From the perspective of risk and environmental justice, ethylene oxide (EO) remains the top priority of Biden's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This spotlight is expected to continue next year and beyond.

In response to the criticism from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), EPA made a number of proposed resolutions. These include:

Several public meetings have notified the community of the so-called risks that the agency believes EO poses. Most of these meetings were held at EO manufacturing plants in Texas and Louisiana; several meetings were quite controversial.

EO-and chloroprene-request for information on source categories. This summer, the EPA extended last year's request for information to review the sterilizer MACT. EPA also recently announced plans to issue information requests to EO manufacturers as part of its NESHAP (HON) review of hazardous organics.

In addition, EPA continues to defend the value of its controversial EO Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Although the EPA finally-after years of delay-agreed to review its "use" of IRIS EO in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technical Review (MON RTR), the agency (and the attorneys of the states and plaintiffs) continued Forge ahead, as if the IRIS value is undisputed. It is not.

Due to new regulations, law enforcement cases, and toxic infringement lawsuits, affected companies should immediately take active measures to identify, understand, and manage the risks associated with increased concerns about EO emissions.

During the summer and fall, the EPA held multiple community outreach meetings for specific facilities, mainly in District 6, to convey the agency's views on the increased risk of EO. These meetings are the product of an ongoing debate between EPA and OIG regarding communications between EPA and residents near the 25 EO emission facilities.

These meetings vary in terms of agenda, level of public participation, debate, and time allocated to industry representatives. Some people emphasized the community's attitudes toward EPA, state agencies, and industry. In most meetings, industry stakeholders have little opportunity to participate. EPA stated that it will respond to all questions raised during the meeting on its website, but has not yet done so.

Despite these efforts, OIG is still dissatisfied with the EPA's recommendation to develop air toxicity risk communication procedures. OIG earlier concluded that District 5 had delayed the release of information about the Sterigenics facility in Willowbrook, Illinois due to political reasons. In response, EPA proposed to develop operational procedures to communicate risks to its "partners." In November last year, OIG insisted that its directive was for the agency to develop communication procedures for the public, not just a “partner” of EPA.

OIG also called on EPA to conduct a new residual risk and technical review (RTR) based on the EPA's updated EO and chloroprene IRIS values ​​and many source categories that "achieve environmental justice." Among them, OIG has determined the source categories of Group I polymers and resins, synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industries, polyether polyols, commercial disinfectants and hospital disinfectants.

In May, the EPA announced an update to last year's information collection request for sterilizer MACT (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart O). 85 Federal Reserve. register. 35931 (June 12, 2020). In addition, in October, 13 disinfection facilities were notified that EPA is considering requiring them to report EO releases under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act.

Recently, in late November, the EPA announced that the industry plans to issue information requests to several chemical manufacturers, including EO manufacturers, as a review of HON (40 CFR Part 63, Subparts F, G, H, and I). a part of. According to reports, the information request will require fence monitoring of several hazardous air pollutants, including EO, stack testing, and control equipment testing. The EPA stated that it plans to issue the proposed amendments to HON before the end of 2022 and issue the final rule before 2024.

The basis of all EPA actions is still the controversial EO IRIS value. As we pointed out before, the EO value has been attacked considerably due to scientific flaws-so much so that the Texas Environmental Quality Commission (TCEQ) has taken steps to establish its own EO Effect Screening Level (ESL). The TCEQ standard estimates that the risk of EO is an order of magnitude lower than that of EPA.

In June, after years of delay, the EPA finally approved to reconsider its "use" of the IRIS value when developing MON RTR. 84 Federal Reserve. register. 69182 (December 17, 2019) (MON proposal); 85 Federal Reserve. register. 49084 (August 12, 2020) (MON Final Rule). EPA also agreed to reconsider TCEQ EO ESL. The timing of this review is unclear. Nevertheless, the EPA is rapidly advancing a number of initiatives based on the value of IRIS, and the industry and some states believe that the value is fundamentally flawed.

The impact of EPA's IRIS value continues to far exceed EPA. Some states (such as Georgia and Illinois) are also pushing their own restrictive EO standards, which are justified by the IRIS value. In many jurisdictions, toxic infringement litigation has cited the IRIS value as the basis for determining risk and causality. Environmental organizations also issued warnings to EO, seeking new rules and citing environmental justice considerations. In fact, OIG's own criticism of EPA stems from its assumption that the IRIS value is correct.

With all these momentum, 2022 is expected to be another dynamic year for EO legal activities. At the same time, serious issues regarding the scientific basis of the EO IRIS value have not been resolved.

Matt Schneider also contributed to this article.

Maddie has 25 years of experience and can provide strategic and solution-oriented consulting and agency services on a wide range of U.S. and Latin American environmental, health and safety standards.

Her investment portfolio includes environmental supervision consulting; audit supervision and support; supply chain and product management advocacy and compliance; and high-risk law enforcement matters. Her current domestic cases include the U.S. Department of Justice, Texas Attorney General's Office, U.S. Environment...

Robert Brager is recognized as one of the top environmental lawyers in the United States and has been providing consulting, litigation and negotiation services to Beveridge & Diamond clients since 1981.

As a litigation lawyer and consultant, he uses his decades of experience in environmental law to help clients make reasonable judgments in complex and difficult situations. He provides calm analytical thinking based on fair facts that have survived doubts and challenges.

Because of the interaction of science and prejudice, variability and..., Mr. Brager chose a career in environmental law.

David's practice covers all aspects of air pollution regulation under the Clean Air Act and state and local air pollution laws and regulations.

On the regulatory front, he helped companies and trade associations prepare comments on many proposed rules, including ozone and particulate NAAQS amendments, several rounds of PSD/NSR regulations (for example, the 1992 WEPCO rule, the 1992 NSR reform rule). The equipment replacement rules in 2002 and 2003 and the Duke hourly rate rules in 2006), many MACT standards (for example, boilers, commercial and industrial solids...

Laura is the co-chair of the Energy and Pipeline Group. 

As the former chairman of the Air Group, Laura's business focuses on clean air law matters, including environmental consulting and litigation. She has represented oil refineries, chemical companies, trade associations, municipal waste burners, pharmaceutical companies, natural gas companies, etc., in handling a wide range of licensing and compliance issues under the Clean Air Act and similar state laws, including air poisons (MACT/NESHAPs), new Source review and title V questions. She is actively involved in providing consultation...

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

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

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

Before using the National Law Review website, you are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the terms of use and privacy policy of National Law Review (NLR) and National Law Forum LLC. "National Law Review" is a free-to-use, no-login legal and business article database. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. The transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any law firm, lawyer or other professional or organization that contains the content of the National Law Review website will not form a lawyer-client or confidential relationship. If you need legal or professional advice, please contact a lawyer or other appropriate professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding the solicitation and advertising practices of lawyers and/or other professionals. National Law Review is not a law firm, and www.NatLawReview.com does not intend to be a recommendation service for lawyers and/or other professionals. NLR does not want and does not intend to solicit anyone’s business or recommend anyone to a lawyer or other professional. If you request such information from us, NLR will not answer legal questions, nor will it refer you to a lawyer or other professional. 

According to some state laws, this website may require the following statement, which we have included to fully comply with these rules. Choosing a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertising. Lawyer Advertisement Notice: The previous results do not guarantee similar results. A statement of compliance with the Texas State Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise stated, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Legal Profession Board, and NLR cannot attest to the accuracy of any legal specialization or other professional certification symbols.

The National Law Review-National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Phone (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317. If you want to contact us via email, please click here.