[PPT] - Legislative and Regulatory Developments With Respect to Chemicals PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Legislative and Regulatory Developments With Respect to Chemicals & Products

Squire Patton Boggs’ Environmental, Safety & Health Practice in Conjunction with the Ohio Chemistry Technology Council

August 8, 2014

SLIDE 2

2

squirepattonboggs.com

2

squirepattonboggs.com

AGENDA

9 a.m. – Welcome & Introductions

Karen A. Winters, Environmental, Safety & Health Practice Group Leader, Squire Patton Boggs (Columbus) Jenn Klein, President, Ohio Chemistry Technology Council

9 a.m. – Congressional Efforts To Reform TSCA

The Honorable Bill Johnson, United States House of Representatives (Washington DC)

10 a.m. – Regulatory Developments under TSCA

Stephen A. Owens, Squire Patton Boggs (Phoenix & Washington DC)

10:45 a.m. – Break
11 a.m. – A Review of REACH Enforcement in Europe and Environmental

Enforcement Trends in the UK David Gordon, Squire Patton Boggs (Birmingham) Rob Elvin, Squire Patton Boggs (Manchester)

SLIDE 3

3

squirepattonboggs.com

3

squirepattonboggs.com

AGENDA

Noon – Luncheon Presentation

David Mustine, Senior Managing Director for Energy, Polymers and Chemicals, JobsOhio

1:15 p.m. – Chemical Sector Enforcement Litigation

Vincent Atriano, Squire Patton Boggs (Columbus)

2 p.m. – The “Greening” of California’s Green Chemistry Initiative

Chris M. Amantea, Squire Patton Boggs (Los Angeles)

2:30 p.m. – Closing Remarks

SLIDE 4

squirepattonboggs.com squirepattonboggs.com

Congressional Efforts to Reform TSCA

The Honorable Bill Johnson United States House of Representatives (Washington DC)

SLIDE 5

squirepattonboggs.com squirepattonboggs.com

Regulatory Developments Under TSCA

Stephen A. Owens, Squire Patton Boggs (Phoenix & Washington DC)

SLIDE 6

6

squirepattonboggs.com

6

squirepattonboggs.com

Some Issues to Consider

Is a chemical substance that is being manufactured, imported or processed

regulated by TSCA?

Is the chemical on the TSCA Inventory?
Public portion
Confidential portion
If it is not on the TSCA Inventory, does a Pre-manufacture Notice (PMN)

have to be filed with EPA?

Is the chemical substance subject to one of the PMN exemptions?
Is the chemical substance actually a mixture?
Is the chemical substance being imported as part of an article?
Are the uses of the chemical substance limited?
Section 5 consent orders
Significant New Use Rules (SNUR)
Section 6 rules

SLIDE 7

7

squirepattonboggs.com

7

squirepattonboggs.com

Current TSCA Reform Legislation

Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S. 1009)
Introduced May 22, 2013 by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) & David Vitter (R-

LA) with 25 bipartisan cosponsors

April 2013 – Senator Lautenberg had introduced S. 696, the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2013”
Hearing held in Senate EPW Committee on July 31, 2013
Chemicals in Commerce Act (H.R. ____)
Multiple hearings held on TSCA reform issues by the House E&C Subcommittee on

Environment & the Economy

U.S. House discussion draft released in February 2014 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-

IL) (subcommittee chair)

Revised discussion draft released in April 2014
Democratic redline edits released in May 2014
Bill not yet introduced

SLIDE 8

8

squirepattonboggs.com

8

squirepattonboggs.com

Chemical Safety Improvement Act & Chemicals in Commerce Act

Key aspects of both bills:
Set a safety standard for new and existing chemicals
Require EPA to make a safety determination for existing chemicals in commerce
Require EPA to prioritize existing chemicals (as high or low priority) for evaluation
Require EPA to designate existing chemicals as active or inactive
Require EPA to consider vulnerable subpopulations in evaluating chemicals
Give EPA authority to issue orders to require testing of chemicals
Eliminate the “least burdensome” language for chemical restrictions
Put limits on confidential business information (CBI) claims
Allow EPA to share CBI with states

SLIDE 9

9

squirepattonboggs.com

9

squirepattonboggs.com

Chemical Safety Improvement Act & Chemicals in Commerce Act

Comments made by critics about both bills:
Use an “unreasonable risk under intended conditions of use” standard
Have language preempting state regulation of chemicals under various

circumstances (and CSIA has language affecting state tort actions)

Do not set deadlines for EPA action
Do not require a minimum data set for chemicals
Do not require quick action on the “worst” chemicals (i.e., PBTs)
Do not adequately protect vulnerable populations
Require a form of cost-benefit analysis for chemical restrictions
Require EPA to develop multiple policies and guidance documents, subject to notice

and comment, before taking various actions

Limit EPA’s ability to declassify existing CBI claims
Do not provide a source of increased funding to EPA

SLIDE 10

10

squirepattonboggs.com

10

squirepattonboggs.com

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Enacted in 1976
Signed into law by President Gerald Ford
Applies to chemical manufacturers, importers

and processers

Covers chemical substances and mixtures,

but does not regulate:

Substances that are regulated as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

Drugs, cosmetics and other items regulated under the Federal Food, Drug &

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)

Material regulated under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA)
Tobacco and tobacco products
Articles taxed under §4181 of the Internal Revenue Code (firearms & ammunition)
Requires EPA to coordinate with, and sometime defer to action by, other

federal agencies (e.g., FDA, CPSC)

SLIDE 11

11

squirepattonboggs.com

11

squirepattonboggs.com

TSCA Requirements

In general, if a chemical substance is not listed on the TSCA Inventory, it

cannot be produced, distributed, sold or imported in the US.

Roughly 85,000 substances are listed on the TSCA Inventory
With certain limited exceptions, any person who “manufacturers for

commercial purpose” any “new chemical substance” must file a premanufacture notice (PMN) for that substance with US EPA.

A “new chemical substance” is any substance that is not listed on the TSCA

Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory)

EPA has 90 days to review a PMN
Exemptions: research and development (R&D); low volume (LVE); test marketing

(TME); low environmental release and human exposure (LoREX); certain polymers

Exceptions: mixtures; imported articles

SLIDE 12

12

squirepattonboggs.com

12

squirepattonboggs.com

Key TSCA Provisions

Section 5: Manufacturing and Processing Notices
PMNs & SNURs
Section 6: Regulation of Hazardous Chemical Substances and Mixtures
Authorizes EPA to take a range of actions to control a chemical hazard that “presents or will

present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”

Section 4: Testing of Chemical Substances and Mixtures
Gives EPA limited authority to require development of test data on existing chemicals
Section 8: Reporting and Retention of Information
§ 8a reporting
§ 8d health & safety studies
§ 8c records of significant adverse reactions to health or the environment alleged to have been

caused by the substance or mixture

§ 8e “substantial risk” information
Section 12: Exports
Must give notice to EPA before certain substances can be exported
Section 13: Imports
Must file certification that substance complies with TSCA or is not subject to TSCA

SLIDE 13

13

squirepattonboggs.com

13

squirepattonboggs.com

Recent EPA Actions under TSCA

Ten Action Plans issued in 2009 - 2010
Increasing use of Section 5 Significant New Use Rules (SNURs)

for both new and existing chemicals

April 2013 GAO report: from 2009 to 2012, EPA issued SNURs

affecting 540 chemicals (25% of the 2,180 chemicals subject to SNURs issued since 1976)

New Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule (August 2011)
Priority list of 83 “work plan” chemicals announced for risk assessment and potential

risk management (March 2012)

Draft risk assessments on five of the chemicals released for public comment in January 2013:
Antimony Trioxide (ATO) (CASRN 1309-64-4); 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8,-

hexamethylcyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB) (CASRN 1222-05-5); Methylene Chloride (or dichloromethane (DCM)) (CASRN 75-09-2); Trichloroethylene (TCE) (CASRN 79-01-6); N- Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) (CASRN 872-50-4)

Final risk assessment for TCE issued in June 2014
Group of flame retardants also identified for review and risk assessment
Planned TSCA rulemaking on disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing

(ANPR issued May 2014)

SLIDE 14

14

squirepattonboggs.com

14

squirepattonboggs.com

Increased TSCA Enforcement

EPA is increasing enforcement activity under TSCA
Increased use of TSCA subpoenas for investigations of potential noncompliance
Focus on TSCA § 5 violations for PMNs; SNURs & SNUNs;

low volume exemptions (LVEs)

Focus on violations related to Action Plan chemicals
Target reporting and record keeping under TSCA 8(c), (d) and (e)
Focus on the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule
February 2012: $1.4 million civil penalty announced against Dover Chemical Corp. for alleged

failure to file premanufacture notices (PMNs) for chlorinated paraffins it was manufacturing

July 2012: Penalties totaling $362,113 announced against Chemtura Corporation, Bethlehem

Apparatus Company, and Haldor Topsoe, Inc. for violations of the 2006 Inventory Update Reporting rule (now the CDR rule)

August 2012: $175,000 civil penalty announced against INEOS for alleged importation of paraffins

not listed on the TSCA Inventory

January 2013: $503,110 civil penalty announced against Kemira Chemicals, Inc. for violations of

the 2006 IUR rule

November 2013: $2.57 million penalty ordered by EPA ALJ against Elementis Chromium for

alleged violations of TSCA Section 8(e) relating to data on hexavalent chromium (now being appealed)

SLIDE 15

15

squirepattonboggs.com

15

squirepattonboggs.com

What Should You Do to Avoid TSCA Liability?

Conduct a TSCA audit of your chemical products and compliance procedures
Review your TSCA filings to ensure that they are complete and up to date
Review your filings under other statutes (EPCRA TRI, RCRA, Clean Air Act) to ensure

that they match your TSCA filings

Make sure that the chemicals you are making, importing or processing are listed on

the TSCA Inventory (or are exempt from listing)

Be sure to submit all required TSCA import certifications and export notices
Ensure that you are complying with all SNURs that apply to the chemicals you are

making, importing or processing

Double-check your 2012 CDR submission for completeness and accuracy – and begin

preparing soon for the 2016 submission

Monitor EPA actions closely and participate in stakeholder processes and rulemakings,

etc.

Keep good records and submit required data to EPA promptly (esp. §8(e))
Always remember: What you don’t know can hurt you!

SLIDE 16

squirepattonboggs.com squirepattonboggs.com

15 Minute Break

SLIDE 17

squirepattonboggs.com squirepattonboggs.com

A Review of REACH Enforcement in Europe

David Gordon, Squire Patton Boggs (Birmingham)

SLIDE 18

18

squirepattonboggs.com

18

squirepattonboggs.com

Introduction

The Regulator
The Legislation
Enforcement Powers
Penalties (in UK and Europe)
The EU Approach to Enforcement
Some Enforcement Statistics
Practical Advice on How to Deal with Breaches of REACH

– if time permits

SLIDE 19

19

squirepattonboggs.com

19

squirepattonboggs.com

ECHA (1)

Established by Article 75 of REACH “for the purposes of managing and in

some cases carrying out the technical scientific and administrative aspects of REACH and to ensure consistency at Community level in relation to those aspects”

ECHA describes its mission as being “the driving force amongst regulatory

authorities” in implementing REACH, helping companies to comply with the legislation, advancing the safe use of chemicals, providing information on chemicals and addressing areas of concern

SLIDE 20

20

squirepattonboggs.com

20

squirepattonboggs.com

ECHA (2)

ECHA’s enforcement role is essentially strategic and policy-related
For example, it operates the Enforcement Forum which:
Spreads good practice and highlights problems at Community level;
Proposes, co-ordinates and evaluates harmonised enforcement projects and joint

inspections; and

Identifies enforcement strategies and best practice in enforcement
But ECHA does not prosecute REACH offences itself

SLIDE 21

21

squirepattonboggs.com

21

squirepattonboggs.com

HSE

Article 121 REACH – Member states shall appoint competent authorities to

enforce REACH within their jurisdictions

For example, primary responsibility for enforcement of REACH in the UK lies

within the Health & Safety Executive

SLIDE 22

22

squirepattonboggs.com

22

squirepattonboggs.com

Legislation (1)

As an EU Regulation, the substantive provisions within REACH have direct

effect throughout the EU (i.e. no further requirement for national legislation to implement them)

For example, Article 5 – substances shall not be manufactured or placed on

the market unless they have been registered

SLIDE 23

23

squirepattonboggs.com

23

squirepattonboggs.com

Legislation (2)

However, Article 126 of REACH specifically requires member states to lay

down provisions for penalties following the infringement of REACH and to take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Penalties must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”

In the UK, enforcement powers and penalties are provided for in the REACH

Enforcement Regulations 2008

SLIDE 24

24

squirepattonboggs.com

24

squirepattonboggs.com

Enforcement Powers

Enforcement powers will vary slightly between jurisdictions but are likely to

include powers:

To enter premises (by force in emergencies)
To seize equipment or materials
To direct that premises (or parts of premises) be left undisturbed
To take measurements, photographs, samples
To require any person to answer questions
To seize goods
To stop import and/or manufacture
To require certain steps to be taken

SLIDE 25

25

squirepattonboggs.com

25

squirepattonboggs.com

Penalties in the UK

Conviction in Magistrates’ Court
Maximum fine - £5,000
Maximum prison sentence – 3 months
r both!
Conviction in Crown Court
Maximum fine – unlimited
Maximum prison sentence – 2 years
r both!

SLIDE 26

26

squirepattonboggs.com

26

squirepattonboggs.com

Corporate Offence

When a breach of REACH is committed by a company and is also
Committed with the consent or connivance of an officer; or
Attributable to any neglect on the part of the officer,
Then the officer (as well as the company) is guilty
“Officer” includes director, company secretary, senior manager, etc.

SLIDE 27

27

squirepattonboggs.com

27

squirepattonboggs.com

Penalties in Other Jurisdictions

SLIDE 28

28

squirepattonboggs.com

28

squirepattonboggs.com

Enforcement Approaches

REACH-EN-FORCE 1 (2010) – focused on manufacturer and importer
bligations for substances and mixtures re. pre-registration and supply chain

information

REACH-EN-FORCE 2 (2011) – focused on compliance of downstream users

and formulators

REACH-EN-FORCE 3 (2013) – is focussing on registration obligations of

manufacturers, importers and Only Representatives

SLIDE 29

29

squirepattonboggs.com

29

squirepattonboggs.com

REACH-EN-FORCE 1

2400 companies audited across 26 countries:

Regulators tended to focus on the manufacturers and importers of chemical

products – 33% of all companies audited

22 % of the companies inspected were non-compliant
Non-compliances regarding registration obligations were found in 7%

companies inspected

17% of the SDS did not comply with REACH
Only Representatives were not always in compliance with Article 8 of

REACH

SLIDE 30

30

squirepattonboggs.com

30

squirepattonboggs.com

REACH-EN-FORCE 2

Covered 1180 companies, 6,900 substances, 4,500 mixtures and 4,500 SDSs:

50% of companies audited were downstream uses.
67% of companies audited were non-compliant and 57% of these companies

were major corporates

8% had failed to pre-register substances (1% worst*)
52% of SDSs were non-REACH compliant (35% worst*)
24% of labels were also non-compliant
43% of formulators were using substances for a use not covered by the

registration * When compared to REACH-EN-FORCE 1

SLIDE 31

31

squirepattonboggs.com

31

squirepattonboggs.com

REACH-EN-FORCE 3 –part 1

528 companies inspected in 28 countries:

14% of companies were non-compliant (a 14% improvement*)
Importer were 50% more likely to be non-compliance than manufacturers
ORs have the highest non-compliance rate; twice the average rate
SMEs also have a non-compliance rate which is twice the rate of non-SMEs
There is a growing indication that companies which are not related to the

chemical industry are more likely to be non-compliant.

A further 1,500 audits will take place in 2014/15

*when compared to REACH-EN-FORCE 1

SLIDE 32

32

squirepattonboggs.com

32

squirepattonboggs.com

Consumer Rights – Supply of ‘Safe Use’ Information

SLIDE 33

33

squirepattonboggs.com

33

squirepattonboggs.com

Summary

So, what does it all mean?

There’s a good chance that your company will be audited (particular in the

chemical sector) – you should have a protocol in place that anticipates this

You should review any OR arrangements that you have in place due to the

high levels of non-compliance in this area

Given the high levels of importer breaches you should review your

export/import arrangements and your EU subsidiaries REACH obligations

If you are importing articles, check that your testing caters for REACH

SVHCs and put in place appropriate declaration procedures/documents

Don’t forget your obligations in respect of SDS and provision of information to

the supply change

Also consider your obligations under CLP
Have a strategy ready to deal with non-compliance and enforcement

SLIDE 34

squirepattonboggs.com squirepattonboggs.com

UK Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines for Environmental Offences – The Shape of Things to Come?

Rob Elvin, Squire Patton Boggs (Manchester)

SLIDE 35

35

squirepattonboggs.com

35

squirepattonboggs.com

Background (1)

Historically, concern about lack of guidance for courts about sentencing for

environmental offices

Contrast with “real” crimes (e.g. theft, assault, etc)
Concern about penalties not being high enough to reflect seriousness of
ffence or deter offenders
Greatly varying levels of fines and custodial sentences have been handed

down

SLIDE 36

36

squirepattonboggs.com

36

squirepattonboggs.com

Background (2)

R v Milford Haven Port Authority (The Sea Empress) (2000)
Sentencing Council consulted on draft guidelines between 14 March and 6

June 2013

Definitive Guidelines published in February 2014 and took effect from 1 July

2014

SLIDE 37

37

squirepattonboggs.com

37

squirepattonboggs.com

Offences covered

Strictly speaking only:
S.33 EPA 1990; and
Reg 38 EP Regs 2010
But when sentencing for other relevant and analogous environmental
ffences (e.g. breaches of restriction against transporting waste without

registering or breaches of waste duty of care), certain steps should be considered

SLIDE 38

38

squirepattonboggs.com

38

squirepattonboggs.com

Definitive Guidelines

Basically, comprise steps that a court should follow when fixing a sentence
Two sections:
Steps where offender is organisation; and
Steps where offender is individual

SLIDE 39

39

squirepattonboggs.com

39

squirepattonboggs.com

Organizations (1)

Step 1 – Compensation order for PI, loss or damage?
Step 2 – POCA confiscation order (Crown Court only)?
Step 3 – Determine offence category:
Assess culpability (deliberate, reckless, negligent, or low/no culpability);
Assess level of harm/risk of harm (4 categories – category 1 is most serious)

SLIDE 40

40

squirepattonboggs.com

40

squirepattonboggs.com

Organizations (2)

Step 4
Having assessed offence category (e.g. category 1 harm where offender has acted

deliberately) refer to tables which contain starting point for fines and possible ranges

4 tables (large organisations, medium organisations, small organisations and micro-
rganisations) – based on turnover
Very large organisations will have to be dealt with on case-by-case basis

SLIDE 41

41

squirepattonboggs.com

41

squirepattonboggs.com

Organizations (3)

SLIDE 42

42

squirepattonboggs.com

42

squirepattonboggs.com

Organizations (4)

Step 4 (continued)
Once starting point for fine has been established, consider aggravating and

mitigating factors that may push fine up or down the punishment range

Non-exhaustive list of factors provided
E.g. aggravating – previous relevant convictions, deliberate concealment of wrong-

doing, ignoring risks, etc.

E.g. mitigating – remorse, voluntary compensation, one-off event not commercially

motivated, etc.

SLIDE 43

43

squirepattonboggs.com

43

squirepattonboggs.com

Organizations (5)

Steps 5-7
Court must now “step back” – does sentence meet objectives of punishment,

deterrence and removal of gain?

Court may increase or decrease fine and even go outside range
Step 5
Does combination of financial orders (compensation, confiscation (if applicable) and

fine) remove any economic benefit (including saving and avoiding costs)

Step 6
Is proposed fine proportionate to offender’s means? – Real impact? Brings home

message to managers/shareholders?

Whether fine would make offender insolvent is relevant but not necessarily

unacceptable outcome!

Step 7
Other factors that may warrant adjustment
E.g. affects ability of offender to compensate victims or improve internal systems, or

impact on local economy

SLIDE 44

44

squirepattonboggs.com

44

squirepattonboggs.com

Organizations (6)

Step 8
Consider factors that indicate reduction (e.g. assisting prosecution)
Step 9
Take account of any potential reduction for a guilty plea
Step 10
Ancillary orders? E.g. forfeiture of vehicle, deprivation of property or remediation
Step 11
Totality – If sentencing for more than one offence or if offender is already serving

sentence, court must consider if combined effect is just and proportionate

Step 12
Give reasons

SLIDE 45

45

squirepattonboggs.com

45

squirepattonboggs.com

Individuals (1)

Steps are similar to those for an organization save that:
No requirement to check whether fine is proportionate to offender’s means;
List of aggravating and mitigating factors and ancillary orders includes those

applicable to individuals;

Additional step – consider any time spent on bail
Only one table contains starting points for penalties and possible ranges
Custodial sentences and community orders are an option

SLIDE 46

46

squirepattonboggs.com

46

squirepattonboggs.com

Individuals (2)

SLIDE 47

47

squirepattonboggs.com

47

squirepattonboggs.com

Recent Case Law - UK

R v Southern Water Services (2014)
Court of Appeal upheld fine of £200,000 fine against appellant in respect of breach
f reg 38 of EP Regs 2010 following discharge of untreated sewage into sea
LCJ came down hard – “We hope, therefore, that this will be the last case which

comes before this court where water companies and other similar utilities have not taken much more seriously the criminality of such offences of the seriousness involved in this case”

SLIDE 48

48

squirepattonboggs.com

48

squirepattonboggs.com

Recent Case Law - UK

R v Sellafield Ltd (appeal against fine)
7 (essentially environmental) offences arising out of the disposal of radioactive

waste for 18 months without required safeguards

Criticised for failing to properly install and monitor its equipment and for failing to

improve its systems and controls despite previous prohibition notices and fines

£1.6 billion turnover, £29 million profit
£700,000 fine (after guilty plea)
No actual harm (very small risk of some harm) – accepted by Court of Appeal
“The fine must be fixed to meet the statutory purposes with the objective of ensuring

that the message is brought home to the directors and members of the company”

“No ceiling on the amount of a fine that can be imposed"

SLIDE 49

49

squirepattonboggs.com

49

squirepattonboggs.com

Recent Case Law - EU

The former water director, environmental director and the former chief

executive officer of Cobre Las Cruces mine, one of Spain’s largest mines, are all facing criminal charges related to the contamination of groundwater sources

Bulgarian lead and zinc smelter, OTZK was fined BGN 60,000 (over

30,000EUR) for non compliance with its environmental permit, the largest penalty upheld so far in the region. The breaches included the uncontrolled release of harmful gas emissions and impermissible content of dust and sulphur dioxide around the plant’s chimneys

In 2012, France’s highest court upheld a ruling from 2008 that held the

French oil company Total criminally and civilly responsible for the Erika oil spill in 1999. The spill discharged over 20,000 tons of oil into the sea off the French Atlantic coast. Fines totalled EUR192 million for causing environmental damage and another EUR375,000 for ignoring the risks of using an ageing tanker

SLIDE 50

50

squirepattonboggs.com

50

squirepattonboggs.com

Implications for Health and Safety

R v Network Rail Infrastructure (2014)
Minor injuries to adult and serious injury to child following collision on level crossing

(could have been fatal)

S.3 HSWA - It had failed to carry out a proper risk assessment of the crossing and

that if it had done so safety measures would have been introduced which may have averted the accident

£500,000 fine (after guilty plea)
Similar considerations voiced by court to those in definitive guidelines (culpability,

harm and mitigating and aggravating factors)

Others:
New look—fire safety-- £400,000
M&S—asbestos exposure-- £1m
Sentencing council to consult in 2014 on

draft guidelines for health and safety offences

SLIDE 51

51

squirepattonboggs.com

51

squirepattonboggs.com

Conclusion

Recent cases have seen significant increase in fines
Guidelines aim for greater consistency and fairness in sentencing
Sentencing council expects level for fines for most serious cases will

increase but fines for less serious cases will remain the same

Similar guidelines expected for health and safety offences

SLIDE 52

squirepattonboggs.com squirepattonboggs.com

Luncheon Presentation

David Mustine, Senior Managing Director for Energy, Polymers and Chemicals, JobsOhio

SLIDE 53

8 August 2014

David Mustine

Squire Patton Boggs

SLIDE 54

JobsOhio Overview

54

JobsOhio is a private, non-profit corporation designed to drive job creation and new capital investment in Ohio through business attraction, retention, and expansion efforts.

SLIDE 55

55

JOBSOHIO QUARTE RL Y RE SUL TS

SLIDE 56

56

Game Changers

Three industry catalysts are consistently cited as potential game changers – Shale Energy, Big Data, and Advanced

Manufacturing. Ohio is

uniquely positioned to capitalize on all three of these areas. These game changers not only align well with

ur target industries, but

are also integrated across multiple industries.

SLIDE 57

Ohio Utica Shale

57

Pace of development is increasing:

Activity focused in wet gas window.
970 wells drilled
487 wells in production
Key players: Chesapeake, EnerVest, Gulfport, Antero and Hess.

Large investment committed to midstream assets:

New industry established in 24 months.
Processing and fractionation now operating in eastern Ohio.
Over $6 billion invested/committed.

Ohio’s Economic Development Focus:

Manufacturers in oil and gas supply chain.
Expansion projects at chemical plants, large energy users and refineries.
Recruit companies that are large natural gas users and add value to wet

gas stream.

SLIDE 58

58

Shale NGL Impact Study

Ohio’s Advantage:

Regional demand for Polyethylene is ~24% of US total
Ethane from Ohio is piped to the Gulf Coast
Polyethylene is shipped backed to the region
Opportunity> $100’s of millions in savings
A regional Petrochemical producer will provide: provide:
superior service
innovation
cluster support

SLIDE 59

JobsOhio’s Downstream Strategy

59

Focus on site selection with emphasis on sites that have

access to shared services such as steam and power.

Targeted marketing of Ohio premier sites to chemical,

fertilizer, petrochemical and polymer companies.

Need to address storage options and plan for

construction workers.

OCTC and PolymerOhio are critical JobsOhio partners in

economic development.

SLIDE 60

41 S. High Street, Ste. 1500 | Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 224-6446 | jobs-ohio.com

60

SLIDE 61

squirepattonboggs.com squirepattonboggs.com

Chemical Sector Enforcement Litigation

Vincent Atriano, Squire Patton Boggs (Columbus)

SLIDE 62

62

squirepattonboggs.com

62

squirepattonboggs.com

US EPA National Enforcement Initiatives

Set every three years
Intended to reflect the most serious

pollution problems affecting communities

Chosen with state and public input
78 Fed. Reg. 5799 (Jan. 28, 2013)
Typically involve industry sectors or pollution sources that

EPA believes can best be addressed by a national enforcement team

Become a focus of EPA civil and criminal enforcement resources and

expertise

NEIs for FY 2014-2016 are a continuation of those for FY 2011-2013

SLIDE 63

63

squirepattonboggs.com

63

squirepattonboggs.com

US EPA National Enforcement Initiatives for FY 2014-2016

Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of Our Nation’s

Waters

Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Waters
Cutting Toxic Air Pollution that Affects Communities’ Health
Reducing Widespread Air Pollution from the Largest Sources,

Especially the Coal-fired Utility, Cement, Glass, and Acid Sectors

Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations
Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental

Laws

SLIDE 64

64

squirepattonboggs.com

64

squirepattonboggs.com

Cutting Toxic Air Pollution

Focus on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
Currently total 187
Three areas with high rates of noncompliance:
Leak detection and repair (LDAR);
Flare waste gas reduction and improvements to flare combustion efficiency; and
Excess emissions, including those associated with startup, shut down and

malfunction

SLIDE 65

65

squirepattonboggs.com

65

squirepattonboggs.com

Cutting Toxic Air Pollution

SLIDE 66

66

squirepattonboggs.com

66

squirepattonboggs.com

Cutting Toxic Air Pollution

US EPA concluded enforcement actions during FY2011-2013 under the Air

Toxics National Enforcement Initiative:

SLIDE 67

67

squirepattonboggs.com

67

squirepattonboggs.com

Leak Detection and Repair

LDAR is a Clean Air Act program that

requires periodic monitoring and timely repair of equipment leaks

EPA believes that leaking equipment

is the largest source of VOC & HAP emissions from petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities

EPA estimates that a typical refinery or

chemical plant can emit 600-700 tpy of VOCs from leaking equipment

EPA believes there is widespread noncompliance with LDAR requirements

and that such noncompliance resulted in an additional 40,000 tons of VOC emissions from refineries in 1999

SLIDE 68

68

squirepattonboggs.com

68

squirepattonboggs.com

Leak Detection and Repair

LDAR requirements are imposed by 25 federal standards, in addition to state

and local regulations which may be more stringent

Federal LDAR requirements are imposed by:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new or modified sources under 40

CFR Part 60

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), such as
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart H
State Implementation Plans
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR Parts 264 & 265

SLIDE 69

69

squirepattonboggs.com

69

squirepattonboggs.com

Leak Detection and Repair

Focuses on:
Valves
Connectors
Pumps
Sampling connections
Compressors
Pressure-relief devices
Open-ended lines
Such components can number

in the thousands at a typical chemical plant

Opportunities for many potential violations

SLIDE 70

70

squirepattonboggs.com

70

squirepattonboggs.com

Leak Detection and Repair

LDAR requires that VOC emissions be measured in ppm using Method 21
The regulations require that monitoring be conducted periodically according

to specified intervals

Leak definitions are established in ppm for each type of component (e.g., 500
r 1,000 ppm)
Repairs must be attempted within specified time periods (within 5 or 15 days)
Components may be placed on Delay of Repair list if repair is infeasible

without a process shutdown

SLIDE 71

71

squirepattonboggs.com

71

squirepattonboggs.com

Leak Detection and Repair

Typical LDAR compliance issues, according to EPA:
Failure to identify all components subject to LDAR monitoring
Failure to monitor components as required (missed intervals)
Failure to follow Method 21, e.g.:
Excessively fast monitoring
Failure to monitor component’s maximum leak location
Holding probe too far away from component interface
Failure to properly maintain or calibrate the monitoring instrument
Improperly identifying components are “unsafe” or “difficult” to monitor, for which

monitoring may be deferred

Improperly placing or retaining components on Delay of Repair list

SLIDE 72

72

squirepattonboggs.com

72

squirepattonboggs.com

Leak Detection and Repair

EPA response: Enhanced LDAR Program (ELP) in federal court consent

decrees

Classic example of “regulation by enforcement”
Essentially a re-writing of the LDAR regulations
EPA’s programmatic concerns are paramount – one size fits all
Based on several significant settlements, e.g.:
Dow Chemical Co. (E.D. Mich. 2011)
Western Refining Co., L.P. (W.D. Tex. 2011)
Hovensa LLC (D.V.I. 2011)
Lanxess Corp. (S.D. Ohio 2010)
Formosa Plastics (D. Del. 2010)

SLIDE 73

73

squirepattonboggs.com

73

squirepattonboggs.com

Leak Detection and Repair

ELP components:
Lower leak definitions than regulations
More frequent LDAR monitoring than regulations
Low emission (Low-E) valves or packing for all new or replaced valves
Incipient leak repair requirements
Restrictions on Delay of Repair
Additional training for LDAR personnel
Annual third-party LDAR compliance audits
including comparative monitoring and corrective actions if significant disparity
Typical duration: five years
Non-compliance subject to stipulated penalties

SLIDE 74

74

squirepattonboggs.com

74

squirepattonboggs.com

Flare Combustion Efficiency

EPA contends that improper flare operation can result in hundreds of tons of

excess HAP emissions

Concern with over-steaming: excess steam lowers the heating value of the

gas, which is detrimental to combustion efficiency

Improperly operated flare

(EPA photo):

SLIDE 75

75

squirepattonboggs.com

75

squirepattonboggs.com

Flare Combustion Efficiency

However, NSPS (§60.18) and NESHAP (§63.11) regulations are minimal:
No visible emissions (except for 5 mins. in 2 hours)
Flame must be present at all times
Net heating value of the combustion gas must be at least 300 BTU/scf if flare is

steam-assisted

Exit velocity generally must be < 60ft/sec
These standards were assumed to achieve 98% control

SLIDE 76

76

squirepattonboggs.com

76

squirepattonboggs.com

Flare Combustion Efficiency

In addition, EPA interprets general provision requiring that process and

pollution control equipment be operated “using good air pollution control practices to minimize emissions” to require flare operators to:

Follow equipment manufacturer’s specifications
Stay abreast of and apply current state of scientific knowledge on flare operation

and combustion

US EPA Enforcement Alert (Aug. 2012)

Problems:
Flare operation is highly variable – EPA recognizes there is no single steam-to-vent

gas ratio appropriate for all flares

Scientific knowledge on flare combustion efficiency is still emerging

SLIDE 77

77

squirepattonboggs.com

77

squirepattonboggs.com

Flare Combustion Efficiency

Once again, EPA is resorting to regulation by enforcement to beef up the

flare regulations

Based on several significant settlements, e.g.:
Flint Hills Resources, Port Arthur, TX (2014)
Shell Deer Park, TX (2013)
BP Whiting, IN (2012)

