[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 93 (Thursday, May 15, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20575-20578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-08658]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0102; FRL-12651-01-OCSPP]
Hydrogen Fluoride; TSCA Section 21 Petition for Rulemaking Under
TSCA Section 6; Reasons for Agency Response; Denial of Requested
Rulemaking
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action announces the availability of the EPA's response
to a petition received on February 11, 2025, from the Clean Air
Council, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural Resources
Defense Council (petitioners). The petition requests that EPA establish
a TSCA rule prohibiting the use of hydrogen fluoride (HF) in domestic
oil refining to eliminate unreasonable risks to public health and the
environment. After careful consideration, EPA has denied the TSCA
petition for the reasons set forth in this notice.
DATES: EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed May
9, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0102, is available
online at https://www.regulations.gov. Additional instructions on
visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets
generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact: Thomas Groeneveld, Existing
Chemicals Risk Management Division (7404T), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-
566-1188; email address: [email protected].
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who manufacture (including
import), process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of hydrogen
fluoride (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) 7664-39-
3). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action.
B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?
Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA
to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a
rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8, or to issue an order under TSCA
section 4, 5(e), or 5(f). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to initiate
the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition
within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency
must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the
petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the
Federal Register. A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S.
district court seeking to compel initiation of the requested proceeding
within 60 days of a denial or, if EPA does not issue a decision, within
60 days of the expiration of the 90-day period.
C. What criteria apply to a decision on this TSCA section 21 petition?
1. Legal Standard Regarding TSCA Section 21 Petitions
TSCA section 21(b)(1) requires that the petition ``set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary'' to initiate
the proceeding requested (15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1)). Thus, in addition to
petitioners' burden under TSCA section 21 itself, TSCA section 21
implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the
requested actions. Accordingly, EPA has reviewed this section 21
petition by considering the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the
provisions under which actions have been requested.
2. Legal Standard Regarding TSCA Section 6(a)
Under TSCA section 6(a), if EPA determines after conducting a risk
evaluation that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce,
use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any
combination of such activities, presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment, EPA will issue a rulemaking to apply one
or more of TSCA section 6(a) requirements to the extent necessary so
that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents such risk. In
proposing and promulgating rules under TSCA section 6(a), EPA
considers, among other things, the provisions of TSCA sections 6(c)(2),
6(d), 6(g), and 9. In addition, TSCA section 26(h) requires EPA, in
carrying out TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6, to use ``scientific
information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols,
methodologies, or models, employed in a manner consistent with the best
available science,'' while also taking into account other
considerations, including the relevance of information and any
uncertainties (15 U.S.C. 2625(h)). TSCA section 26(i)
[[Page 20576]]
requires that decisions under TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 be ``based on
the weight of scientific evidence'' (15 U.S.C. 2625(i)). TSCA section
26(k) requires that EPA consider information that is reasonably
available in carrying out TSCA sections 4, 5, and 6 (15 U.S.C.
2625(k)).
II. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition
A. What action was requested?
On February 11, 2025, EPA received a TSCA section 21 petition (Ref.
1) from the Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment,
and Natural Resources Defense Council. The petition requests EPA
``establish a Section 6(a) rule prohibiting the use of HF in domestic
oil refining to eliminate unreasonable risks to public health and the
environment'' (Ref. 1, p. 3). The petition explains that ``TSCA
requires EPA to issue such a rule because this petition identifies (1)
a [`]chemical substance['] (HF) that presents, (2) under one or more
[`]conditions of use['] (the use of HF for alkylation at U.S.
refineries, and the rail and truck transportation needed to supply HF
to those refineries), (3) an unreasonable risk to health or the
environment'' (Ref. 1, p. 3).
B. What support did the petitioners offer?
To support the request for issuance of a rule under TSCA section
6(a), the petitioners provided several appendices to the petition that
contain data and literature on HF-using refineries (Ref. 2), releases
at HF-using refineries since 1987 (Ref. 3), and transportation-related
releases of HF (Ref. 4). Supporting information included discussions of
the human health hazards associated with exposure to HF (Ref. 1, pp. 4-
10), and the potential for exposure to HF for various human
populations, including scenarios for hypothetical catastrophic releases
that occur on-site, that disperse to off-site, and that occur along
rail and road transportation routes for HF-using refineries (Ref. 1,
pp. 11-37). In general, the petition and appendices included three
categories of information related to releases at HF-using refineries:
(1) documented, historical releases; (2) controlled, experimental
releases; and (3) modeled, hypothetical releases (Refs. 1, 3, and 4).
