Government Regulation
April 16, 2023
Deindustrialization Concerns
Business deindustrialization
Covestro boss calls for master plan for Germany
As of: 12:59 a.m | Reading time: 2 minutes
Quelle: Getty Images
High energy prices are a burden for chemical companies. Covestro boss Markus Steilemann, who is also president of the chemical industry, sees the industry as being unduly burdened. He is worried about job cuts in the manufacturing industry.
Dhe boss of the chemical company Covestro, Markus Steilemann, warns of Germany’s economic decline. “De-industrialization has already started,” Steilemann told WELT AM SONNTAG in an interview.
Steilemann, who is also President of the industry association VCI, cited the high energy prices as the main reason. “We need a master plan for Germany, and we need it urgently,” he demands. As a possible measure, Steilemann named a cheaper electricity price for industry.
Germany is still a leader in many research fields such as biotechnology. “But we are in the process of losing this lead to the USA, Great Britain and China.” The main culprits are the high energy prices, but also a real “law tsunami” with which the government is really slowing down companies.
There is no way around the government’s planned conversion to a climate-neutral future. “But instead of setting the right incentives for a country that is poor in raw materials but hungry for energy, the federal government loses itself in regulation mania,” says Steilemann.
At the same time, the industry is being unduly burdened by electricity prices, which are very high by international standards. “This puts Germany’s business model, as one of the leading export nations, at risk. There are already first signs: I’m watching with concern how massive jobs are currently being cut in Germany – and not just in the manufacturing industry,” he said.
Despite the difficult outlook this year, the CEO ruled out redundancies for Covestro: “Since we have made long-term provisions, we don’t need any quick-fix measures. I have made it clear that we will rule out redundancies for operational reasons, and that’s how it’s going to stay.”
April 6, 2023
EO in the Crosshairs
Biden-Harris Administration Proposes to Strengthen Standards for Chemical and Polymers Plants, Dramatically Reduce Cancer Risks from Air Toxics
Proposal would reduce the number of people with elevated cancer risk by 96 percent in communities surrounding chemical plants, cut more than 6,000 tons of toxic pollution per year
April 6, 2023
Contact Information
EPA Press Office (press@epa.gov)
WASHINGTON – Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to significantly reduce hazardous air pollutants from chemical plants, including the highly toxic chemicals ethylene oxide (EtO) and chloroprene. The reductions would dramatically reduce the number of people with elevated air toxics-related cancer risks in communities surrounding the plants that use those two chemicals, especially communities historically overburdened by air toxics pollution, and cut more than 6,000 tons of toxic air pollution a year.
The proposal advances President Biden’s commitment to ending cancer as we know it as part of the Cancer Moonshot and to securing environmental justice and protecting public health, including for communities that are most exposed to toxic chemicals. Administrator Michael Regan made the announcement at an event in St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana – one of the communities the Administrator visited during his November 2021 Journey to Justice tour.
“For generations, our most vulnerable communities have unjustly borne the burden of breathing unsafe, polluted air,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “When I visited St. John the Baptist Parish during my first Journey to Justice tour, I pledged to prioritize and protect the health and safety of this community and so many others that live in the shadows of chemical plants. I’m proud that this proposal would help deliver on that commitment and protect people from toxic air pollution in communities across the country – from Louisiana and Texas, to Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio. Every child in this country deserves clean air to breathe, and EPA will use every available tool to make that vision a reality.”
EPA’s proposal would update several regulations that apply to chemical plants, including plants that make synthetic organic chemicals, and regulations that apply to plants that make polymers such as neoprene. The proposed updates would reduce 6,053 tons of air toxics emissions each year, which are known or suspected to cause cancer and other serious health effects. Those reductions include a 58 ton per year reduction in ethylene oxide (EtO) and a reduction of 14 tons per year in chloroprene.
Other air toxics the rule would reduce include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride. The proposal would also reduce emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds by more than 23,000 tons a year.
Facilities that make, store, use or emit EtO, chloroprene, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride or vinyl chloride would be required to monitor levels of these air pollutants entering the air at the fenceline of the facility, a requirement that would deliver on one of the commitments the Administrator made following his 2021 Journey to Justice tour. This powerful tool would help make sure EPA’s rules deliver: if annual average air concentrations of the chemicals are higher than an action level at the fenceline, owners and operators would have to find the source and make repairs. The proposed action levels vary depending on the chemical. For EtO, EPA is proposing an action level of 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter of air. For chloroprene, the proposed action level is 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
In order to ensure this data is transparent and available to communities, EPA would make the monitoring data public through its WebFiRE database tool. These fenceline monitoring provisions are based on similar Clean Air Act requirements for petroleum refineries nationwide, which have been highly successful in identifying and reducing emissions of benzene for more than four years.
The proposal would reduce cancer risks from breathing in toxic air pollutants that are emitted from the specific processes and equipment covered under the rules. These pollutants are linked to a number of cancers, including lymphoma, leukemia, breast cancer and liver cancer, among others. EPA also expects the proposal to benefit children, who are more susceptible to the effects of EtO and chloroprene.
To provide the public with the best possible information about the impact of the proposed updates, EPA has conducted a first-of-its kind community risk assessment. That assessment evaluated the impacts of the proposed emissions reductions from synthetic organic chemical manufacturing on the total air toxics-related cancer risks from all large industrial facilities in an area combined – not just from the equipment and processes covered by today’s proposal. The community risk assessment shows that the numbers of people with elevated cancer risk could drop by 96 percent in communities surrounding chemical plants, if the proposal is finalized.
The community assessment also shows there is more work to do, finding that EtO is the largest driver of the remaining risks. In the coming weeks, EPA expects to announce proposed updates to its regulations for commercial sterilization facilities that emit EtO. In addition, the Agency is working to develop proposed rules for other sources of EtO, including polyether polyols production, hospital sterilizers, and smaller chemical manufacturers known as “area sources.”
EPA will accept written comments for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register and will hold a virtual public hearing. The Agency also will hold a training for communities on April 13, 2023, to review the proposal and answer questions. Learn more.
November 30, 2022
TSCA Price Hikes
EPA Proposes Significant TSCA Fee Increase
- November 28, 2022
- Government Affairs
- Contact: Riaz Zaman
Share via:
- On Nov. 16, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fee rule, modifying its 2021 proposal for an increase in fees set in 2018. Under TSCA, EPA can collect fees from the regulated community to offset 25% of program costs for implementation of TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 6.
EPA’s new cost estimates would expect agency collection of collecting $45.5 million each year, as compared to the $22 million expected from the 2021 proposed rule.
EPA based the revised fee rule on estimates and information collected since the 2016 amendments, noting that it previously estimated fees based on data collected prior to 2016.
EPA proposes significant increases in fees, summarized in Table 5 of the proposed rule, including:
- PMN fee of $45,000 increased from $19,020.
- LVE fee of $13,200 increased from $5,590.
- EPA-initiated risk evaluation fee of $5,081,000 collectively, increased from $2,560,000.
- Test order fee $25,000, increased from $11,650.
Because of adverse feedback received, including comments from ACA, EPA is not finalizing fees for submission of a Bona Fide Notice or a Notice of Commencement as it had previously proposed.
EPA is holding a public webinar on Dec. 6, from 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm (EST) to provide an overview to stakeholders about the proposed rulemaking. Register for the webinar here. EPA will accept public comments on the supplemental proposed rule through Jan.17, 2023 via docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0493 at www.regulations.gov.
ACA will be submitting comments by the EPA deadline.
Details of the Proposal
Exemptions from Fee Payment
EPA is including exemptions it proposed in 2021, with minor changes. Exemptions apply to fees for test orders, test rules, and risk evaluations. The following would be exempted:
- Import of articles;
- Production of a chemical as a byproduct that is not used or distributed for a commercial purpose;
- Manufacture of intermediates;
- Manufacture of small quantities used for research and development; and
- Manufacture (including import) of a chemical in a quantity below 1,100 lbs./yr. for test orders and test rule fees and 2,500 lbs./yr. for risk evaluation fees.
Exemptions apply to fee payment only. They do not impact scope of test orders, test rules or risk evaluations that can include consideration of small amounts. To qualify for the exemptions for manufacture and import of small quantities, a company must meet thresholds by averaging manufacture and import volumes over the prior five years and the subsequent five years. Qualifying companies must also submit records of manufacture / import volumes for the three years prior to EPA’s publication of a preliminary list of manufacturers and importers. The exemption would not apply when the manufacturers and importers of small quantities are the only manufacturers and importers of a chemical.
EPA will use records to identify manufacturers and importers of small quantities for fee payment, if necessary. ACA had previously commented that small quantity thresholds, although useful, can lead to a regulatory gap where a downstream user relies on a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) where trace amounts are not disclosed, and the chemical is inadvertently imported in amounts above proposed thresholds over a year. ACA had requested an additional threshold based on SDS disclosure requirements.
Partial Refunds of the PMN Fee
EPA is proposing changes to partial Premanufacture Notice (PMN) fee refunds, so that 75% of the PMN fee would be refunded if the submitter withdraws a PMN within 10 days after the agency initiates review. EPA also proposes refunding 20% if the PMN submitter withdraws a PMN within five (5) days after receiving notification of EPA’s completion of the PMN review process, but prior to initiating risk mitigation activities. Withdrawal would require the PMN submitter to resubmit as a new PMN, if it intends to conduct any commercial activity with the chemical in the future.
