SKIP TO CONTENT

info@nenasf.org
508-754-2671

NEW ENGLAND CHAPTER HOSTS ANNUAL VIRTUAL MARCH SEMINAR

Date: March 23, 2024
Category: Events, Member News, NASF Chapters, NASF National, Regulation

NENASF logo

The New England Chapter of NASF was, once again, pleased to host a virtual Wastewater Continuing Education Webinar for the benefit of our membership and the entire metal finishing community. This event was offered via Zoom format, at no charge to NENASF members, over a two-hour period from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm on Wednesday March 20, 2024.

 

The program, comprised of three speakers, offered vital technical and regulatory compliance information to the metal finishing community. Attendees also qualified for two Continuing Education Wastewater Treatment Contact Hours to be used towards Wastewater license renewal.

 

Frank DeSilva of Resin Tech opened the Webinar with an update on the current status of the very hot button PFAS issue and regulatory efforts by the EPA. After giving us some very helpful facts, he then offered remediation techniques and technologies for successful PFAS removal from waste streams.

This presentation was followed by one from Mark Schario of Columbia Chemicals who enlightened attendees with a history of Trivalent Chrome plating baths and how they have greatly improved in appearance and durability over the last three or four decades. The substitution of Hex Chrome plating baths with trivalent baths is a very timely presentation given the TSCA chemical banning frenzy that is taking place across all chemical user and manufacturer sectors, especially in the metal finishing community.

The closing speaker was Dave Calnan of CCI-A Chemicals offering practical solutions and techniques for, and benefits of, oxidizing wastewater prior to reduction and precipitation.

 

Special thanks, once again, to Chris Capalbo, Dev Massimi and Ralph Capalbo as Program Moderators and Speaker Facilitators for their contributions, and to the combined efforts of NASF Board Members, Committee Members, Chapter Membership and dedicated and talented members of the Metal Finishing Community as a whole for making events such as this available for the benefit of our membership.  Over thirty members of the NENASF and metal finishing community were in attendance and benefited from this program.

Public Policy Report – March 2024

Date: March 23, 2024
Category: NASF National, Regulation

NASF Logo

March 2024

 

 

EPA PFAS Survey Closes: The Surface Finishing Industry Response

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the most recent stage of its PFAS rulemaking process with an extensive industry survey to over 2,000 facilities to inform one of two “first-of-its-kind” PFAS wastewater discharge rules for manufacturing. The survey included an sprawling set of information requests regarding facility operations and processes, use of PFAS, PFAS discharge data, water discharge permits, and financial information.

 

The NASF launched a series of webinars for members to guide the finishing industry on responding to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s PFAS survey. Accurate responses to the survey that are representative of the industry are critical because the information from the survey will help to shape the rule for PFAS wastewater discharges.

 

As of mid-March 2024, EPA had received approximately 950 responses to the survey and nearly 650 were from chromium finishing operations. Any company still working on the survey response should submit it to EPA as soon as possible. This high response rate to the survey from the industry will ensure that more accurate information is used in rulemaking deliberations.

 

EPA will now review the survey results and begin to develop the proposed PFAS wastewater discharge rule. Before issuing a proposed rule, EPA will also have to conduct a small business impact panel to solicit information on the potential economic consequences of the proposed rule on small businesses and to consider options for minimizing that impact. Officials have targeted December 2024 as the date for a proposed rule, but with the delay in sending out the survey and the required analytical steps ahead for the agency, the deadline for the proposed rule may be extended into 2025.

 

The association will continue to work closely with EPA officials on the development of this critical rule for the surface finishing industry. If members have questions or would like additional information on the survey or the PFAS rulemaking process, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or cichter@thepolicygroup.com.

 

Latest Action on Federal Climate Disclosure Rules for Industry: Securities and Exchange Commission Scales Back Requirements under Pressure

 

On March 6, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), responding to pressure from a wide range of industry and agriculture efforts, adopted narrower final rules to require publicly traded companies to disclose “any climate-related risks that have materially impacted or are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the registrant, including on its business strategy, results of operations, or financial conditions.” Specifically, the final rules require disclosure of more direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (referred to as Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions) on a phased-in basis by certain larger companies when those emissions are material.

 

In addition, climate-related disclosures must be incorporated into annual reports filed with the SEC. The final rules also include a phased-in compliance period for all companies (extending from FY 2025 to FY 2033), with the compliance date dependent on the company’s filer status and the content of the disclosure,

 

Changes from Proposed Rules

The final rules include significant changes from the proposed rule regarding GHG emissions disclosure requirements. In addition to the fact that the Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures are no longer mandatory for all companies, the amended rules no longer require companies to report certain indirect emissions, including from their supply chains and customers’ use of their products, such as coal or crude oil, or so-called Scope 3 emissions. Companies had opposed the requirement, saying they would be overly burdensome and complex.

 

Court Stays the Final Rules

Shortly after the SEC ruling, a coalition of 10 states filed a legal challenge, claiming that the rule was “illegal and unconstitutional.” In addition, an industry coalition led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also filed a suit seeking to halt implementation of the SEC rules. Other individual companies also filed legal challenges to the final rules.

 

On March 15, 2024, a U.S. appeals court has temporarily halted new rules issued by the SEC.

In arguing for an administrative stay of the final rules, the companies argued that the climate rules “directly or indirectly regulates significant aspects of the country’s economy under the guise of requiring detailed (and wildly speculative) disclosures about ‘climate-related risks’ and ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions,”

 

Impact on Surface Finishing Operations

First, the climate disclosure rules apply only to publicly traded companies. Surface finishing operations would have been most directly impacted if customers subject to the rule needed information from them regarding GHG emissions in the supply chain. Given that the SEC removed the reporting of Scope 3 emissions from the final rules, such information will not be federally mandated from surface finishing operations. In addition, it appears that legal challenges to the SEC rules will delay any implementation of the climate disclosure requirements. However, even though there may be no specific regulatory requirements climate disclosure, many large companies may still request climate-related information from its supply chain (including surface finishing operations) as part of their corporate sustainability programs.

 

Accordingly, NASF will continue to monitor regulatory developments and climate disclosure trends and how it may impact the surface finishing industry. If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding the SEC climate disclosure rules or GHG reporting requests, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

 

Michigan Advancing on PFAS in Wastewater and Stormwater Discharges

 

NASF recently participated with Michigan industry leaders at MiNASF chapter’s annual technical and industry event in Grand Rapids, and met with officials from Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to discuss a range of topics, including: EPA’s PFAS wastewater discharge rule, EGLE’s industrial pretreatment program for PFAS, and EGLE’s stormwater program for PFAS. Michigan agency officials noted that its effort to address PFOS in wastewater discharges to POTWs has been successful thus far, and it is now beginning to focus on addressing PFOS in stormwater.

 

Industrial Pretreatment Program

With regard to the industrial pretreatment program for discharges to POTWs, EGLE reported that it had identified 181 sources of PFOS and 55 of them were metal finishing facilities. Of those 181 sources of PFOS, 87 had installed PFOS pretreatment, and 32 of the 87 were metal finishing facilities. Based on the industrial pretreatment program, POTWs reported reduction of PFOS in its effluent by 84 to 99 percent (with most POTWs having reductions in excess of 95 percent). In December 2019, only 72 percent of POTWs meet the Michigan surface water quality value of 12 ppt for PFOS (including all of the POTWs that did not have any sources of PFOS). As of February 2024, 93 percent of POTWs are now meeting the 12 ppt surface water quality value.

 

Industrial Stormwater Discharges

With the success of the industrial pretreatment program in significantly reducing the amount of PFOS in effluent discharges, EGLE has also turned its attention to reducing PFOS in industrial stormwater discharges. Approximately two years ago, EGLE started identifying potential sources of PFOS in stormwater and then conducted investigations to characterize stormwater discharges. 45 facilities were investigated and 20 facilities were set for enforcement and corrective action (15 of those 20 facilities were metal finishing facilities). EGLE sent letters to the facilities targeted for corrective action to initiate enforcement through a general administrative consent order (GACO).

 

After a lengthy period of inactivity on this matter, EGLE is now expected to proceed with implementing corrective action with facilities by Summer 2024 through the use of a GACO. The GACO process would not include any up-front penalties and would allow facilities to identify and implement appropriate site-specific corrective actions.

 

The corrective action would target source removal instead of requiring the collection and treatment of stormwater. Corrective actions could include the following:

  • Clean contaminated surfaces, equipment, tanks and other ancillary pipes,
  • Reseal or replace roofs,
  • Resurface parking lots,
  • Replacement of line contaminated storm sewer pipes and down spouts, replace air handling equipment, and
  • Elimination of stormwater exposure to contaminated equipment or materials.

The GACO would also include stormwater effluent goals, and failure to meet these goals would trigger additional corrective actions, but not financial penalties. In addition, the GACO would include ongoing compliance monitoring and performance certification.

 

While EGLE’s GACO process provides flexibility, facilities will need to work with EGLE to identify and remove the source of PFOS in stormwater. As long as facilities continue to work with EGLE in implementing corrective actions to remove PFOS in stormwater discharges, the agency does not include to impose any penalties.

 

As NASF continues to work with EPA on the development of the PFAS wastewater discharge rule for the surface finishing industry, EGLE continues to address PFAS in wastewater and stormwater discharges and appears to be setting the standard for the surface finishing industry. If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

 

EPA Racing to Complete Priority Rules Before Possible Congressional Review Act Deadline

 

EPA top officials have acknowledged that the agency is working to finalize a suite of major environmental regulations by the end of May 2024 to avoid a possible reversal of the regulations pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) should Republicans gain control of both chambers in the next Congress. The CRA applies to final rules, including major rules, nonmajor rules, interim final rules, and may even include guidance documents and policy memoranda. Typically, the CRA is most often applied to rules that were promulgated in the last six months of a previous Administration.

 

The CRA enables Congress to disapprove a final rule or policy issued by a federal agency. A rule or policy disapproved using this mechanism is not only nullified; the agency is also prevented from reissuing a “substantially similar” rule or policy in the future unless Congress authorizes it to do so via subsequent legislation.

 

As a result, EPA is accelerating its efforts to finalize several major air, water, waste, and chemicals management rules and policies in the next two months to avoid the potential risk that priority regulations could be rescinded by a new Congress after the November elections. Vicky Arroyo, head of EPA’s Policy Office indicated that this risk is “something that we’re very focused on,” and that the White House “is working very closely with [EPA] to ty to get our priority rules done as soon as possible because we are obviously . . . just aware of that risk.” NASF will continue to engage closely with EPA on its near-term regulatory agenda and provide updates to NASF members. If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding this issue, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

 

NASF 1000

 

The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would ‎have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative and legal actions impacting the ‎industry, NASF members and their workplaces. All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used ‎exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-‎day public policy activities. The commitment to this program is one of the most vital ‎contributions made in support of surface finishing and directly shapes the future of the ‎industry. ‎

 

The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and ‎credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation. Specific projects funded through ‎the NASF 1000 make a measurable difference in how the industry navigates emerging ‎challenges, communicates credibly with policy makers, and advocates for a strong science base ‎for rules or standards that affect surface finishing. ‎

 

Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. If you have any questions or would like ‎additional information regarding the NASF 1000 program or the broad array of NASF public ‎policy activities, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.‎

 

January 2024 NASF Policy Update

Date: January 23, 2024
Category: NASF National, Regulation

NASF Logo

  • NASF Action Ahead on Major EPA Regulatory Push in 2024 – Finishing industry ‎burdens could exceed over a billion in future costs and liabilities if certain rules are ‎finalized. NASF will be fully engaged with policy makers this election year.‎
  • NASF Government Affairs PFAS Webinars – The association’s Public Policy team on ‎January 15th provided guidance to members from across the nation on the new survey, ‎and more advice and assistance is available.‎
  • Pentagon Proposes Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program Rule: NASF Review Underway A proposed rule published in the Federal Register on ‎December 26, 2023 establishes a revamped CMMC 2.0 program and defines ‎requirements for the program and for each CMMC level. ‎
  • EPA Issues More Stringent Guidance for Soil Cleanup Screening Levels: Potential Impacts Ahead for Certain Surface Finishing Operations – The new screening levels ‎could drive investigation and/or cleanup at hundreds of thousands of new parcels. ‎

Please see more details on these topics below:‎
NASF Action Ahead on Major EPA Regulatory Push in 2024
With a wide-ranging regulatory agenda set in December 2023 and funds still in the pipeline ‎from Biden initiatives passed by Congress, EPA this year will be rushing to meet deadlines to ‎complete far-reaching regulations and distribute billions of dollars by the end of 2024. The ‎agency is working to implement protections on air, climate, and water by late summer before ‎they may be in danger of reversal next year should Republicans win back full control of ‎Congress and the White House.‎
EPA Deputy Administrator Janet McCabe noted the agency’s work is “hard, tiring, and ‎rewarding” in a widely-circulated note to EPA staff, and advised that “2024 is also going to be a ‎big year for our regulatory programs – from rules that address climate pollution, to those that ‎protect our precious rivers, lakes coastlines, and wetlands, to those that ensure the air we ‎breathe, the water we drink, and the land we rely upon is safe and healthy. I want each rule ‎writer, regulatory development team member, economist, scientist, biologist, and public health ‎officer to know that Administrator Regan and I have got your back as you make your way ‎through your work this year. We have an important job to do, and I am confident that together ‎we will deliver.”‎
The finishing industry could be subject to new regulatory burdens and future liability exceeding ‎a billion dollars if EPA finalized some of its most significant rulemakings, including:‎

  • the PFAS Superfund remediation listing regulation, ‎
  • the PFAS drinking water standard, ‎
  • several chemicals management rules, and
  • the wastewater discharge rule for metal finishing and electroplating.‎

NASF will continue working with EPA officials on these and other policy decisions and ‎providing members with critical updates in the coming year. If you have any questions or ‎would like more information, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at ‎jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com. ‎
NASF Government Affairs Webinars: Providing Guidance to Members on EPA’s Survey for the PFAS Wastewater Discharge Rule
Since late December, finishing facilities across the nation began receiving federal EPA’s ‎industry survey that will inform the agency’s surface finishing PFAS wastewater discharge rule. ‎The survey includes an extensive set of information requests regarding facility operations and ‎processes, facility uses of PFAS, PFAS discharge data, water discharge permits, and company ‎financial information. The submission of accurate responses to the survey that are ‎representative of the industry will be critical, as the information from the survey will help to ‎shape the rule to address – in some form – PFAS wastewater discharges from finishing.‎‎On January 15, NASF held a webinar for members to provide some guidance on responding to ‎the survey. The program prompted wide participation from association members across the ‎country. The guidance included, among other topics:‎

  • general considerations for the survey,‎
  • a brief summary of the “off ramps” for the survey, ‎
  • clarifications on the type of information that EPA is requesting and EPA’s rationale for ‎requesting it, ‎
  • the process for protecting some of the responses as confidential business information ‎‎(CBI), the survey submission deadline, and ‎
  • how to request an extension. ‎

In addition, The Policy Group answered questions from participants as part of the webinar and ‎in the days following. ‎The webinar is available on the NASF website in the members-only area.
NASF is planning some additional webinars on the survey and details regarding the upcoming ‎webinars will be provided soon. If you have any questions or would like additional information ‎on the survey, the new wastewater discharge rule for PFAS, or upcoming webinars on the ‎survey, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at ‎jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or cichter@thepolicygroup.com.
Pentagon Proposes Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program Rule: NASF Review Underway
The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program is the Department of ‎Defense’s (DOD) process of ensuring that contractors are adequately protecting sensitive ‎information under DOD contracts. It requires DOD contractors to certify that they are ‎compliant with cybersecurity requirements for protecting sensitive information. DOD has been ‎making efforts to increase cybersecurity protections, including when it announced in November ‎‎2021 “CMMC 2.0” that established a program structure with three key factors: 1) tiered levels ‎of security, 2) assessment requirements, and 3) implementation through contracts.‎
A proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2023 establishes a ‎revamped CMMC 2.0 program and defines requirements for the program and for each CMMC ‎level. Surface finishing operations conducting business with DOD and its contractors have been ‎in the process of implementing CMMC requirements at significant cost for some and will be ‎impacted by this rule. ‎
A copy of the proposed rule is available at the following link: ‎https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/26/2023-27280/cybersecurity-maturity-‎model-certification-cmmc-program. ‎
Tier LevelsThe proposed rule preserves the three tier levels that were introduced in CMMC 2.0.‎

  • CMMC Level 1 – includes 15 requirements listed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation ‎‎(FAR) and would apply to contractors who store, process, or transmit Federal Contract ‎Information (FCI).‎
  • CMMC Level 2 – includes 110 requirements from the National Institute of Standards ‎and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, Rev. 2 and would apply ‎broadly to contractors who store, process, or transmit Controlled Unclassified ‎information (CUI).‎
  • CMMC Level 3 – includes 24 requirements from NIST SP 800-172 and full ‎implementation of NIST SP 800-171 and would apply to a small group of contractors ‎who store, process, or transmit high-value CUI.‎

AssessmentsThe proposed rule includes a mixture of self-assessments and third-party assessments depending ‎on the nature of the data.‎

  • CMMC Level 1 assessments will be self-assessments that require contractors to verify ‎their own compliance with the applicable security controls and submit their assessments ‎to DOD annually.‎
  • CMMC Level 2 assessments will be either self-assessments or a certification assessment ‎performed by a third-party assessment organization that must be completed every three ‎years. The proposed rule does not specify how DOD will determine which type of ‎assessment will be required.‎
  • CMMC Level 3 assessments will be certification assessments performed by the Defense ‎Industrial Base Cybersecurity Assessment Center every three years.‎

Certifications and Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M)An assessment may result in a Final Certification or a Conditional Certification, depending on ‎whether the contractor has implemented all of the required security controls. The proposed rule ‎allows for some flexibility with the limited use of a Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) ‎for certain requirements and for a limited time where some controls are not yet implemented. ‎
For example, POA&Ms are not permitted for Level 1 assessments but can be used for some ‎Level 2 and 3 assessments. If a POA&M exists after an assessment, the contractor will be ‎granted a Conditional Certification and have 180 days to fully implement all of the security ‎controls listed in the POA&M. Failure to implement the security controls in the POA&M will ‎result in penalties or loss of the DOD contract.‎
Implementation TimelineThe proposed rule includes a four-phase implementation plan.‎

  • Phase One – begins on the effective date of the final CMMC rule and includes a CMMC ‎Level 1 or CMMC Level 2 self-assessment as a condition for contract award.‎
  • Phase Two – begins six months after Phase One and includes CMMC Level 2 ‎certification assessments for contract awards.‎
  • Phase Three – begins one year after Phase Two and introduces CMMC Level 3 ‎certification assessments.‎
  • Phase Four – full implementation of CMMC requirements begins on October 1, 2026.‎

Comment Deadline and Preparing for the RuleComments on the proposed rule are due on February 26, 2024. NASF will continue to review ‎and evaluate the proposed rule and plans to submit comments. Because the final rule is not ‎expected to look dramatically different from the proposed rule, surface finishing operations ‎subject to these requirements should consider continuing their efforts toward full compliance ‎with the CMMC requirements. ‎
If you have any questions or would like more information regarding the CMMC proposed rule ‎or compliance efforts, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at ‎jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com. ‎

EPA Issues More Stringent Guidance for Soil Cleanup Screening Levels: Potential Impacts Ahead for Certain Surface Finishing Operations

EPA issued new guidance on recommended screening levels for cleaning up lead-contaminated ‎soil at federal Superfund cleanup sites and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ‎corrective action facilities. Specifically, EPA lowered the screening level for lead in soil at ‎residential properties from 400 parts per million (ppm) to 200 ppm. ‎
For remedial actions, if there are other sources of lead exposure, such as lead in air and water, ‎EPA recommends screening level as 100 ppm. EPA notes that the guidance’s new thresholds ‎should apply to both existing and new sites. This action is expected to drive evaluation and ‎cleanup at a “significant number” of residential properties.‎
The new screening levels could drive investigation and/or cleanup at hundreds of thousands of ‎new parcels. EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation estimate that ‎this could result in approximately 500,000 parcels (an order of magnitude estimate) needing ‎investigation and/or cleanup. ‎
New Screening Level to Drive More Stringent Cleanup Levels at More Sites
In the new guidance the agency emphasizes that screening levels are not cleanup levels, and are ‎used in the early stages of investigating a release to determine if the level of contamination is ‎high enough to warrant further investigation. Nonetheless, the new screening level will drive ‎substantially more stringent cleanup levels at significantly more sites. ‎
EPA requests that its own regional office work collaboratively with state, tribal, and public ‎health agencies to prioritize addressing sites, considering factors such as current levels of ‎exposure and communities with increased risk. Consistent with national policy, EPA will make ‎resource decisions for residential lead sites in a manner that balances resources across all ‎Superfund sites. Because many of the communities at highest risk are in urban areas, it could ‎have an impact on all industry sectors, including surface finishing operations.‎
NASF will continue to monitor this issue and its potential impacts on the surface finishing ‎industry. If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Jeff ‎Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or ‎crichter@thepolicygroup.com. ‎

NASF 1000

The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would ‎have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative and legal actions impacting the ‎industry, NASF members and their workplaces. All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used ‎exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-‎day public policy activities. The commitment to this program is one of the most vital ‎contributions made in support of surface finishing and directly shapes the future of the ‎industry. ‎
The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and ‎credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation. Specific projects funded through ‎the NASF 1000 make a measurable difference in how the industry navigates emerging ‎challenges, communicates credibly with policy makers, and advocates for a strong science base ‎for rules or standards that affect surface finishing. ‎
Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. If you have any questions or would like ‎additional information regarding the NASF 1000 program or the broad array of NASF public ‎policy activities, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.‎

NEW ENGLAND CHAPTER HOSTS ANNUAL VIRTUAL FALL SEMINAR

Date: October 4, 2023
Category: Chapter News, Events, Member News, NASF Chapters, NASF National, Regulation

NENASF LOGO

The New England Chapter of NASF hosted a virtual seminar for the benefit of their membership and the entire non-NENASF metal finishing community. The event was held on Wednesday September 13, 2023.  The event was presented free of charge to NENASF members, and at a modest fee for other interested parties, as an educational and bonding opportunity for the metal finishing community.

 

The Webinar was conducted by means of Zoom format and attracted about forty attendees. It was made up of three segments featuring three presenters over a two-hour period from 10:00am to 12:00 pm offering a user-friendly format for all attendees. In addition to offering vital regulatory and technical information the event also made available two Continuing Education Wastewater Treatment Operator Contact Hours needed for WWT Operator License renewal.

 

Ethan Ware of Williams Mullen Law Group opened the Webinar with a presentation on the upcoming EPA PSFAS Survey that will be sent out to nearly 2000 metal finishers this fall. He stressed that the demographics would not only include chrome platers but chromate conversion coaters as well. This is a very detailed Survey and asks many complex questions through eight sections over seventy-one pages. He covered the answering/data requirements both from a technical as well as a legal perspective. He very much stressed that the information gathered in this Survey will shape the future of Wastewater Discharge Permits for years to come.

This was followed by a presentation by Jeremy Riley of Omega Research giving a detailed description of how proper finishing specification required test sample preparation can make a difference in acceptable test results, while poorly prepared samples can fail causing ripple effects with customer job acceptance.

The webinar was concluded with a presentation by Tony Oriti on Zinc-Nickel and Zinc-Tin as an alternative to Cadmium Plating. Tony not only presented the latest technological advances in these two finishes as they try to replace a long-time exceptional performing and defense and aerospace specified finish, cadmium, but also gave the attendees a look at emerging technology in the form a triple alloy finish that is in the developmental stages.

 

Once again we want to give special thanks to Chris Capalbo for moderating, and to Dev Massimi and Ralph Capalbo as Program Speaker Facilitators for their contributions, and to the combined efforts of NASF Board Members, Committee Members, Chapter Membership and dedicated and talented members of the Metal Finishing Community as a whole for making events such as this available for the benefit of our membership.

NASF News

Date: July 17, 2023
Category: Chapter News, NASF National

National Association for Surface Finishing
Get the news, trends, and deadlines you need to know to stay current with the National Association for Surface Finishing and our industry.

 |  | 

 

 

Important Dates

 

  • Environmental Stewardship Part 1 Course Registration Deadline: July 25
  • Environmental Stewardship Part 1: Wastewater Treatment Course: August 8-30, T&Ws
  • Airline & Aerospace Finishing Parts 1 & 2 Registration Deadline: August 22
  • Airline & Aerospace Finishing Parts 1 & 2 Course: September 5-October 27, T&Ws
  • Washington Forum: October 30-November 1
 

SUR/FIN 2023 by the Numbers

 

Thank you to all of the attendees, exhibitors, and sponsors that made SUR/FIN 2023 a success!

  • 2102 Registrants
  • 180 Exhibiting Companies
  • 72 Technical Sessions
  • 4 Networking Opportunities including a Welcome Reception, Industry Night brought to you by OAMF, Women’s Reception, and Closing Reception Honoring Young Professionals
  • 3 Keynote Presentations from Sharon Miller – NASA Glenn Research Center, Jeff Szotek – Sr. Technical Specialist, Stellantis, and Tim Hall, PhD. – Research Director, Faraday Technology, Inc.‎
  • 2 Bootcamp Sessions

We look forward to seeing you in Atlanta, Georgia, June 5-7 for SUR/FIN 2024! Exhibitors, be sure to reserve your booth for 2024 as the show floor is already over 70% filled.

 

undefined undefined
 
 

2023 Industry Awards

 

Awards of Merit– This award is given to individuals that demonstrate outstanding service on a local and/or ‎national level. The recipients have worked tirelessly and have selflessly devoted themselves to the industry.

  • Recipients:
    • Peter Tremmel, Accu-Labs, Inc.
    • Tom Laken, Finishing Plating Services

Taormina Award– This award is one of the NASF’s most prestigious. It is awarded to an individual who has ‎performed outstanding service to the finishing industry.‎

  • Recipient:
    • Patrick Hayden, Unimetal Surface Finishing, Inc.

 

Hannapel & Richter - Presidential
Award Pat Hayden - Taormina Award Tim Hall - Scientific Achievement Award
 

Award of Scientific Achievement– This award recognizes a person who has contributed to the advancement of the theory ‎and practice of electroplating, metal finishing, and the allied arts; raised the quality of ‎processes and products; enhanced the dignity and status of the profession; or has been ‎involved in a combination of these efforts.‎

  • Recipient
    • Tim Hall, PhD., Faraday Technology, Inc.

August P. Munning Award– This award is given to a supplier member who, in the opinion of their peers, has significantly contributed ‎to the future well-being of the Association and exemplifies the traits of August P. ‎Munning—including a great interest, hard work, dedication, and selfless devotion to the metal ‎finishing industry.‎

  • Recipient
    • George Gilbert, Gilbert & Jones, Inc.

Presidental Award– This award focuses on the extraordinary service put forth by NASF members who are actively participating on the national level, going above and beyond the capacity of most.

  • Recipients:
    • Christian Richter, The Policy Group
    • Jeff Hannapel, The Policy Group

 

 

Upcoming In-Person Courses

 

 

Web-based Course

Dates: August 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30

Registration Deadline: July 25, 2023

 

Member Rate: $1,050

Non-Member Rate: $1,400

 

 

 

Web-based Course

Dates: September 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 30, 26, 27, October 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27

Registration Deadline: August 22, 2023

 

Member Rate: $1,400

Non-Member Rate: $1,800

 

 
 

NASF Webinar: Summer Government &

Industry Affairs Update

 

NASF follows federal, state, and international regulatory developments closely on behalf of its members and will hold its summer webinar on July 18, 2023 at 2:00 PM, to review the most important emerging regulations for the finishing industry and how they impact your company.

 

Please join Christian Richter and Jeff Hannapel of the Policy Group for this members-only webinar.

 

 
 

AESF Foundation Bookstore

 

The AESF Foundation is excited to announce that our  is now open! All proceeds from the bookstore go to the foundation which funds our courses, research, scholarships, and more.

 

Check out  edited by Jean-Claude Puippe and Frank Leaman, which is now available in eBook and paperback as well as  by Professor Per Møller, Ph.D. and Lars Pleth Nielsen, now available in hardcover.

 

 

NASF Membership

 

Don’t forget– NASF member fees are past due! If you have not paid your member dues yet, please log in to your account . If it is your first time logging into the new system, please see the help page .

 

Contact  if you run into any issues or have any questions.

 

Interested in becoming a member? Check out our  and apply today!

 

 

Washington Forum 2023

 

Mark your calendars for  from October 30 through November 1 at The Ritz Carlton, Pentagon City. The Forum includes presentations and briefings from national and global experts on pertinent policy, technical, regulatory, and management issues impacting the surface finishing industry, including environmental regulatory issues, labor and workplace trends, tax policy, economic outlooks, supply chain challenges, globally regulatory developments, and political and election outlooks.

 

Recent speakers at the Forum have included Jake Sherman- Founder, Punchbowl News, Jeff Weiss- Partner, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Marc Freedman- Vice President of Employment Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Michael Chipley- Cyber Security & Information Systems Information Analysis Center.

 

Registration will open in August!

 

 

NASF 1000

 

The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would ‎have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative, and legal actions impacting the ‎industry, NASF members and their workplaces. All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used ‎exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-‎day public policy activities. The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and ‎credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation.

 

Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. If you have any questions or would like ‎additional information regarding the NASF 1000 program or the broad array of NASF public ‎policy activities, please contact info@nasf.org.

 

 

Chapter News

 

July

 – July 12

Manakiki Golf Course, Willoughby Hills

35501 Eddy Rd

Willoughby, OH 44094

 

August

– August 4, 12:00 PM – 8:30 PM

Majestic Oaks Golf Club

701 Bunker Lake Boulevard

Ham Lake, MN 55304

 

 – August 21, 1:00 PM Shotgun Start

Klein Creek Golf Club

1N333 Pleasant Hill Rd

Winfield, IL 60190

 

September

Detroit Auto Show Chapter Meeting – September 13-14

Industry Preview Days

 

October

MINASF Midwest Seminar – October 5-7

Grand Hotel, Mackinac Island

 

Make sure to get your event in front of this industry-specific network by alerting NASF of your upcoming chapter events. Fill out this survey !

 

Government and Industry Affairs Update – Available in our NENASF Member Login

Date: April 7, 2023
Category: Member News, NASF National, Regulation

NASF Logo

Invest and participate in the NASF Government Affairs program.

 This highly effective public policy effort directly impacts decisions affecting finishing; it also produces direct savings to your company as a result of its education outreach at the state and national levels, and internationally.

Your membership generates a solid return on investment and supports essential programs to advance surface technology, nationally and worldwide.

The leaders in our industry understand the advantage of aligning themselves with NASF, which connects them to the people and information needed to leverage their resources to greatest advantage.

NASF Public Policy Update – February 2023

Date: February 28, 2023
Category: NASF Chapters, NASF National, Regulation

 

This month, NASF has been closely engaged with federal regulators on a full slate of policy challenges emerging in 2023. Among the immediate advocacy priorities for the industry are the US Environmental Protection Agency’s first-of-its kind PFAS rule for the finishing industry, the agency’s soon-to-be-released nationwide mandatory survey for finishers on PFAS in facilities’ wastewater, new Superfund liability-forcing federal chemicals regulations and California’s proposed hexavalent chromium ban for both decorative and functional applications.

 

In the divided Congress, lawmakers are challenged to find common ground on enacting even “must pass” legislation this year. However, key congressional committees are now organized and are exercising a wide-ranging set of oversight hearings on the difficulties faced by manufacturers as the Congress and the White House press to re-shore US industry and implement ambitious “Buy American” initiatives. In the meantime, the Biden Administration is accelerating its ambitious regulatory agenda through new rules and other executive actions.

 

A summary of pertinent current topics for the industry is below:

 

Federal Issues:

·     EPA Pushes Back Timeline for Proposing Metal Finishing PFAS Effluent Limits – The proposed new metal finishing standards to address PFAS is now being pushed back from August 2024 to December 2024. NASF is discussing with EPA staff the agency’s pending survey of the industry, which will likely be sent to finishing companies by April 2023.

·     OSHA, DOT and EPA Civil Penalties are Increasing in 2023 – The Department of Labor recently revised civil penalty amounts for OSHA violations by employers, per an earlier authorization by Congress. The Department of Transportation has also increased civil penalties for all modes of transportation, including highway, by 7.745 percent. EPA’s new maximum penalties are now highest for Clean Air Act violations at $117,468 per day

·     EPA Releases Draft IRIS Assessment for Cobalt – EPA recently released its draft plan to assess the cancer potential from inhalation of cobalt that takes a “no safe-level” approach inconsistent with other available science.

 

State Issues:

·     NASF Highlights Finishing Industry’s Accomplishments in Response to California Air Board’s Proposed Ban on Hexavalent Chromium – Industry leaders in a recent hearing in California highlighted key reasons for state air authorities to chart a different path than phasing out all hexavalent chromium electroplating and anodizing.

·     New York State Enacts Law that Requires Environmental Justice Cumulative Impact Analysis – A new law will require a thorough review of the cumulative impacts of pollution on certain disadvantaged communities before an environmental permit is issued or renewed.

 

For more details on each of these topics, see the expanded discussion below.

 

EPA Pushes Back Timeline for Developing PFAS Effluent Limits

 

EPA’s Office of Water has just announced it will delay its proposed PFAS discharge rule for the finishing industry by several months, from its initial August 2024 target to December 2024.

 

As NASF has continued to discuss key aspects of the rule with EPA, a coalition of 17 environmental groups that includes Environmental Working Group (EWG), Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council had earlier urged EPA to quickly promulgate new controls for the entire metal finishing industry, not only chrome plating operations.

 

NASF most recently provided input to EPA officials on pending industry data collection efforts. The agency’s mandatory survey associated the rule is still expected to be sent out the chromium plating facilities shortly, likely by April 2023. If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding this issue, please contact Christian Richter or Jeff Hannapel with NASF at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

Reminder: OSHA, DOT and EPA Penalties Recently Increased Penalties

 

As a reminder, the Department of Labor has revised civil penalty amounts for OSHA violations by employers, per an earlier authorization by Congress to keep up with inflation. Maximum penalties for serious and other-than-serious violations have increased from $14,502 to $15, 625 per violation. For willful or repeated violations, maximum penalties have increased from $145,027 to $156,259.

The Department of Transportation has also increased civil penalties for all modes of transportation, including highway, by 7.745 percent. The increases apply to dozens of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and Hazardous Materials Regulations violations, including violations related to:

·      Out-of-service orders

·      Recordkeeping

·      Non-recordkeeping

·      Hazardous materials regulations

·      Commercial regulations

·      Operating authority requirement

·      Tariffs

·      Loading and unloading

·      Evasion of U. S. Codes

·      Reporting and recordkeeping

 

Finally, the EPA has increased maximum civil penalties for environmental violations as follows:

 

2022 2023
Clean Air Act (CAA) ‎$109,024‎ $117,468
Clean Water Act (CWA) ‎$59,973‎ $64,618
Superfund and Right-to-Know (CERCLA/EPCRA) ‎$62,689‎ $67,544
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) ‎$62,689‎ $67,544
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ‎$43,611‎ $46,989
Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticides (FIFRA) ‎$21,805‎ $23,494

 

EPA Releases Plan for New Health Risk Assessment for Cobalt

 

The agency recently released its draft plan for an extensive new health evaluation for cobalt inhalation and will focus its assessment on water-soluble and water-insoluble cobalt compounds.

EPA officials indicated that it plans to carry out a cancer assessment that will likely be more stringent and generate new risk values that could drive additional future restrictions on cobalt use, much like the current hexavalent chromium evaluation under review by the agency.

The agency also recently announced a public meeting in January to discuss several matters related to its approach on inhalation risks from cobalt, including scientific complexities associated with the effort.

If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding this issue, please contact Christian Richter or Jeff Hannapel with NASF at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

NASF Highlights Finishing Industry’s Accomplishments in Response to California Air Board’s Proposed Ban on Hexavalent Chromium

 

On January 27, 2023 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a public meeting in Riverside, California on its rule to phase out hexavalent chromium plating.

The industry noted the rule is unnecessary based on:

·     the industry’s exemplary achievement in reducing air emissions by 99.7 percent since 1995 and its commitment to continued stewardship and environmental excellence;

·     the miniscule contribution of the industry to Cr6 emissions vs the total of all other industry-based sources;

·     the already strict state air emission requirements in place for the industry and new controls contemplated by the rule;

·     the continued industrial customer demand and specifications for Cr6 applications into the future;

·     the industry’s interest in pursuing a less onerous path to transition away from Cr6.

The new rule would impose the following new requirements.

·     January 1, 2024 — The new rule would prohibit any new permits for chromic acid anodizing and hard or decorative chromium electroplating facilities.

·     January 1, 2026 — Hard chromium and chromic acid anodizing facilities would have to implement control requirements to meet stringent air emissions limits.

·     January 1, 2027 – All existing decorative hexavalent chromium would be prohibited.

·     January 1, 2039 – All existing hexavalent chromium functional plating and chromic acid anodizing would be prohibited.

 

Industry Testimony

 

Nearly 70 industry representatives and company employees testified at the public meeting urging CARB members to rescind or revise the rule to avoid job losses and negative economic impacts on surface finishing facilities in California. NASF participated in the public meeting and provided testimony on behalf of California company members.

 

Many from industry cited the near zero level of hexavalent chromium emissions from chromium plating and anodizing operations – particularly for decorative chromium applications – compared to other sources of hexavalent chromium. Others noted that decorative hexavalent chromium plating remains an important tool to meet customers’ corrosion and other product performance demands and specifications.

 

An additional theme of the varied testimony highlighted the fact that surface finishing facilities in California are subject to the most stringent hexavalent chromium emissions regulations in the country. NASF members urged CARB to implement new, even more stringent emissions-based limits rather than banning hexavalent chromium plating and anodizing.

 

Board Response

 

Based on the arguments raised in the testimony, several individual CARB members expressed concerns about the smallest facilities with the smallest emissions profile facing the earliest ban, the extremely low emission profile of decorative plating, the necessity for more time for decorative plating to transition to alternatives, and the need for emission-based limits for plating facilities.

 

The Board requested that industry provide staff with additional information on products, such as medical equipment, that still require decorative hexavalent chromium plating to meet customer specifications and product demands.

 

Industry Follow-Up and Rulemaking Schedule

 

In response to CARB staff’s request for additional information, the NASF California Chapters and NASF submitted a letter to Board staff on February 10, 2023. The industry continues to engage CARB members and staff on these issues. Board staff is expected to respond to the letter and/or prepare new rule language for the full Board to consider by mid-March. A final vote on the rule language is scheduled for May 2023. A final rule is expected to be completed and issued by summer 2023 and become effective January 1, 2024.

 

If you have any questions or would like additional information about the CARB rule and the public meeting, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

In the States: New York Becomes Second State to Require Environmental Justice-Focused Cumulative Impact Analysis

 

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed New York’s “Cumulative Impacts” bill into law in December, making New York the second state in the nation to require assessment of “cumulative impacts” affecting certain communities before an environmental permit is issued or renewed.

This is approximately two years after New Jersey passed similar “cumulative impact” legislation. The New York law appears to have a blanket prohibition on issuance or renewal of environmental permits to all facilities which might contribute to further impact on “disadvantaged communities.”

 

Environmental Justice and Cumulative Impact Analysis 

 

The new law requires analysis of “cumulative impacts” on “disadvantaged communities” before a permit is approved or renewed.  “Disadvantaged communities” are defined as “communities that bear burdens of negative public health effects, environmental pollution, impacts of climate change, and possess certain socioeconomic criteria, or comprise high-concentrations of low- and moderate- income households.”

 

Facilities operating in these “disadvantaged communities” would be required to prepare “existing burden reports” containing baseline environmental monitoring data collected within the past two years and information identifying the following:

·     each existing pollution source or categories of sources affecting the community;

·     the potential routes of human exposure to pollution from each source or categories of sources;”

·     ambient concentration of regulated air pollutants and regulated or unregulated toxic air pollutants;

·     traffic volume;

·     noise and odor levels;

·     exposure or potential exposure to lead paint;

·     exposure or potential exposure to contaminated drinking water supplies;

·     proximity to sources like solid or hazardous waste management facilities, wastewater treatment plants, hazardous waste sites, incinerators, recycling facilities, waste transfer facilities and petroleum or chemical manufacturing, storage, treatment or disposal facilities;

·     the potential or documented cumulative human health effects of the pollution sources; and

·     the potential or projected contribution of the proposed action to existing pollution burdens in the community and potential health effects of such contribution.

 

Notably, “[n]o permit shall be approved or renewed by the department if it may cause or contribute to, either directly or indirectly, a disproportionate or inequitable or both disproportionate and inequitable pollution burden on a disadvantaged community.” New York state regulators would make this determination as part of a rulemaking and public participation process to be established later this year.

 

NASF 1000

 

The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative and legal actions impacting the industry, NASF members and their workplaces. All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-day public policy activities. The commitment to this program is one of the most vital contributions made in support of surface finishing and directly shapes the future of the industry.

 

The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation. Specific projects funded through the NASF 1000 make a measurable difference in how the industry navigates emerging challenges, communicates credibly with policy makers, and advocates for a strong science base for rules or standards that affect surface finishing.

 

Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding the NASF 1000 program or the broad array of NASF public policy activities, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

NASF Public Policy Update

Date: April 1, 2022
Category: Events, NASF National, Regulation

March 2022

 

With the NASF Washington Forum slated for next week, the Biden Administration today announced plans to expand domestic production of critical minerals. This follows the release of White House plans a few weeks ago to strengthen U.S. supply chains and invest in manufacturing and infrastructure. The EPA issued its 5-year strategic plan this week, which includes a new round of regulation for the metal finishing industry. The agency is also moving to adopt ASTM’s new PFAS standard for site assessments to limit liability for cleanups.

 

This month’s update provides a summary of these and other key developments in Washington and states that are impacting the surface finishing industry. 

 

  • NASF Washington Forum, April 4-6, 2022 – NASF is holding its annual Washington Forum for the first time since 2019, with briefings from national and global experts on legislative, regulatory and strategic management issues impacting the surface finishing industry. Highlighted will be the NASF Economic Impact Report, which profiles the industry’s output and contribution to the U.S. economy.

 

  • President Biden Invokes the Defense Production Act to Boost Critical Minerals Production in U.S. — President Biden this week took steps to increase domestic production of critical minerals needed for advanced technologies like electric vehicles, in an attempt to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign suppliers. He invoked the Defense Production Act to give the federal government more avenues to provide support for the mining, processing and recycling of critical minerals, such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and manganese.