The petitioners also described challenges and particularly vulnerable
populations associated with hypothetical catastrophic releases from HF-
using refineries (Ref. 1, pp. 38-41), and assertions related to the
likelihood of such releases (Ref. 1, pp. 41-48). The petitioners also
described how hypothetical catastrophic releases of HF from refineries
or in transit could affect the environment (e.g., crops, livestock, and
pets) and critical infrastructure (Ref. 1, pp. 48-53). The petitioners
also described that existing federal regulations and industry
recommended practices are not adequate to eliminate risks associated
with hypothetical catastrophic releases from HF-using refineries (Ref.
1, pp. 53-55), and that currently there are alternatives to HF for use
for alkylation and refineries that have converted to the use of such
chemical substances (Ref. 1, pp. 55-56). The petitioners also provided
a list of endnotes and of references cited (Ref. 1, pp. 58-75).
EPA also has received public comments on the petition, which can be
viewed via docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0102, through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
III. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition
A. What is EPA's response?
After careful consideration, EPA has denied this TSCA section 21
petition. A copy of the Agency's response, which consists of the letter
to the petitioners and this document, is posted on the EPA TSCA
petition website at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tsca-section-21#hydrogen-fluoride-domestic-oil-refining. The response, the petition (Ref. 1), and other information is
available in the docket for this TSCA section 21 petition (see
ADDRESSES).
B. What was EPA's reason for this response?
TSCA section 21 provides for the submission of a petition seeking
the initiation of a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal
of a rule under TSCA section 6. The petition must set forth the facts
which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to issue the
requested rule (15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1)). When determining whether the
petition meets that burden here, EPA considered whether the petition
established that it is necessary to issue a TSCA section 6(a) rule to
address the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or
disposal of the petitioned substances, or any combination of such
activities, that the petitioners claim present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment within the meaning of TSCA section
6(a) (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)). For EPA to be able to conclude within the
statutorily-mandated 90 days of receiving the petition that the
initiation of a proceeding for the issuance of a TSCA section 6(a) rule
is necessary, the petition would need to be sufficiently clear and
robust.
EPA evaluated the information presented in the petition and
considered that information in the context of the applicable
authorities and requirements of TSCA sections 6, 9, 21, and 26.
Notwithstanding that the burden is on the petitioners to set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary for EPA to
issue the rule sought, EPA nonetheless also considered relevant
information that was reasonably available to the Agency during the 90-
day petition review period. As detailed further in Unit III.B.1., EPA
finds that the petitioners did not meet their burden under TSCA section
21(b)(1) of establishing that it is necessary to issue a rule under
TSCA section 6(a). These deficiencies, among other findings, are
detailed in this notice.
1. Catastrophic Releases Are Not Appropriate Circumstances for
Consideration in the Manner Petitioners Suggest
The petitioners' request for a rule is insufficient because it is
predicated on releases that are inappropriate for consideration as part
of the determination of unreasonable risk under TSCA section 6.
Throughout the petition, the petitioners describe incidents of concern
related to the use of HF for alkylation as ``catastrophic releases,''
cite authorities germane to ``accidental'' releases, and mention
``extreme weather'' and ``natural disaster'' as factors that could
affect the likelihood of the occurrence of or complicate responses to a
release of HF (Ref. 1). EPA has publicly stated that it does not
consider exposures from such circumstances to be reasonably foreseen
and, therefore, generally would not assess them as part of a risk
evaluation ((89 FR 37028, May 4, 2024) (FRL-8529-02-OCSPP); Refs. 5 and
6).
As described in Unit I.C.2., a request under TSCA section 21 for
rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a) requires that the petition ``set
forth the facts which it is claimed establish'' (15 U.S.C.2620(b)(1))
``that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or
disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any combination of
such activities, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment'' (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)). Under TSCA section 6(a), the
determination of unreasonable risk must be made ``in accordance with
[TSCA section] 6(b)(4)(A)'' (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)), which establishes the
general processes
[[Page 20577]]
for conducting TSCA risk evaluations. More specifically, the Agency
``shall conduct risk evaluations . . . to determine whether a chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors,
including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation . . . under
the conditions of use'' (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A)). ``Conditions of
use'' are defined as ``circumstances, as determined by the
Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or
reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in
commerce, used, or disposed of'' (15 U.S.C. 2602(4)). Among several
additional requirements applicable to ``conditions of use of the
chemical substance,'' the Agency ``shall . . . take into account, where
relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of
exposures'' (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iv)).
The petition explains the ``storage, use, recycling, and any mixing
or blending of HF for alkylation at U.S. oil refineries are
[`]conditions of use['] of HF because they are among the
[`]circumstances . . . under which [HF] is . . . known . . . to be . .