Risk Evaluation Fee Calculation for Manufacturers and Importers
Where manufacturers and importers do not form a consortium for fee payment, EPA proposes that it will allocate fees so that companies with manufacture and import volumes in the top 20th percentile will be responsible for 80% of the risk evaluation fee, split equally amongst those companies. The bottom 80% of companies ranked by production volume would be responsible for 20% of the risk evaluation fee. Both fees would be reduced by an adjusted amount paid by small business, subject to the 80% discount for small businesses.
Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.
November 30, 2022
TSCA Price Hikes
EPA Proposes Significant TSCA Fee Increase
- November 28, 2022
- Government Affairs
- Contact: Riaz Zaman
Share via:
- On Nov. 16, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) fee rule, modifying its 2021 proposal for an increase in fees set in 2018. Under TSCA, EPA can collect fees from the regulated community to offset 25% of program costs for implementation of TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 6.
EPA’s new cost estimates would expect agency collection of collecting $45.5 million each year, as compared to the $22 million expected from the 2021 proposed rule.
EPA based the revised fee rule on estimates and information collected since the 2016 amendments, noting that it previously estimated fees based on data collected prior to 2016.
EPA proposes significant increases in fees, summarized in Table 5 of the proposed rule, including:
- PMN fee of $45,000 increased from $19,020.
- LVE fee of $13,200 increased from $5,590.
- EPA-initiated risk evaluation fee of $5,081,000 collectively, increased from $2,560,000.
- Test order fee $25,000, increased from $11,650.
Because of adverse feedback received, including comments from ACA, EPA is not finalizing fees for submission of a Bona Fide Notice or a Notice of Commencement as it had previously proposed.
EPA is holding a public webinar on Dec. 6, from 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm (EST) to provide an overview to stakeholders about the proposed rulemaking. Register for the webinar here. EPA will accept public comments on the supplemental proposed rule through Jan.17, 2023 via docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0493 at www.regulations.gov.
ACA will be submitting comments by the EPA deadline.
Details of the Proposal
Exemptions from Fee Payment
EPA is including exemptions it proposed in 2021, with minor changes. Exemptions apply to fees for test orders, test rules, and risk evaluations. The following would be exempted:
- Import of articles;
- Production of a chemical as a byproduct that is not used or distributed for a commercial purpose;
- Manufacture of intermediates;
- Manufacture of small quantities used for research and development; and
- Manufacture (including import) of a chemical in a quantity below 1,100 lbs./yr. for test orders and test rule fees and 2,500 lbs./yr. for risk evaluation fees.
Exemptions apply to fee payment only. They do not impact scope of test orders, test rules or risk evaluations that can include consideration of small amounts. To qualify for the exemptions for manufacture and import of small quantities, a company must meet thresholds by averaging manufacture and import volumes over the prior five years and the subsequent five years. Qualifying companies must also submit records of manufacture / import volumes for the three years prior to EPA’s publication of a preliminary list of manufacturers and importers. The exemption would not apply when the manufacturers and importers of small quantities are the only manufacturers and importers of a chemical.
EPA will use records to identify manufacturers and importers of small quantities for fee payment, if necessary. ACA had previously commented that small quantity thresholds, although useful, can lead to a regulatory gap where a downstream user relies on a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) where trace amounts are not disclosed, and the chemical is inadvertently imported in amounts above proposed thresholds over a year. ACA had requested an additional threshold based on SDS disclosure requirements.
Partial Refunds of the PMN Fee
EPA is proposing changes to partial Premanufacture Notice (PMN) fee refunds, so that 75% of the PMN fee would be refunded if the submitter withdraws a PMN within 10 days after the agency initiates review. EPA also proposes refunding 20% if the PMN submitter withdraws a PMN within five (5) days after receiving notification of EPA’s completion of the PMN review process, but prior to initiating risk mitigation activities. Withdrawal would require the PMN submitter to resubmit as a new PMN, if it intends to conduct any commercial activity with the chemical in the future.
Risk Evaluation Fee Calculation for Manufacturers and Importers
Where manufacturers and importers do not form a consortium for fee payment, EPA proposes that it will allocate fees so that companies with manufacture and import volumes in the top 20th percentile will be responsible for 80% of the risk evaluation fee, split equally amongst those companies. The bottom 80% of companies ranked by production volume would be responsible for 20% of the risk evaluation fee. Both fees would be reduced by an adjusted amount paid by small business, subject to the 80% discount for small businesses.
Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.
November 3, 2022
SME’s Under Attack in Europe
From the BASF Investor’s Call:
Everchem Updates Archive 
Sign Up for Email Updates