J. Brent Kynoch Managing Director, EIA

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "J. Brent Kynoch Managing Director, EIA"

April Houston
6 years ago
Views:

1 J. Brent Kynoch Managing Director, EIA

2 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21 st Century Act Signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016 First revision to the TSCA law originally enacted in 1976

3 Mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines; New risk-based safety standard; Increased public transparency for chemical information; and Consistent source of funding for EPA to carry out the responsibilities under the new law.

4 Prioritization EPA must establish a risk-based process to determine which chemicals it will prioritize for assessment. High Chemical may present an unreasonable risk of injury or health or to the environment due to potential hazard and route of exposure, including to susceptible subpopulations Low Does not meet the standard for high priority.

5 High priority designation triggers a requirement and deadline for EPA to complete a risk evaluation on that chemical to determine its safety. Low priority designation does not require further action, although the chemical can move to high-priority based on new information.

6 First 180 days EPA must have 10 ongoing risk evaluations. Within 3.5 years EPA must have 20 ongoing risk evaluations. As EPA finishes evaluation of one chemical, they must re-load the pipeline.

7 Chemicals are evaluated against a new riskbased safety standard - unreasonable risk Risk evaluation excludes consideration of costs or non-risk factors Must consider risks to susceptible and highly exposed populations

8 EPA must take final risk management action within 2 years, or 4 years if extension needed Costs and availability of alternatives considered when determining appropriate action to address risks Action, including bans and phaseouts, must begin as quickly as possible but no later than 5 years after the final regulation

9 Persistent, Bio-Accumulative and Toxic New fast-track process to address certain PBT chemicals on the TSCA Workplan. Risk evaluation not needed, only use and exposure to chemical needed. Action to reduce exposure to extent practicable must be proposed no later than three years after the new law and finalized 18 months later. Additional requirements for PBTs in the prioritization process for assessments.

10 Allows EPA to collect up to $25 million annually in user fees from chemical manufacturers and processors when they: Submit test data for EPA review Submit a premanufacture notice for a new chemicals or a notice of new use Manufacture or process a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk evaluation; or Request that EPA conduct a chemical risk evaluation New fees will defray costs for new chemical reviews and a range of TSCA implementation activities for existing chemicals

11 EPA MUST begin review of 10 chemicals by 12/22/2016. Chemicals selected from workplan list. Asbestos is on the workplan list. GREAT NEWS!!! Asbestos was selected in the Top 10 chemicals for review by EPA. Now the fun begins!!

12 Old Risks must be weighed against its benefits and cost of restriction or ban. EPA must choose least burdensome means of regulating to protect against risk. New Must review using a health-based standard and not the cost of restriction or ban. EPA must protect potentially exposed or susceptible populations.

13 Grandfathering. 62,000 chemicals. Since TSCA went into effect, 21,000 new chemicals have hit the market. 82,000 chemicals 5 chemicals of the original 62,000 have been evaluated and controlled by TSCA. (PCBs, chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, asbestos, and hexavalent chromium) 4 of the new chemicals have been controlled by TSCA.

14 Review From the moment TSCA went into effect in 1976, EPA was working to ban asbestos. EPA issued final ban and phase out rule under the authority of Section 6 of TSCA in In 1991, the rule was vacated, reversed and remanded by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

15 Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA Federal Government of Canada Province of Quebec, Canada Cassiar Mineral Company Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. Asbestos Institute

Although the Appellate Court noted that it is not their responsibility to determine what was reasonable, the cost-benefits that EPA themselves used in their analysis ($30-$40 million in costs per

16 Although the Appellate Court noted that it is not their responsibility to determine what was reasonable, the cost-benefits that EPA themselves used in their analysis ($30-$40 million in costs per life saved), didn't seem to be all that reasonable. The Court noted that more than twice as many people die from accidentally eating toothpicks than were projected to die from the asbestos products EPA was proposing to ban (at a cost of over $250M)

17 A 1984 article in the NY Times noted that 8,000 people are injured annually by toothpicks. HOWEVER - - it only noted 3 deaths related to toothpicks. Where does this come from?? Politics!!