. used[']'' (Ref. 1, p. 3). The petition in two endnotes discusses how
CASRN 7664-39-3 refers to both hydrogen fluoride and hydrofluoric acid,
the relationship between ``anhydrous HF'' and the former substances,
and that certain refineries use ``modified HF'' that is ``chemically
similar to pure anhydrous HF'' to clarify the request that the
requested action apply to the used of ``modified HF, as well pure
anhydrous HF'' (Ref. 1, pp. 3 and 58, Endnotes 1 and 2). The petition
then argues ``[t]he chances of a catastrophic refinery-related HF
release in this country are substantial and growing by the day . . .
[and t]he risk of a further and catastrophic refinery-related HF
release is mounting as our refineries, railways, and highways age and
become ever more vulnerable to extreme weather'' (Ref. 1, p. 2). To
support this claim, the petition states ``[s]ince the late 1980s, HF
has been released from alkylation units at U.S. oil refineries at least
79 times . . . [and] refineries have experienced fires, explosions, and
other failures that nearly led to large HF releases'' (Ref. 1, p. 41).
The petition then describes three incidents where HF was released at
U.S. refineries (Ref. 1, pp. 41-43), and includes an appendix that
lists releases at HF-using refineries since 1987 (Ref. 3). The petition
also points to: (1) the relative age of U.S. refineries using HF for
alkylation; (2) comparisons between the safety records for U.S.
refineries, their international counterparts, and other U.S. industrial
sectors; (3) concerns related to extreme weather events and effects on
refinery infrastructure; and (4) incidents where HF and other chemicals
were released during rail and truck transportation (Ref. 1, pp. 44-48).
The petition concludes ``[e]ach of these factors increases the
likelihood of further releases, including catastrophic ones'' (Ref. 1,
p. 41).
As explained in the preamble to the Agency's final rule
``Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)'' (89 FR 37028, May 4, 2024) (FRL-8529-02-OCSPP)),
EPA may exercise judgment in making its determination as to whether a
particular circumstance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen, and
therefore falls within the definition of ``condition of use'' for a
particular chemical. The Agency uses a fact-specific process involving
professional judgment in ``weighing whether exposures from spills,
leaks, accidents and climate-related impacts would be regular or
predictable, versus those that are unsubstantiated, speculative or
otherwise not likely to occur. A future one-time accident caused by an
atypical one-time set of circumstances, for example, would likely not
be considered `reasonably foreseen.' EPA believes that this approach is
consistent with the statutory text and structure, as well as
Congressional intent'' (89 FR 37028 and 89 FR 37033, May 4, 2024) (FRL-
8529-02-OCSPP)). In response to public comments that supported that
final rule, the Agency also described the circumstances that would be
included: ``where EPA has reasonably available information
demonstrating that certain exposures associated with a spill or leak
are known or reasonably foreseen to occur (e.g., regular or predictable
exposures from equipment leaks as part of the manufacturing process),
EPA would expect to include that exposure within the scope of the risk
evaluation'' (Ref. 5; p. 14). More recently, EPA reiterated this
interpretation in a scoping document for an ongoing risk evaluation:
``EPA generally does not include in the scope of the risk evaluation
catastrophic accidents, extreme weather events, and other natural
disasters if such events do not lead to regular and predictable
exposures associated with a given condition of use. However, such a
determination requires a fact-specific, chemical-by-chemical analysis .
. . . Thus, EPA would consider including such events (e.g.,
catastrophic accidents, extreme weather events, and other natural
disasters) in the scope of the risk evaluation if the Agency receives
information indicating regular and predictable changes in exposures
associated with these events'' (Ref. 6; p. 17).
In sum, because TSCA section 21 incorporates the statutory
standards that apply to the requested actions under TSCA section 6, the
petitioners must meet the burdens established in TSCA section 21(b)(1)
and TSCA section 6(a). In totality, TSCA section 6(a) requires that a
determination of unreasonable risk must be made ``in accordance with
[TSCA section] 6(b)(4)(A)'' and ``under the conditions of use'' defined
to be ``circumstances . . . under which a chemical substance is . . .
reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in
commerce, used, or disposed of'' (15 U.S.C. 2605(a), 2605(b)(4), and
2602(4)). As explained by EPA here and in several published documents
related to its risk evaluation process, the Agency ``shall . . . take
into account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity,
frequency, and number of exposures'' (15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iv)) and
that ``EPA generally does not include in the scope of the risk
evaluation catastrophic accidents, extreme weather events, and other
natural disasters if such events do not lead to regular and predictable
exposures associated with a given condition of use'' (Ref. 6; p. 17).
