January 27, 2022

Volume XII, Number 27

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 25, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

EPA Forges Ahead on EO Actions without Completing Review of the Controversial IRIS Value or Its Use in Rulemaking

Key Takeaways

  • Ethylene Oxide (EO) remains a high priority for the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from both a risk and an environmental justice standpoint. Expect that spotlight to continue next year and beyond.

  • In response to criticism from its Office of Inspector General (OIG), EPA has moved forward with a number of proposed resolutions. These include:

    • Multiple public meetings to inform communities about the alleged risks the Agency argues EO poses. Most of these meetings were held in Texas and Louisiana at EO manufacturing facilities; several meetings were quite contentious.

    • Information requests for EO – and chloroprene – emitting source categories. Over the summer, EPA extended last year’s information request in connection with its review of the Sterilizer MACT. EPA also recently announced plans to issue an information request to EO manufacturers as part of its review of the Hazardous Organics NESHAP (HON).

  • Moreover, EPA continues to defend its controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) value for EO. Although EPA finally – after years of delay – agreed to review its “use” of the IRIS EO in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review (MON RTR), the Agency (as well as states and plaintiffs’ attorneys) continues to forge ahead as though the IRIS value were uncontroverted. It is not.

  • Affected companies should take proactive steps now to identify, understand, and manage the risks in connection with increased attention on EO emissions as a result of new regulations, enforcement cases, and toxic tort litigation.

Community Risk Communications

Over the summer and into the fall, EPA conducted multiple facility-specific community outreach meetings, primarily in Region 6, to communicate the Agency’s views on the enhanced risks of EO. The meetings were an outgrowth of the running dispute between EPA and OIG about EPA’s communications to residents near 25 EO-emitting facilities.

The meetings varied in their agenda, level of public participation, contention, and the amount of time allotted to industry representatives. Several highlighted charged community attitudes toward EPA, state agencies, and industry. In most meetings, industry stakeholders had little opportunity to participate. EPA stated it will respond to all questions raised during the meetings on its website, but has not yet done so.

Notwithstanding these efforts, OIG remains dissatisfied with EPA’s proposal to develop procedures for communicating air toxic risks. OIG earlier concluded that Region 5 delayed releasing information about the Sterigenics facility in Willowbrook, Illinois for political reasons. In response, EPA proposed that it would develop operating procedures for communicating risks to its “partners.” In November, OIG insisted that its directive was for the Agency to develop communication procedures for the public, not just EPA’s “partners.”

Residual Risk and Technology Reviews

OIG has also called on EPA to conduct new residual risk and technology reviews (RTRs) for numerous source categories based on EPA’s updated EO and chloroprene IRIS values and “to achieve environmental justice.” Among others, OIG identified the source categories of Group I polymers and resins, the synthetic organics chemical manufacturing industry, polyether polyols, commercial sterilizers, and hospital sterilizers.

In May, EPA announced renewal of last year’s information collection request for the Sterilizer MACT (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart O). 85 Fed. Reg. 35931 (June 12, 2020). Separately, in October, thirteen sterilizer facilities were notified that EPA was considering requiring them to report EO releases under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

Most recently, in late November, EPA announced to industry plans to issue information requests to several chemical manufacturers, including EO manufacturers, as part of its review of the HON (40 CFR Part 63, Subparts F, G, H and I). The information request will reportedly require fenceline monitoring of several hazardous air pollutants including EO, stack testing, and control device testing. EPA states that it plans to issue proposed revisions to the HON by the end of 2022 and a final rule by 2024.

EPA Agrees to Review Use of IRIS Value

The basis for all of EPA’s actions remains the controversial EO IRIS value. As we have noted previously, that EO value has come under considerable attack for being scientifically flawed – so much so that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) took measures to develop its own Effects Screening Level (ESL) for EO. The TCEQ standard estimates EO risk to be an order of magnitude less than EPA’s.