 

  • EPA Releases Strategic Plan Highlighting Priorities for 2022-2026 — EPA’s final strategic plan for fiscal years 2022-2026 integrates climate change and environmental justice (EJ) throughout the agency’s decision making and programs, and includes a major new focus on bolstering civil rights enforcement in environmental matters.

 

  • White House Releases Plan to Secure Critical Supply Chains and Revitalize U.S. Manufacturing – The Biden Administration released new reports from key agencies on critical supply chains, potential vulnerabilities, and a plan to revitalize U.S. manufacturing.

 

  • EPA Moves to Adopt ASTM’s New PFAS Standard for Site Assessments to Limit Liability for Cleanups – EPA taking steps to adopt new ASTM standards for conducting site assessments for PFAS contamination that could help limit cleanup liabilities for property owners.

 

  • Court Certifies Massive Class in Landmark PFAS Suit – New litigation seeking industry-funded, independent, nationwide health studies and testing to determine the health effects of numerous PFAS found in the blood of nearly all Americans for a broad class of plaintiffs.

 

  • California Adds PFOA to List of Carcinogens, Triggering More Prop 65 Requirements for PFAS Compounds – California continues to add PFAS to list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins to trigger additional labeling and warning requirements under Prop 65.

 

A more detailed summary of these issues is provided below.

 

NASF Washington Forum, April 4-6, 2022

 

The NASF Washington Forum for the surface finishing industry will be held April 4-6, 2022 at the Ritz Carlton in Pentagon City, VA. The Forum will feature briefings from national and global experts on pertinent policy, regulatory, and strategic management issues impacting the surface finishing industry, as well as the latest outlook on the fall midterm elections.

 

The schedule includes a Welcome Reception on the evening of April 4 and policy briefings on April 5 covering U.S. competitiveness and trade policy, EPA PFAS wastewater rules underway for finishing, the labor and workplace agenda, and automotive and defense topics.

 

Keynote speakers include Amy Walter, National Editor of the Cook Political Report and Jake Sherman, Founder of Punchbowl News. A Tuesday April 5 evening reception will follow.

 

More information on the Washington Forum is available on the NASF website at:  https://nasf.org/events/washington-forum/.

 

President Biden Invokes the Defense Production Act to Boost Critical Minerals Production in U.S.

 

President Biden took steps this week to increase domestic production of critical minerals needed for advanced technologies like electric vehicles, in an attempt to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign suppliers.

 

He invoked the Defense Production Act to give the federal government more avenues to provide support for the mining, processing and recycling of critical minerals, such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and manganese, primarily based on their use in large capacity batteries for electric cars and clean energy storage systems

 

“We need to end our long term reliance on China and other countries for inputs that will power the future,” Mr. Biden said during remarks at the White House, where he also announced the release of 1 million barrels of oil per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

 

The Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era statute, gives the president access to funding and other enhanced powers to shore up the American industrial base and ensure the private sector has the necessary resources to defend national security and face emergencies.

 

In a determination issued Thursday, the president said the United States depended on “unreliable foreign sources” for many materials necessary for transitioning to clean energy, and that demand for such materials was projected to increase exponentially.

 

The President directed the Secretary of Defense to bolster the critical mineral supply by supporting feasibility studies for new projects, encouraging waste reclamation at existing sites, and modernizing or increasing production at domestic mines for lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and other so-called critical minerals.

 

Under the new memorandum, the Defense Department would also conduct a survey of the domestic industrial base for critical minerals and submit that to the president and Congress.

 

The actions under review would include funding studies and the expansion or modernization of new and existing sites.

 

EPA Releases Strategic Plan Highlighting Priorities for 2022-2026

 

The EPA this week issued its final strategic plan for fiscal years 2022-2026, which integrates climate change along with an unprecedented focus on environmental justice (EJ) throughout the agency’s decision making and programs, and includes a major new focus on bolstering civil rights enforcement in environmental matters.

 

The plan aims to communicate EPA’s vision, priorities, and strategies to accomplish the agency’s mission over the next several years and also serves as the framework for annual planning and budgeting and development of work plans.

 

The agency’s plan twice mentions the metal finishing industry specifically, including its high-priority rule making focused on metal finishing:

 

“EPA has determined that effluent limitation guidelines under the CWA should be developed to address PFAS in industrial wastewater discharged by the PFAS manufacturing and the metal finishing industries and is initiating

rulemaking to do so. EPA is committed to lifting up the voices of all communities, particularly those who have suffered disproportionately from the impacts of PFAS; supporting those least able to access technical assistance, filtration, and other control and remediation solutions; and working together to

address this complex environmental challenge. EPA will confront the issue of PFAS by fully leveraging the Agency’s authorities and working closely with federal, Tribal, state, and local partners.”

 

NASF is working closely with EPA officials in Washington and in the agency’s regional offices — as well as with key states — to exchange information and data and determine appropriate regulatory options.

 

NASF will host EPA officials at the Washington Forum next week for an outlook and discussion with NASF members at this early stage of rulemaking.

 

Recent White House Plan to Secure Critical Supply Chains and Revitalize U.S. Manufacturing

 

On February 24, 2022, the Biden Administration announced its plan to strengthen critical supply chains and invest in U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure.

 

Seven agencies released six reports outlining key areas of vulnerability and policy recommendations to strengthen U.S. supply chains in critical industrial sectors.

 

Many of the supply chain vulnerabilities identified in the reports address longstanding challenges in the U.S. industrial base – such as a lack of domestic manufacturing capacity, aging infrastructure, and a skilled workforce deficit – that require long-term solutions.

 

The reports were in response to Executive Order (E.O.) 14017, “America’s Supply Chains,” signed last year on February 24, 2021, that launched a comprehensive interagency review to identify risks in the supply chains for products deemed critical to U.S. national and economic security, including:

 

  • semiconductor manufacturing and packaging;
  • large capacity batteries;
  • critical and strategic minerals; and
  • pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients.

 

These reviews have been spearheaded by the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

 

The initial 100-day reports that were announced on June 8, 2021 examined a wide range of supply chain risks and identified five main sources of vulnerabilities:

 

  • insufficient U.S. manufacturing capacity;
  • misaligned incentives and “short-termism” in private markets;
  • strategic industrial policies adopted by competitor and allied nations, including China and the E.U., to advance their domestic competitiveness;
  • geographic concentration in global sourcing; and
  • limited international coordination on supply chain resilience.

 

The 100-day reports also made a number of recommendations and announced immediate steps the Administration would take to strengthen U.S. supply chains while continuing to analyze potential long-term solutions to these problems.

 

The recently issued the one-year reports detailed the interagency working group findings of year-long reviews of the following six critical industrial base sectors:

 

  • Defense;
  • Public health and biological preparedness;
  • Information and communication technology;
  • Energy;
  • Transportation; and
  • Supply chains for production of agricultural commodities and industrial food products.

 

There are several common themes and findings across the reports, including:

 

  • Training – any supply chain action must include significant investment in training and education of U.S. workers in critical industrial base sectors;
  • Infrastructure and Manufacturing – need to invest in infrastructure and expand domestic manufacturing capacity;
  • Standards – the need to work with foreign partners to establish global standards to prevent supply chain vulnerabilities; and
  • Resilience – recommend that the U.S. continue to diversify supply chains to improve resilience to global crises.

 

The reports did not create new programs to address the supply chain vulnerabilities that they identify, but did call on Congress to provide funding for new domestic manufacturing initiatives.

 

Some of the key findings from the six interagency reports included the following.

 

Defense – The DOD analysis of the defense industrial base found vulnerabilities in large capacity batteries, specifically lithium batteries, and casting and forging of metals and microelectronics.

 

To strengthen these areas, DOD recommended that the federal government: invest in training doctoral-level skilled labor; expand industrial security, counterintelligence, and cybersecurity; expand domestic additive manufacturing; and engage more small businesses as key members of the defense supply chain.

 

Information and Communication Technology — The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOC analysis of the information and communication technology industrial base found that while U.S. technology companies lead the world in innovation and development, most of these products are made in China.

 

The U.S. lacks the skilled work force to support re-shoring of information and communication technology supply chains, leaving them vulnerable to continued disruptions.

 

To alleviate these vulnerabilities, the U.S. should invest in domestic manufacturing, work to improve international standards, and increase monitoring of information and communication technology supply chains.

 

Energy – The DOE analysis of the energy sector found that the U.S. has an opportunity for sustainable growth of its domestic clean energy supply chains, but currently lacks an adequate manufacturing raw materials and domestic production capabilities.