While the petitioners can point to historical incidents at
refineries in which several thousand pounds of HF were released, none
of these releases even approach the ``worst-case'' scenario release
numbers upon which the petition premises its quantitative risk analysis
(Ref. 1). Thus, although the petition asserts some factors that
``increase[] the likelihood of further releases, including catastrophic
ones,'' the petition did not establish the likely duration, intensity,
frequency, and number of exposures of HF involving such releases,
especially in light of the wildly varying circumstances of the
incidents invoked by the petition and the petition's approach of simply
assuming large-scale releases (which the petition frequently
characterizes as ``worst-case'' scenarios) (Ref. 1). Moreover, the
Agency has been consistent in its position that it is not appropriate
to consider catastrophic or accidental releases, extreme weather
events, and natural disasters that do not lead to regular and
predictable exposures. As such, the Agency
[[Page 20578]]
concluded that the petitioners did not establish the likely duration,
intensity, frequency, and number of exposures resulting from
catastrophic releases of HF used in or distributed for domestic
refining. Therefore, notwithstanding the data and analyses provided in
the petition, the petitioners' underlying rationale to support that
that is necessary to initiate the proceeding requested is deficient.
2. Summary of Applicable Federal Authorities and Recommended Practices
The petitioners argue that a TSCA section 6(a) rule is necessary
because ``[e]xisting government and industry initiatives have fallen
far short of eliminating the unreasonable risks that refinery use of HF
present to public health and the environment'' (Ref. 1, p. 53). The
petition briefly describes the Risk Management Program (RMP)
established via section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C.
7412(r)) and the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous
Chemicals regulations (29 CFR 1910.119) implemented by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. In a discussion of how other federal
statutes and regulations designate HF as a hazardous (or extremely
hazardous) substance, the petition also cites relevant portions of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Clean
Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). The petition also describes the American
Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice 751 on ``Safe Operation of
HF Alkylation Units'' (API RP-751), which the petitioners describe as
``the most detailed national standards available'' while also pointing
to ``limitations of relying on voluntary industry guidance to protect
the public and environment'' (Ref. 1, p. 54-55). As explained in Unit
III.B.1., the petition fails to establish unreasonable risk because it
is predicated on circumstances EPA does not generally consider as part
of risk evaluation under TSCA section 6. Thus, the petitioners' claims
as to the efficacy of existing authorities and recommended practices to
eliminate such risks is moot.
C. What were EPA's conclusions?
The petitioners' request to initiate a proceeding for the issuance
of a rule under TSCA section 6(a) is deficient for the reasons
explained in this notice. While the petitioners can point to historical
incidents of HF releases at refineries, the petition did not establish
the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures of
HF involving such releases. In their own words, the petitioners
describe the releases as catastrophic, accidental, and worst-case
scenarios, as well as circumstances involving extreme weather and
natural disaster events. The Agency has been consistent in its position
that it is not appropriate for a risk evaluation in accordance with
TSCA section 6(b) to consider catastrophic or accidental releases,
extreme weather events, and natural disasters that do not lead to
regular and predictable exposures. As a result, the facts presented in
the petition did not establish unreasonable risk under the conditions
of use of using and distributing in commerce HF for domestic refining.
By extension, the petitioners' claim that governmental authorities and
industry programs cannot eliminate such unreasonable risk is moot.
Accordingly, EPA denied the request to initiate a proceeding for the
issuance of a rule under TSCA section 6(a).
IV. References
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, and the
Natural Resources Defense Council. 2025. Petition to Prohibit the
Use of Hydrogen Fluoride in Domestic Oil Refining under Sections 21
and 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
2. Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, and the
Natural Resources Defense Council. 2025. Petition to Prohibit the
Use of Hydrogen Fluoride in Domestic Oil Refining under Sections 21
and 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act--Appendix A.
3. Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, and the
Natural Resources Defense Council. 2025. Petition to Prohibit the
Use of Hydrogen Fluoride in Domestic Oil Refining under Sections 21
and 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act--Appendix B.
4. Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, and the
Natural Resources Defense Council. 2025. Petition to Prohibit the
Use of Hydrogen Fluoride in Domestic Oil Refining under Sections 21
and 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act--Appendix C.
5. EPA. April 2024. Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0496]; EPA
Response to Public Comments.
6. EPA. January 2025. Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Vinyl
Chloride (Ethene, chloro-) [CASRN 75-01-4].
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
Dated: May 12, 2025.
Nancy B. Beck,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2025-08658 Filed 5-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P