In June, after years of postponement, EPA finally granted reconsideration of its “use” of the IRIS value in developing the MON RTR. 84 Fed. Reg. 69182 (December 17, 2019)(MON proposal); 85 Fed. Reg. 49084 (August 12, 2020)(MON final rule). EPA has also agreed to reconsider the TCEQ EO ESL. The timing for that review is unclear. Nevertheless, EPA is moving quickly ahead on multiple initiatives that rest on an IRIS value that industry and some states believe is fundamentally flawed.

*          *          *          *          *

The impact of EPA’s IRIS value continues to extend well beyond the EPA. Several states (e.g., Georgia and Illinois) are also moving forward with restrictive EO standards of their own, justified by the IRIS value. Across multiple jurisdictions, toxic tort law suits cite to the IRIS value as a basis for establishing risk and causation. Environmental groups are also sounding alarms on EO, seeking new rules and citing to environmental justice considerations. Indeed, the OIG’s own critiques of EPA derive from its assumptions that the IRIS value is correct.

With all this momentum leading up to it, 2022 is poised to be another dynamic year of legal activity on EO. In the meantime, serious questions about the scientific underpinnings of the EO IRIS value go unaddressed.

Matt Schneider also contributed to this article.

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 342
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Madeleine Boyer Environmental Attorney Beveridge Diamond
Principal

Maddie brings 25 years of experience providing strategic and solutions-oriented counseling and representation on a broad range of US and Latin American environmental, health and safety standards.

Her portfolio includes environmental regulatory counseling; audit oversight and support; supply chain and product stewardship advocacy and compliance; and high-stakes enforcement matters. Her domestic caseload currently includes air and waste matters before the US Department of Justice, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, the US Environmental...

512-391-8010
Robert Brager Environmental Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Baltimore, MD
Principal

Robert Brager is recognized as one of the country’s top environmental lawyers, providing counseling, litigation, and negotiation services for Beveridge & Diamond clients since 1981.

Both a litigator and a counselor who uses his decades of experience in environmental law to help clients make reasoned judgments in complicated and difficult situations, Rob provides dispassionate, analytical thinking based on unbiased facts that have survived skeptical challenge.

Mr. Brager chose a career in environmental law due to the interplay of science with bias and the variability and...

410-230-1310
David M. Friedland Air Pollution Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC
Principal

David’s practice touches every aspect of the regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act and state and local air pollution statutes and regulations.

On the regulatory side, he has helped companies and trade associations prepare comments on scores of proposed rules including revisions to the ozone and particulate matter NAAQS, several rounds of PSD/NSR regulations (e.g., the WEPCO rule in 1992, the NSR Reform rule in 2002, the equipment replacement rule in 2003, and the Duke hourly rate rule in 2006), numerous MACT standards (e.g., the boiler, commercial and industrial solid...

202-789-6047
Laura K. McAfee Energy & Pipeline Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Baltimore, MD
Principal

Laura co-chairs the Energy & Pipelines group. 

A former chair of the Air group, Laura's practice is devoted primarily to Clean Air Act matters, including both environmental counseling and litigation. She has represented petroleum refineries, chemical companies, trade associations, municipal waste combustors, pharmaceutical companies, natural gas companies, and others on a wide range of permitting and compliance issues under the Clean Air Act and comparable state laws, including air toxics (MACT/NESHAPs), New Source Review, and Title V issues. She is actively involved in advising...

410-230-1330
Evynn M. Overton Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Baltimore, MD
Principal

Evynn represents clients in complex civil and criminal environmental litigation, working closely with technical experts to build strong technical defenses and address other client needs.

She excels at working collaboratively and efficiently, and in translating complex technical and legal issues into understandable terms.

Evynn manages sensitive internal investigations, implements strategies for providing fast-paced and cost-efficient responses to subpoenas and discovery requests, assists in the development and implementation of corporate compliance plans, and negotiates...

410-230-1347
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement