHA is accepting comments on most of the proposed rules until Sept. 2, 2025.

 

 

The EPA has entered into a settlement agreement with Gateway Energy Storage, LLC to direct cleanup in the wake of a lithium-ion battery fire that occurred at the company’s energy storage facility in San Diego.

 

“Calling a technology ‘green energy’ does not mean there are no environmental impacts. This is an issue of growing concern,” said EPA Pacific Southwest Region Administrator Josh F.W. Cook. “I am alarmed by the incidents and impacts of utility grade battery fires on first responders, specifically the professional firefighters who are exposed to horrible toxic conditions when batteries catch fire. This settlement action is a step in the right direction, but the broader battery storage fire issue requires additional attention and EPA enforcement.”

 

On May 15, 2024, a fire broke out at the Gateway Energy Storage facility, with periodic flare-ups until May 28. The facility contained approximately 14,796 nickel-manganese-cobalt lithium-ion batteries. EPA is working in coordination with local fire authorities and the County of San Diego to oversee the cleanup effort undertaken by the responsible party.

 

Fire damaged batteries pose ongoing risks of fire, explosion, and chemical releases. In the agreement announced recently, EPA is requiring comprehensive safety measures and monitoring to protect nearby residents and workers during the cleanup process.

 

Under the settlement agreement, Gateway Energy Storage must conduct environmental monitoring during all battery handling operations; safely remove, package, and dispose of all impacted battery packs; and submit detailed work plans and progress reports to EPA.

 

Gateway Energy Storage, LLC operates the facility as a Delaware-incorporated limited liability company. The company is considered a responsible party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and must bear the costs of the cleanup.

 

The root cause of the fire remains under investigation. EPA and local agencies will continue to oversee cleanup activities until all work is completed and the site no longer poses a threat to public health or the environment.