Legislative Update: EPA Considers Risk Evaluation of Vinyl Chloride

EPA Considers Risk Evaluation of Vinyl Chloride Amidst an Industry Debate on the Facts

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has indicated the possibility of launching the first steps toward a risk evaluation of vinyl chloride in the upcoming winter. This consideration follows urging from environmentalists, citizen groups, and others to regulate the chemical after a train derailment and spill in East Palestine, Ohio, in February. Vinyl chloride’s inclusion in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Work Plan’s high-priority chemicals makes it a likely candidate for further evaluation.  According to a statement provided to the Associated Press on August 11, the EPA plans to prioritize 5-6 additional chemicals for risk assessment within a 9-12-month period, using various criteria, including its role in plastic production. The potential inclusion of vinyl chloride in this evaluation process is also feasible due to its listing in the 2014 TSCA Work Plan.

While the EPA’s statement does not directly confirm ongoing consideration of a risk assessment for vinyl chloride, the agency has been pressured to respond to the East Palestine incident. Environmental groups have taken steps to advocate for tighter regulations on vinyl chloride, with initiatives such as a petition organized by Beyond Plastics that collected 27,570 signatures urging the EPA to initiate the necessary steps to ban vinyl chloride and prioritize it for risk evaluation.

The Vinyl Institute has vigorously refuted Beyond Plastics’ misguided call to ban vinyl chloride and denounced its use of the tragic events of East Palestine to advance deceptive and disproven claims about our industry that only serve to mislead the public. The vinyl industry already adheres to the most stringent government regulations on chemicals and the environment in the world. The VI continues to point out that the attacks by Beyond Plastics and other activists consistently make use of woefully outdated data that does not accurately reflect manufacturing processes in place for decades.

Farm Bill Schedule Gets Complicated, Extensions for Specific Programs Likely

The Farm Bill proposals from the House and Senate are significantly off track, with legislators now working through the recess period to push the legislation forward. Amid this delay, the legislative calendar is becoming increasingly complex due to pending spending battles, backlogs at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for Farm Bill-related scoring, and the looming specter of a government shutdown. These challenges make it increasingly likely that Congress will need to extend specific Farm Bill programs.

The House is expected to unveil its draft in early September, potentially followed by a markup by mid-September. Conversely, the Senate’s draft may not be ready until October, coinciding with the looming shutdown deadline on October 1. Complicating matters, the first Farm Bill programs are set to expire on September 30, heightening the urgency. The House is grappling with the delicate balance between House Republicans eager to cut spending and the necessity for comprehensive Farm Bill provisions.

A key area of concern within the House centers on the intentions of the Freedom Caucus and other right-leaning members to influence specific Farm Bill programs through spending reductions and policy shifts. Unlike past bills passed by a slim Republican majority without Democratic support, the Farm Bill now demands bipartisan backing due to its intricate nature. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Farm Bill leaders are striving to address major challenges early on, potentially defusing some of the major challenges that may arise later.

The debate surrounding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and work requirements is a pivotal point of contention in the Farm Bill discussions. The push for more stringent SNAP regulations faces staunch resistance from Democrats. The convergence of far-right Republicans and progressive Democrats rallying around distinct Farm Bill components adds another layer of complexity.

Climate initiatives, notably within the conservation title, are a substantial focus of the Farm Bill. The recent inclusion of nearly $20 billion in the Conservation Stewardship Program funding aims to bolster its reach. The program’s popularity has encountered capacity limitations, despite the infusion. This additional funding, presently considered supplemental, raises the question of whether it can be transitioned into permanent baseline funding. Such a shift could yield enduring benefits, with potential allocations to other areas beyond conservation, streamlining appropriations, and leaving a lasting impact on policy. Amid these considerations, lawmakers seek robust assurances to safeguard the funding’s purpose and effectiveness.

House Republicans Plan Short-Term Funding Fix to Avert Government Shutdown

House Republicans are preparing to introduce a short-term stopgap funding measure in the coming month to avert a potential partial government shutdown. Speaker Kevin McCarthy informed fellow party members of this strategy during a call on Aug. 14. The proposed continuing resolution is expected to extend existing funding until early December, beyond the September 30 deadline to finalize fiscal year 2024 appropriations. McCarthy emphasized his desire to avoid a continuing resolution into the Christmas recess period.

A few House conservatives are already pushing back on the announcement, saying they will not agree with any CR that is longer than a few weeks or days. House conservatives and appropriators continue to be divided over spending levels, with some advocating for fiscal year 2022 topline spending without using unspent funds from previous laws to augment funding. Despite the need for a continuing resolution to maintain full government operation, lawmakers are skeptical regarding Congress’s ability to pass such a measure, with conservatives pushing back, saying they would not support the extension.

White House Finalizes Guidance to Increase US-Made Goods in Infrastructure

The White House issued binding guidance on Aug. 14 aimed at promoting the use of domestically produced materials like steel, iron, plastic, and other construction elements in government-funded infrastructure projects. This “Build America, Buy America Act” (BABA) guidance, initially proposed in February, has been finalized by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) following extensive public feedback. The guidance aligns with the $1 trillion 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) directed by Congress and seeks to bolster American businesses, workforce, and economic growth.

The guidance broadens standards under the infrastructure law, mandating that government-funded infrastructure projects integrate more U.S.-manufactured iron, steel, construction materials, and manufactured products. The OMB’s guidance outlines specific manufacturing criteria for various materials, including plastic and polymer-based products. To qualify, manufactured goods need to be domestically produced, with the cost of domestically sourced components exceeding 55% of the total component cost.  The issuance of waivers for instances of insufficiently available U.S.-made products or when domestic material use escalates project costs by over 25% is also highlighted.

Additionally, President Joe Biden’s executive order from 2021 aimed at strengthening “Buy American” provisions has paved the way for these enhanced guidelines. The Biden administration’s subsequent rules, introduced in March 2022, progressively raise domestic content thresholds. Previously qualifying products as “Made in America” for federal procurement required 55% of component value to be of U.S. origin. The 2022 rule aims to incrementally increase this threshold to 60% in October, 65% in 2024, and eventually 75% in 2029.