 

The report also recommended that Congress enact legislation to provide tax incentives for domestic clean energy manufacturing and funding for domestic workforce training and that the federal government leverage foreign direct investment in U.S.-based clean energy technology manufacturing.

 

Public Health – The HHS analysis of the public health sector found that offshore manufacturing for personal protective equipment (PPE) and other health care supplies are a critical vulnerability and that pressure to reduce prices has resulted in a highly-concentrated manufacturing base that create vulnerabilities in supply chains.

 

The report recommended that the U.S. invest in domestic manufacturing; stockpile critical items; and improve workforce development.

 

Transportation — The Department of Transportation (DOT) analysis of the freight and logistics supply chains found that U.S. ports are a key vulnerability and a bottleneck of supply chains and that domestic transportation infrastructure requires significant investment to alleviate supply chain vulnerabilities.

 

The report recommended that the federal government invest in domestic infrastructure and building the workforce in this sector.

 

Agriculture and Food Production — The Department of Agriculture (USDA) analysis identified multiple vulnerabilities, including: concentration of industrial food production; labor shortages; climate change; disease to livestock and poultry; transportation bottlenecks; and trade disruptions. USDA recommended taking action to address these challenges through existing and additional funding

 

These reports take a significant step to identify numerous vulnerabilities for critical supply chains and reaffirmed the importance of U.S. manufacturing.

 

Although they did not provide detailed solutions to address the vulnerabilities, they did call upon Congress to provide funding to support new domestic manufacturing initiatives.

 

This increased focus on manufacturing is important for industries in critical supply chains, such as the surface finishing industry. Even though it may take time to implement these manufacturing initiatives, surface finishing companies should begin to position themselves for expanded opportunities in these critical supply chains.

 

The NASF will continue to work closely with federal officials and industry partners and provide further updates to NASF members.  If you have any questions or would like additional information on this issue, please contact Christian Richter or Jeff Hannapel with NASF at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

EPA Moves to Adopt ASTM’s New PFAS Standard for Site Assessments to Limit Liability for Cleanups

 

EPA is moving quickly to adopt a recently revised industry standard that added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into its methods for assessing potentially contaminated properties.

 

This clears the way for certain parties to use the standard as they seek Superfund liability waivers at brownfield sites under the “all appropriate inquiry” (AAI) rule.

 

The move is significant because it could provide liability relief to prospective purchasers and other potentially responsible parties at brownfields or other sites contaminated with PFAS.

 

EPA is scheduled to publish in the Federal Register a direct final rule as well as a proposed rule to incorporate the updated American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard — known as ASTM E1527-21 standard practice — into its “Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries.”

 

The direct final rule will become effective 60 days after publication without further notice, unless the agency receives adverse comments, at which point the direct final rule would be withdrawn and the proposed rule would be the vehicle EPA uses to address comments and eventually finalize the rule.

 

The timing on this action is significant because EPA is poised to list PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, a measure that is expected to drive massive new cleanup liability at many sites.

 

The upcoming rule would, for the first time, allow prospective purchasers an opportunity to limit their CERCLA liability for PFAS contamination by conducting appropriate site assessments.

 

ASTM approved changes to its site assessment standard in November 2021, suggesting property owners or other users may include PFAS in site assessments of potentially contaminated properties if the substance is regulated by the state.

 

ASTM specifically approved changes to its Phase I environmental site assessments standard, including terminology revisions, new definitions and a footnote addressing PFAS, among other updates.

 

In its direct final rule, EPA references parties that may want to make use of the updated ASTM standard in order to secure liability protection. Parties may wish to consider PFOS and PFOA during due diligence activities now — even before any final designation — depending on the site’s prior use, surrounding area, and future intended use.

 

With increased regulatory attention and litigation over the management and remediation of PFAS, this revised ASTM standard is a welcome tool to address major risks and liabilities linked to PFAS.

 

NASF will continue to monitor these developments and provide updates to NASF members. If you have any questions or would like additional information on this issue, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

Court Certifies Huge Class in Landmark PFAS Suit, Eyes Possible Expansion

 

A federal court recently certified all Ohio residents who have small amounts of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in their blood as a class eligible to pursue a suit against chemical manufacturers, while leaving the door open for residents of other states to be included.

 

The suit, Kevin D. Hardwick v. 3M Company, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and could drive new PFAS science and possibly future Superfund litigation.

 

The named plaintiff in the lawsuit, an Ohio firefighter, is seeking industry-funded, independent, nationwide health studies and testing to determine the health effects of numerous PFAS found in the blood of nearly all Americans.

 

In this litigation the plaintiff claims that manufacturers and distributors of PFAS “knew for decades that these chemicals presented a serious risk of disease and harm, engaged in a systematic effort to conceal and deny the dangers of PFAS, misled regulators and the public, and made billions of dollars in profits while contaminating millions of people without their knowledge.” The industry defendants vigorously deny the allegations.

 

Class action litigation has been driving a lot of the science on PFAS damages through the creation of science panels. Such suits could also provide a roadmap for future Superfund litigation once EPA lists PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

 

Success on this claim could have repercussions in the regulatory arena and other PFAS litigation, particularly after PFOS and PFOA are designated hazardous substances under CERCLA, thereby providing clear legal authority for people to pursue cleanup actions for PFAS contamination.

 

Increased litigation can potentially have a significant impact on surface finishing operations that used PFAS. If you would like additional information on this issue, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

California Adds PFOA to List of Carcinogens, Triggering More Prop 65 Requirements for PFAS Compounds

 

Adding regulatory requirements for PFAS compounds, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added PFOA to the list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

 

OEHHA’s determination was based on the National Toxicology Program (NTP) formal identification of PFOA as a chemical that causes cancer.

 

The listing will create new label requirements under Prop 65 for any product sold in California that contains PFOA, and may also increase enforcement actions targeting those products.

 

This recent listing for PFOA is the latest in a series of actions in California regarding PFAS compounds:

 

  • November 10, 2017 – PFOS and PFOA listed as substances that cause reproductive harm
  • March 11, 2021 – Notice of intent to list PFOA as a carcinogen
  • March 26, 2021 — Notice of intent to list PFOS as a carcinogen
  • March 26, 2021 – Notice of intent to conduct review of four PFAS for possible reproductive toxicity (PFDA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFUnDa)
  • December 22, 2021 – PFOS listed as a carcinogen (effective December 24, 2022)
  • December 31, 2021 – PFNA listed as chemical capable of causing male reproductive harm
  • February 25, 2022 – PFOA listed as a carcinogen (effective immediately)

 

California’s Prop 65 was passed with the intention of providing consumers with information regarding potentially cancer-causing agents in products that would allow consumers to make an informed decision as to whether to purchase the product.

 

Prop 65 requires “clear and reasonable” warnings to be placed on products that can expose a consumer to a chemical that the State of California determines may be cancer-causing or cause reproductive harm.

 

Prop 65 penalties can be as high as $2,500 per violation per day. Companies often face the added prospect of third-party lawsuits and paying the other side’s attorney fees, as a result, most Prop 65 matters carry substantial financial risk and are very expensive to litigate.

 

Companies that were already 1) testing products, 2) conducting due diligence to determine whether any of its products contain any of the PFAS determined to be cancer-causing or cause reproductive harm, and 3) ensuring proper warning labels on applicable PFAS-containing products to comply with Prop 65’s strict regulatory requirements must now factor in the new PFOA carcinogenic determination.

 

This may require modifications to any necessary warning labels, unless a business is already availing itself of a safe harbor warning that covers both cancer and reproductive harm, or if any exposure would be below safe harbor levels.

 

As more PFAS compounds are identified as carcinogens or reproductive toxins, companies doing business in California must act now to determine if any products sold in the State of California contain any of the regulated PFAS compounds.

 

Supply chain analysis is a critical part of the process. For companies with products that contain the PFAS that are the subject of the notices, precise warnings will need to be adhered in the proper way and location (whether on the product packaging, on a website prior to the consumer purchasing the product, etc.) that may not be as simple as it sounds.

 

NASF will continue to monitor Prop 65 PFAS developments and provide updates to NASF members. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

NASF 1000

 

The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative and legal actions impacting the industry, NASF members and their workplaces.

 

All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-day public policy activities.

 

The commitment to this program is one of the most vital contributions made in support of surface finishing and directly shapes the future of the industry.

 

The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation.

 

Specific projects funded through the NASF 1000 make a measurable difference in how the industry navigates emerging challenges, communicates credibly with policy makers, and advocates for a strong science base for rules or standards that affect surface finishing.

