EPA Proposes Threshold for Formaldehyde Risk

In a proposed rule published in the Federal Register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presents revised hazard values for its risk evaluation of formaldehyde. The revisions include a new acute inhalation point of departure (POD), a revised uncertainty factor, and a 0.3 parts per million (ppm) threshold used in EPA’s risk determinations. Based on these changes, EPA states that certain conditions of use previously identified as presenting unreasonable risk to workers and occupational non-users are no longer expected to exceed EPA’s risk benchmark.

 

Formaldehyde is widespread in the environment and is produced through natural processes such as organic decay and combustion, as well as through industrial manufacturing. It is used in the production of composite wood products, building materials, plastics, paints, adhesives, and sealants.

 

EPA finalized its risk evaluation for formaldehyde in January 2025. The evaluation relied on toxicity values developed by EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), including the non-cancer reference concentration (RfC) and inhalation unit risk (IUR). In the proposed rule, EPA cites reviews by its Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), Human Studies Review Board (HSRB), and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that raised concerns with the IRIS values.

 

EPA’s final risk evaluation used an acute inhalation POD of 0.5 ppm and an intrapopulation uncertainty factor of 10. In the proposed rule, EPA adopts a POD of 0.3 ppm and an intrapopulation uncertainty factor of 1, citing recommendations from the HSRB and SACC. EPA states that 0.3 ppm corresponds to the lowest exposure level at which irritation was reported in hypersensitive individuals in the studies it relied upon.

 

Using the revised hazard values, EPA states that five conditions of use no longer exceed its benchmark for unreasonable risk for workers and occupational non-users. These include lawn and garden products; oxidizing and reducing agents; certain adhesive and sealant uses in manufacturing and construction; recycling; and laboratory chemicals.

 

EPA also states that it is continuing to develop a risk management rule for formaldehyde.

 

 

OSHA addresses questions about engineering controls regarding its standards for benzene and 1,3-butadiene in a letter of interpretation issued earlier this year. The agency received an inquiry about whether installing bellow valves, leak-proof, or double-seal valves would qualify as engineering controls under these standards. OSHA responded that such valves “would be considered forms of engineering controls” but stressed that “[l]eak detection is an important part of complying with” its benzene and 1,3-butadiene standards. Additional questions addressed in the letter have to do with conventional non-bellow, non-leak proof, non-double seal valves and fugitive emissions threshold limits of mechanical seals and valves. The letter about engineering controls under OSHA’s benzene and 1,3-butadiene standards is one of seven highlighted in an agency news release published last week. OSHA’s letters of interpretation are intended to explain how the agency’s requirements apply to particular circumstances.

 

The other letters listed in the news release address topics such as how to conduct audiometric testing of a worker using a cochlear implant and whether OSHA would accept documents generated by a company’s own software solution to satisfy recordkeeping requirements related to OSHA Forms 300 and 300A. Another letter has to do with permit-required confined spaces—specifically, if OSHA’s relevant standard “requires employers to drain water from pipes before entering for repairs, even when a hazard assessment shows no risk of rupture or leaks.”

 

The letters are part of an “opinion letter program” launched in June by the Department of Labor. The program is intended to expand compliance assistance resources provided by OSHA, MSHA, and other enforcement agencies within the department.

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it intends to regulate certain uses of five phthalate chemicals following the completion of final risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The chemicals evaluated are Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (BBP), Dibutyl Phthalate (DBP), Dicyclohexyl Phthalate (DCHP), Diethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP), and Diisobutyl Phthalate (DIBP). These substances are commonly used to increase flexibility in plastics for a range of building, commercial, and industrial applications.

 

According to EPA, the risk evaluations determined that each of the five phthalates presents unreasonable risk to workers under certain conditions of use, and that some also present unreasonable risk to the environment. EPA states that its findings are based on peer-reviewed scientific assessments and input from independent reviewers. The agency indicates that future regulatory actions will focus on the specific uses that were found to present unreasonable risk.

 

EPA’s evaluations identified potential health effects associated with phthalate exposure, including endocrine-related effects, at exposure levels above those associated with adverse outcomes. EPA states that risk determinations are based on whether exposures exceed levels of concern, rather than on the presence of the chemical alone.

 

Under TSCA, EPA’s risk evaluations address uses within the scope of the statute and do not assess exposures from food, food additives, food packaging, medical devices, cosmetics, or other products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or the Consumer Product Safety Commission. For consumer uses evaluated under TSCA, EPA states that it did not identify unreasonable risks to the general population.

 

EPA’s cumulative exposure analysis considered simultaneous exposure to multiple phthalates using available data for individuals aged four years and older. For children under four, EPA applied modeling approaches to evaluate exposures associated with behaviors such as toy mouthing in infants and young children.

 

EPA reports the following findings by chemical:

 

EPA states that it will next develop risk management rules to address the identified unreasonable risks. According to the agency, this process will include consideration of measures such as engineering controls, personal protective equipment, and other approaches intended to reduce exposures for affected workers and to mitigate environmental impacts.

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a settlement agreement with CIL Electroplating, Inc. (CIL), a Massachusetts-based metal plating and finishing company to resolve violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management regulations at CIL's metal plating facility in Lawrence, Massachusetts.