Asbestos regulation is a far less burdensome method than a ban. How do you accurately quantify something like the risks imposed on someone s health? Warning Labels?

18 Asbestos regulation is a far less burdensome method than a ban. How do you accurately quantify something like the risks imposed on someone s health? Warning Labels? Are asbestos substitutes just as harmful? Do the benefits of using asbestos as a fire retardant outweigh the risks? How many lives can asbestos save by preventing fires or making safer brakes for automobiles?

19 Come on.... You know... The exposures to EXISTING asbestoscontaining materials in buildings. Existing chemicals were grandfathered, making it much harder to ban.

20 Thank you very much!! Court banned any new uses of asbestos. Duh!!! - - the regulation already did that!!

21 Hasn t it already been banned?? These are still allowed Cement corrugated sheet Cement flat sheet Clothing Roofing felt Vinyl floor tile Cement shingle Millboard Cement pipe Automatic transmission components Clutch facings Friction materials Disk brake pads Drum brake linings Brake blocks Gaskets Non-roofing coatings Roof coatings

22 EPA was always hoping to ban asbestos under TSCA. Ban failed. Consequently, TSCA reform has been talked about since Obviously the number of chemicals that have been restricted shows how ineffective TSCA actually was.

23 Timing Chemical (Asbestos) selected for review. Risk Evaluation can take up to 3 years. Create and enact restrictions can take up to 2 years, with an allowance for a 2 year extension. Time before implementation 5 years Best case scenario 2021 Worst case scenario

24 In fact, out of those original 62,000 chemicals, only five have been banned. Five. And only a tiny percentage have even been reviewed for health and safety. The system was so complex, it was so burdensome that our country hasn t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos -- a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year. I think a lot of Americans would be shocked by all that.

26 November 29, ,4-Dioxane 1-Bromopropane Asbestos Carbon Tetrachloride Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster Methylene Chloride N-methylpyrrolidone Pigment Violet 29 Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene Trichloroethylene

27 EPA held a TSCA review and scoping or information gathering session on February 14, Oral presentation given by EIA and ADAO, among others. Docket open for comments until March 15, 2017

29 PT

30 Enemy in this process Account for 90% of asbestos imports into US in 2015 Use raw asbestos as part of the process to make chlorine gas. 16 plants in the US using the asbestos diaphragm technology.

31 Lobbying hard for an exemption. We need to fight this carve out. Mining Transportation Use in plant Dismantling Transportation Disposal

32 Self-funding mechanism That should be good Eliminate 2 regulations for every new regulation This regulation is already in place - - we might be able to skip this one. There seems to be no push-back about the dangers of asbestos Any exposure is deemed dangerous. This should be good.

33 Possibly, asbestos will get lost in all of the discussion about the other chemicals. New Administrator, Scott Pruitt, has bigger fist to fry - - Climate Change.

34 Things like this surface From today s Washington Post...

35 There is no know safe level of exposure to asbestos. Asbestos use continues in legacy building materials, not just in the imports of new asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Asbestos should be completely banned.

36 History is on our side - - other asbestos regulations during Republican administrations. Asbestos ban will go through - - but it will not be easy There will be a carve out for the Chlor-Alkali industry.

37 Awareness is the key! Any time asbestos is mentioned in the press, it helps all of us in the remediation business. EIA Board has been supportive of a ban on asbestos for over 10 years. PLEASE PLEASE submit comments to the docket

38 Thank you!!!

Asbestos in Settled Dust The Forgotten Matrix

Asbestos in Settled Dust The Forgotten Matrix American Industrial Hygiene Association Metro NY New York Blood Center, NY, NY Wednesday, April 5, 2017 EMSL Analytical, Inc. Robert J. DeMalo, M.Sc. Sr. VP,