Member DashboardEPA considers relaxing HFC requirements
Comments are due Nov. 17 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to relax some compliance deadlines and thresholds of its October 2023 Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Restrictions on the Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020. Current compliance dates for the October 2023 rule vary from Jan. 1, 2025, to Jan. 1, 2028.
EPA evaluates revisions to TSCA requirements
EPA proposes amending the procedural framework rule for conducting existing chemical risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under the proposal, EPA would rescind or revise certain 2024 amendments to ensure that the framework does not “impede the timely completion of risk evaluations or impair the effective and efficient protection of health and the environment.” Comments were due Nov. 7. The agency is considering multiple issues, including:
- Whether TSCA necessitates a single risk determination for each chemical evaluated versus a risk determination for each condition of use.
- Whether EPA must evaluate all conditions of use and all exposure routes and pathways in a risk evaluation.
- Whether and how the use of personal protective equipment and engineering and administrative controls in an occupational work environment should be considered.
New alternatives listed in proposed SNAP Rule 27
Substitute refrigerants acceptable in refrigeration, air conditioning and fire suppression systems are listed in the proposed Significant New Alternative Program (SNAP) Rule 27. Comments are due Dec. 26 or 30 days after a public hearing, if one is held. Additional information is in EPA’s fact sheet.
New rule on HFCs takes effect Nov. 29 in Washington
Washington State’s HFC and Other Fluorinated Gases Rule, which requires transitions away from some HFC, aerosol propellants and foams, takes effect Nov. 29. The Rule aligns with EPA’s transition dates for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. Contact Gopika Patwa at the state’s Department of Ecology with questions.
PFAS updates
- California Governor Newsom vetoed SB 682 that would have imposed further bans on PFAS in the state. “I encourage the author and stakeholders to continue discussions in this space, while ensuring that we are not sacrificing the ability of Californians to afford household products like cookware with efforts to address the prevalence of PFAS,’ Newsome wrote. NAFEM joined numerous nationwide and California-based organizations in urging the Governor to veto the bill.
- The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) released draft regulations implementing its PFAS Protection Act (HB 212). The proposal includes labeling requirements for covered and some exempt products that could impact NAFEM members. NMED aims to issue final rules by June 30.
- In response to NAFEM’s request for clarity, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) edited its guidance to the state’s Consumer PFAS Ban Act of 2024. “Cookware items with electrical components are not included within the definition of cookware. For example, an electric coffee machine is not subject to the ban.”
- Current and proposed state and federal regulations addressing PFAS are included in the regularly updated Complex Product Manufacturers Coalition spreadsheet.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) updates
- Extended producer responsibility (EPR) efforts hold producers responsible for the lifecycle of their products. Multiple states have approved EPR compliance plans, thus far primarily focused on packaging such as plastics, paper and single-use products and others are considering similar programs. As this issue is expected to intensify, NAFEM’s legal counsel provided an overview.
- California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act requires producers of residential and commercial single-use packaging and plastic single-use foodservice ware to join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) to fund the end of life of those materials, which includes processing and recycling. The state has engaged the nonprofit Circular Action Alliance (CAA) to administer its program. CAA operates as the single PRO in California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota and Oregon. NAFEM members are encouraged to speak with their legal teams to determine if the packaging materials associated with their products are covered by EPR laws
- NAFEM joined numerous organizations expressing concern to Colorado Governor Jared Polis about the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requested removal of mass balance as a measurement tool for recycled materials, despite this being a gold standard international approach to certification. Colorado continues to work toward its EPR program, also with CAA.
- In Minnesota, the Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) was charged with appointing a 15-member Task Force to advise the agency on policy and program opportunities that would increase the recovery of critical materials – including aluminum, cobalt, copper, nickel and silicon – from end-of-life products. The Task Force is meeting through 2025. MPCA also oversees the state’s Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act that requires producers – generally the brand owner, manufacturer or importer – to participate in a PRO, to coordinate and fund the statewide program. A fact sheet provides more information.