SLIDE 78

78

squirepattonboggs.com

78

squirepattonboggs.com

Flare Combustion Efficiency

Typical flare consent decree requirements:
Flare gas recovery system (FGRS) capable of recovering at least 80% of vent gas
Installation of additional monitoring equipment (such as vent gas flow meter, steam

flow meter, steam control equipment, gas chromatograph or net heating value analyzer, meteorological station)

Automation of supplemental gas and steam controls
Agreed limits on flaring (flaring caps)
Agreed minimum heating value in the combustion zone (just above the flare tip)
Agreed steam to vent gas ratio limits
Agree to 98% combustion efficiency requirement

SLIDE 79

79

squirepattonboggs.com

79

squirepattonboggs.com

Reducing Widespread Air Pollution from the Largest Sources

Focus on New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(NSR/PSD) requirements under the CAA

EPA believes that many existing facilities failed to install pollution controls

after significant modifications

Particular attention to communities overburdened by exposure to

environmental risks and vulnerable populations, including children

Builds on past EPA enforcement actions against coal-fired power plants,

cement manufacturing facilities, sulfuric and nitric acid manufacturing facilities, and glass manufacturing facilities

SLIDE 80

80

squirepattonboggs.com

80

squirepattonboggs.com

Recent Significant NSR/PSD Developments

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs): Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA

(SCOTUS June 23, 2014)

Held that the CAA neither compels nor permits EPA to require a source to obtain a

PSD or Title V permit on the sole basis of GHGs

However, upheld EPA’s interpretation that sources which require such permits

due to other pollutants must comply with best achievable control technology (BACT) for GHGs

Basis of ruling: definition of “any air pollutant” in PSD and Title V operative

provisions limited only to regulated air pollutants

Court found that “EPA has routinely” applied this “narrower, context-appropriate

meaning” to such provisions – “it takes some cheek” for EPA to say it cannot do so now

SLIDE 81

81

squirepattonboggs.com

81

squirepattonboggs.com

Recent Significant NSR/PSD Developments

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, cont.
Court noted that following its 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA authorizing EPA

to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles, EPA embarked in the single largest expansion in the history of the CAA

Found that EPA’s interpretation
would constitute an “unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would

have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy,” but

still be “relatively ineffective at reducing greenhouse gas concentrations”
Noted that GHGs “are emitted in such vast quantities that their inclusion would

radically transform those programs and render them unworkable”

SLIDE 82

82

squirepattonboggs.com

82

squirepattonboggs.com

Recent Significant NSR/PSD Developments

Statute of Limitations for Injunctive Relief
Traditionally, only claims for penalties are subject to 5-year federal general statute
f limitations in 28 USC §2462
However, some recent cases have barred claims for injunctive relief on statute of

limitations grounds as well

In United States v. Midwest Generation, (7th Cir. July 8, 2013), the Court of Appeals

affirmed complete dismissal of PSD claims against an electric utility for constructing major modifications without installing BACT more than five years earlier

The Court rejected the Government’s “continuing violation” arguments, finding

that “[o]nce the statute of limitations expired, Commonwealth Edison was entitled to proceed as if it possessed all required construction permits.”

SLIDE 83

83

squirepattonboggs.com

83

squirepattonboggs.com

Recent Significant NSR/PSD Developments

Statute of Limitations for Injunctive Relief, cont.
Most recently, we obtained a similar ruling in United States v. US Steel Corp. (N.D.

Ind.) (on motion for reconsideration 4/18/14)

The District Court had previously dismissed EPA’s PSD and NSR claims for

penalties on statute of limitations grounds, but ruled that its injunctive claims were not barred

On reconsideration, the District Court found: “my earlier ruling was wrong, and

… the request for an injunction based on a claimed permit violation from 24 years ago cannot stand”

Upon further review of Midwest Generation, the Court concluded that “the

Seventh Circuit has applied a five-year limitations period to the EPA’s suit for injunction.”

Accordingly, it dismissed EPA’s injunctive claims as well

SLIDE 84

84

squirepattonboggs.com

84

squirepattonboggs.com

Energy Extraction Sector Environmental Compliance

Focus on shale natural gas development using horizontal drilling and

hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”

EPA concern with “significant rise in air pollution throughout the

intermountain West,” which also could occur elsewhere

Citizen concern that drilling and hydraulic fracturing pose a risk to drinking

water sources due to improper well construction or wastewater management

Continuation of US EPA’s 2011 Energy Extraction National Enforcement

Initiative

May involve actions under Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking

Water Act

SLIDE 85

85

squirepattonboggs.com

85

squirepattonboggs.com

Energy Extraction Sector Environmental Compliance

Significant recent consent decrees:
Gasco Energy (D. Colo. 2014) – CWA enforcement action for unpermitted filling of

wetlands in connection with drilling of natural gas wells in Utah

Injunctive relief includes permanent closing of wells and restoration of wetlands
Chesapeake Appalachia (N.D. W. Va. 2013) – CWA enforcement action for

unauthorized discharges into wetlands at 27 natural gas extraction sites

Injunctive relief includes restoration or compensatory mitigation, employee

training and development of CWA Section 404 compliance protocol

Also $3.2M in civil penalties

SLIDE 86

86

squirepattonboggs.com

86

squirepattonboggs.com

Energy Extraction Sector Environmental Compliance

Significant recent enforcement action settlements, cont.:
XTO Energy, Inc. (Exxon Mobil subsidiary) (M.D. Pa. 2013) – CWA enforcement

action for spill of up to 1,366 barrels (57K+ gal.) of fracking wastewater

Injunctive relief includes
Recycling and disposal of flowback fluid and produced water, plus
Tank management best practices
Estimated to cost $20M

SLIDE 87

87

squirepattonboggs.com

87

squirepattonboggs.com

New Battleground – Local Bans on Fracking

New York’s highest court ruled at the end of June 2014 that local fracking

bans are not preempted by state oil and gas law

Wallach v. Dryden
Cooperstown Holstein Corp. v. Middlefield
Same home rule vs. state law preemption issue currently is before the Ohio

Supreme Court in State ex rel. City of Munroe Falls v. Beck Energy Corp.