 

"The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is in place to ensure the safe management of solid and hazardous waste," said EPA New England Regional Administrator Mark Sanborn. "The agreement with CIL Electroplating, Inc. exemplifies EPA's core mission to protect human health and the environment and ensure clean air, land and water for every American."

 

During an inspection of CIL's facility, EPA identified multiple RCRA violations related to hazardous waste container storage, labelling, waste determinations, personnel training, and more. Under the agreement, CIL will pay a civil penalty of $136,383. CIL has certified that it has returned to compliance with RCRA and the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management regulations.

 

CIL is a metal plating and finishing company located at 125 Glenn Street in Lawrence, Massachusetts that employs an estimated 140 total workers. The facility operates as a job shop conducting cadmium, electroless nickel, tin, tin-lead, copper, silver, gold, black oxide, phosphate, zinc, manganese, iron, and other types of metal plating for a wide variety of industries. CIL has a sister company, CIL, Inc., also located in Lawrence.

 

Hazardous waste that is improperly managed poses a serious threat to human health and the environment. The RCRA statute, enacted in 1976, set up a framework to make sure that hazardous wastes are properly classified, managed, and disposed of. EPA's regulations under RCRA protect the public and the environment from exposures to pollutants in hazardous waste.

 

 

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has again cited an Easton concrete and earthwork contractor for willfully failing to protect workers from cave-in and excavation hazards and proposed more than $1.2 million in fines after a follow-up inspection uncovered numerous willful violations.

 

In December 2023, OSHA officials responded to a workplace fatality at a New Canaan worksite that claimed the life of a Sound Construction Inc. worker. As a result of that investigation, OSHA cited the employer for two willful and five serious violations and entered into a settlement agreement requiring the owner to submit monthly lists of active worksites and allow OSHA to randomly inspect them to determine trenching and excavation safety standard compliance.

 

On June 12, 2025, OSHA initiated an inspection at a Sound Construction site in Stamford and cited the employer for seven willful and four serious violations related to excavation hazards. Inspectors found the employer failed to train workers on unsafe trenching and excavation hazards, provide adequate protection from cave-ins, require daily excavation inspections, follow trench shield installation standards, and backfill shields to prevent hazardous movement.

 

OSHA proposed $1,224,798 in penalties for violations found in the follow-up inspection.

 

The employer has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Penalties and citations may be adjusted throughout the course of the case process. Please check the OSHA establishment search page periodically for any changes in the inspection or penalty status.

 

 

The U.S. Department of Labor has cited an Ohio commercial bakery after a federal investigation determined the employer had allegedly exposed workers to unsafe working conditions including chemical, caught-between and caught-in, pinch-point, and struck-by hazards.

 

In addition to these serious safety violations, OSHA cited the employer for three repeat violations for failing to train workers on lockout/tagout procedures, failing to lockout and tagout machines, and failing to guard dangerous machines. These violations exposed employes to pinch-point, struck-by, and caught-in hazards.

 

OSHA cited New Horizons Baking Co. for three repeat, nine serious and one other-than-serious violations, with proposed penalties of $394,849.

 

The company has 15 business days from receipt of their citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Penalties and citations may be adjusted throughout the course of the case. Please check the OSHA establishment search page periodically for any changes in the inspection or penalty status.

 

 

A new video released by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) features an animation of an April 2021 explosion and fire at a resin plant in Columbus, Ohio, that fatally injured one employee. Eight others were seriously injured, with one worker requiring a leg amputation after being crushed under collapsed debris. According to CSB’s final investigation report on the incident (PDF), released in 2023, the explosion at the Yenkin-Majestic facility “was seen, heard, or felt throughout parts of Columbus,” and the resulting fire burned for about 11 hours. The plant was demolished afterward, and Yenkin-Majestic has estimated that the incident caused more than $90 million in property damage.

 

The incident began during a batch operation to produce resin. The plant’s system design allowed an operator to add flammable solvent to a kettle, or low-pressure vessel, containing hot resin while the kettle’s agitator was unexpectedly off. This meant that the solvent formed a liquid layer on top of the resin instead of mixing with it. The operator then realized that the agitator was off and turned it back on, which CSB explains led to the liquid solvent vaporizing as it came into contact with the hot resin. The resulting rapid pressure increase inside the kettle “led to the failure of the kettle’s new manway that was installed approximately three months before the incident,” the agency said. After the manway failed, the escaped vapor formed a flammable cloud that spread through the facility and ignited.

 

“CSB’s investigation determined that Yenkin-Majestic failed to ensure the mechanical integrity of the newly installed manway, which was not adequately designed, constructed, or pressure tested,” CSB Board Member Sylvia Johnson explains in the video. “The company also lacked engineering controls that could have prevented the incident and did not have adequate emergency response preparations in place.”

 

CSB’s investigation report further describes the facility’s “gap in engineering controls.” According to the agency, Yenkin-Majestic equipped the kettle with several interlocks intended to support its safe operation. But the company did not add an interlock to prevent solvent from being added to the kettle while its agitator was off, which CSB says contributed to what happened during the incident in 2021. The video outlines the safety issue related to the hierarchy of controls as well as issues regarding mechanical integrity of low-pressure vessels and emergency preparedness.