ODNR issued drilling permit to Beck Energy
Munroe Falls sued to enforce zoning and other ordinances that prohibit drilling in

residential areas

Court of Appeals (9th Dist.) ruled that the local ordinances were preempted by state

law

Arguments were heard on Feb. 26, 2014

SLIDE 88

squirepattonboggs.com squirepattonboggs.com

The “Greening” of California’s Green Chemistry Initiative

Chris M. Amantea, Squire Patton Boggs (Los Angeles)

SLIDE 89

89

squirepattonboggs.com

89

squirepattonboggs.com

California Green Chemistry Initiative

Became law in September 2008
Goal of legislation: Cause reformulation of possibly hundreds of

thousands of consumer products sold or distributed in California OR ban their sale, manufacture, import, or distribution in California

“[t]he proposal requires manufacturers to seek alternative ingredients in widely used products, offering California industry the opportunity to lead the way in producing safer versions of goods already in demand around the world…[i]f an alternative is not feasible, DTSC will identify the steps the manufacturer must take to ensure the product is safely used, disposed of, or phased out.” (DTSC, July 2012)

SLIDE 90

90

squirepattonboggs.com

90

squirepattonboggs.com

Four Step Implementation Process

Four-step implementation process adopted by DTSC in October 2013

1.

Develop list of candidate chemicals

2.

Prioritization of product—candidate chemical combinations

3.

Notification by responsible entities and product alternative analysis

4.

Regulatory responses

SLIDE 91

91

squirepattonboggs.com

91

squirepattonboggs.com

“Greening” Green Chemistry

In March 2014, DTSC FINALLY began the process of “greening” Green

Chemistry

Announced the first set of “priority products” containing “chemicals of

concern”

1.

Children’s foam padded sleeping products containing tris(1,3-dichloro-2- propyl) phosphate (TDCPP)

2.

Spray polyurethane foam systems containing unreacted diisocyanates; and

3.

Paint and varnish strippers and surface cleaners containing methylene chloride

Selected because they contain a chemical or chemicals that appear on both

a hazard trait list and an exposure indicator list

SLIDE 92

92

squirepattonboggs.com

92

squirepattonboggs.com

Regulatory Process Set In Motion…

Manufacturers will not have to eliminate the identified chemicals from their

products immediately

In May and June, DTSC held a series of public workshops on the proposed

priority products/candidate chemicals

DTSC ultimately will adopt regulations for each of the priority products (could

take a year or more)

After regulations are adopted, companies will have to (1) notify DTSC that

they manufacture products that are on the list; and (2) begin the alternative analysis process

Preliminary alternatives analysis will be due six months after the final

regulations are adopted for each priority product

SLIDE 93

93

squirepattonboggs.com

93

squirepattonboggs.com

What Next?

By October 1, DTSC is required to issue a priority product work plan

identifying other product categories to be evaluated in next three years

Workshops scheduled for August 19th and August 25th
For each priority product on the list, retailers will be required to obtain a

certificate of compliance stating manufacturer is in compliance with or exempt from the regulations

DTSC has broad authority to implement an array of potentially draconian

regulatory responses

SLIDE 94

94

squirepattonboggs.com

94

squirepattonboggs.com

Product Not On The List?

Be proactive!
Safer Consumer Product regulations are groundbreaking regulations and,

when fully implemented, will have a MAJOR IMPACT on virtually all companies manufacturing, importing, selling or distributing consumer products in California

“Consumer Product” is broadly defined to include “a product or part of the

product that is used, bought, or leased for use by a person for any purposes”

Even manufacturers who are not immediately impacted by the initial list

should continue to be involved in the regulatory process

SLIDE 95

95

squirepattonboggs.com

95

squirepattonboggs.com

Already Complying With Other Regulations?

How do these regulations interface with the many state, federal, and

international laws that address chemicals and consumer products?

Companies have raised the overlap and conflicts with California’s Safe

Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) (Also CPSIA, REACH, TSCA, to name a few)

In general, registration and notification requirements for chemicals and

products are on the rise—not only for new chemicals and products containing those chemicals

Broader and more frequent reporting of chemical information on the increase
These issues will not go away

SLIDE 96

96

squirepattonboggs.com

96

squirepattonboggs.com

How We Can Help

Assist with evaluating the complexities of the proposed Safer Consumer

Products Regulations and how they might impact your business, considering

verlapping and conflicting international, national, and state regulatory

requirements

Help with navigating through various strategic alternatives in implementing

the regulations, once they are adopted

Assist in evaluating and revising existing agreements with suppliers, vendors,

manufacturers, distributors, or retailers to account for new regulatory requirements

SLIDE 97

97

squirepattonboggs.com Vincent Atriano Partner +1 614 365 2783 vincent.atriano@ squirepb.com Rob Elvin Partner, ES&H Deputy Practice Leader +44 161 830 5257 rob.elvin@ squirepb.com Steve Owens Partner +1 602 528 4170 firstname.lastname@ squirepb.com Karen Winters Partner, ES&H Practice Leader +1 614 365 2750 karen.winters@ squirepb.com Chris Amantea Partner +1 213 689 5131 chris.amantea@ squirepb.com Dave Gordon Partner +44 121 222 3204 dave.gordon@ squirepb.com

Contact Info Slide

SLIDE 98

98

squirepattonboggs.com