NASF POLICY UPDATE

Date: November 5, 2021
Category: Chapter News, NASF Chapters, NASF National, Regulation

NASF Public Policy Update

Recent Developments

November 1, 2021

 

Federal actions this fall have placed historic regulatory attention on the finishing industry and its practices. This update highlights several topics, including:

 

·    Calls intensify to regulate the entire surface finishing industry,

·    EPA expands its regulatory authority over articles containing chemicals substances,

·    NASF comments on PFAS reporting requirements,

·    OSHA awaits final COVID vaccine rule review from White House reiview, and

·    a NASF/US Department of Defense Workshop on chromium plating to be held at SUR/FIN.

 

Major Regulatory Milestones

 

Activist Groups in October Called out the Entire Finishing Industry for New Water Rules – In recent weeks, more than a dozen of the top U.S. activist groups – including the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council – issued a joint statement to EPA and the public and included a call to regulate the entire surface finishing industry with new PFAS effluent requirements, arguing:

 

The EPA should develop [new discharge requirements] for ALL metal finishers, not just chrome platers.”

 

Congress and EPA are Targeting Surface Finishing – Congress has introduced new legislation that is gaining more attention – and EPA announced the launch of a first-of-its-kind regulation – specifically targeting the surface finishing industry for nationwide testing, monitoring and enforcement of new wastewater discharge requirements for PFAS chemicals.

 

Rare Media Coverage of the Finishing Industry on Capitol HillThe Hill, one of the most widely read political news sites read by Congress, recently highlighted metal finishing and electroplating for the first time in recent memory after the industry was named explicitly in legislation to impose new requirements and potential liability on industry for PFAS use.

 

EPA Expands Chemical Regulatory Authority Under TSCA

 

EPA announced on September 28, 2021 that it is reversing its decades-old practice of exempting finished articles from regulation under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under the authority of TSCA, EPA evaluates potential risks from new and existing chemicals and takes actions to address any unreasonable risks that chemicals may pose to human health and the environment.

 

In the past, EPA’s practice has been to target the manufacture or import of individual chemicals or chemical mixtures, their use in industrial processes, and products where a regulated substance is the active ingredient, rather than finished articles. Pursuant to the recent change in statutory authority, articles of finished products containing chemicals that EPA is evaluating for risk will now be subject to regulation under TSCA.

 

EPA Says it’s Obligated to Regulate Articles

 

EPA officials have indicated that the agency is obligated to regulate articles containing chemicals because products often “break down” and chemicals in the articles are released into the environment and can result in harmful exposures.

 

Critics of this expanded authority claim that in many cases it is difficult for manufacturers and importers to know what levels of chemicals are in a product and whether the chemicals can be released from the product. This is particularly true now that levels of concern for some chemicals are measured in parts per trillion.

 

EPA has responded that manufacturers are already required to know what is in their products to comply with European Union regulations as well as U.S. federal and state regulations, that require reporting and labeling product that may contain chemicals identified as a substance of very high concern or whose use may pose an unreasonable risk.

 

Expansion of Authority has Implications for the Supply Chain

 

By expanding its regulatory authority under TSCA to essentially all manufactured products, manufacturers, importers, and customers will need to know more about the chemical substances contained in their products and the likelihood of any potential release of that chemical substance.

 

For example, surface finishers and their customers will have to know all of the chemical substances that may end up in the finished product, the likelihood that those chemical substance may be released from the typical use of the product, and the potential exposure routes and risks associated with any such release.

 

Increased Regulatory Burdens Ahead

 

This new approach will likely increase the regulatory burdens and stewardship efforts for many manufacturers beyond the raw materials and processes used to make those products. EPA has already begun to expand its regulatory authority under TSCA to articles containing chemical substances (e.g., see proposed reporting rule for PFAS discussed below).

 

NASF continues to work with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry trade groups to engage EPA officials on this new approach to regulating articles or finished products under TSCA. If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding this expansion of EPA’s chemical regulatory authority, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

NASF Submits Comments on PFAS Reporting Requirements

 

On June 28, 2021, EPA proposed Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) pursuant to TSCA Section 8(a)(7). NASF submitted comments indicated that the proposed rule did not consider the significant impact on small business, was overly broad, and would be unduly burdensome to the surface finishing industry. A summary of the NASF comments is provided below.

 

EPA Failed to Account for the Impact on Small Business – The proposed rule would require manufacturers and importers of PFAS (including importers of articles containing PFAS) to report information from the past ten years for each substance and mixture related to:

 

•           chemical identity and molecular structure;

•           categories of use;

•           volumes manufactured and processed;

•           byproducts resulting from the manufacture, processing, use and disposal;

•           environmental and health effects;

•           worker exposure; and

•           method of disposal.

 

This includes information on all PFAS without any exemptions for de minimis amounts, small businesses or articles containing PFAS. EPA failed to account for the substantial impacts that this rule will have on small business and the surface finishing industry.

 

Before finalizing the rule, EPA must comply with its statutory requirements to gather input from small businesses potentially impacted by this proposal and consider options to minimize the burdens of the proposed rule on small businesses.

 

EPA Should Limit the Substances Subject to Reporting – EPA identified 1,346 PFAS on the TSCA Inventory, but in the preamble to the proposed rule EPA stated that this was not a comprehensive list of all PFAS subject to the rule.

 

Manufacturers would be required to determine whether additional substances are subject to reporting, thereby significantly increasing the burden of reporting and adding to the uncertainty of the proposal.

 

NASF requested that EPA limit reporting requirements to those PFAS known to be in commerce or a subset of those known to pose public health and environmental concerns.

 

EPA Should Provide Typical Exemptions for Reporting Requirements – The proposed rule does not include exemptions for reporting requirements that are typically provided for EPA reporting rules such as exemptions for de minimis levels, small businesses, and articles. To minimize the unnecessary burdens of this rule, NASF made several requests:

 

•           EPA should limit reporting to those substances manufactured or imported in excess of threshold based on sound science policy and risk and appropriate policy considerations

 

•           EPA should exclude small businesses from reporting based on the number of employees and revenues, consistent with other TSCA reporting requirements.

 

•           Despite no mandate to include articles, EPA has determined that articles containing PFAS should be included in the scope of reportable chemical substances, even while acknowledging that some article manufacturers, including article importers, may not have such information.  Manufacturers and importers of articles containing PFAS should not be subject to the reporting requirements.

 

For some metal plating applications, fume suppressants containing very small amounts of PFAS are used in the finishing process. To demonstrate that no amount of any PFAS is on the plated part or article, companies could be subject to expensive testing requirements to confirm that reporting is not necessary.

 

Reporting Expands to a Much Larger Universe

 

Requiring reporting by manufacturers and importers of articles that contain PFAS will increase the number of entities subject to this reporting rule by thousands, particularly if all large and small businesses must report any amount of any PFAS in articles.

 

Given the burdens associated with subjecting articles containing PFAS to reporting requirements and EPA’s failure to include the costs associated with reporting imported articles containing PFAS, EPA should delete the requirement for reporting of articles containing PFAS from the proposed rule.

 

The Ten-Year Reporting Period is Unduly Burdensome – EPA proposed that persons who have manufactured or imported PFAS over the past ten years would report to EPA for each PFAS.

 

Given the broad scope of chemistries covered by the definition of PFAS, gathering all the available requested data for ten years would represent an overwhelming burden to many companies subject to reporting.

 

Phased Approach to Reporting Is Appropriate – The proposed rule requires reporting that can impose a significant burden on a large number of entities. NASF requested that EPA consider requesting this data in a phased approach, whereby only the largest manufacturers and importers of PFAS are subject to the reporting requirements.

 

If the exemptions, clarifications, and revisions that NASF requested were implemented, EPA could significantly reduce these burdens on a large number of small businesses, without substantially reducing the amount of critical information it collects on the manufacture and import of PFAS.

 

By streamlining the reporting to the most useful and scientifically valid information in the first place, EPA can better fulfill the mandate to estimate the rulemaking’s economic impacts and burden.

 

EPA must complete the final reporting and recordkeeping requirements by January 1, 2023. NASF will continue to work cooperatively with EPA and other industry trade groups on this proposal. If you have any questions, would like additional information, or would like to discuss these comments, please contact Jeff Hannapel (jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com) of The Policy Group on behalf of the NASF.

 

COVID Emergency Temporary Standard May Be Extended Beyond Healthcare 

 

OSHA has recently reconsidered the need for a broader COVID-19 emergency temporary standard (ETS) applicable beyond just the healthcare sector. President Biden’s recent decision to use a new COVID ETS focused on vaccinations and testing as a central element of his newly unveiled COVID-19 Action Plan raises a host of challenges for employers across the country. OSHA has moved quickly and the agency’s ETS was sent to the White House for rule review, hearing from outside industry and other groups, and for final regulatory approval.

 

OSHA has been expected to receive the ETS rulemaking package for release any time, and issuance in the coming days – early November – is anticipated.

 

Unlike the Executive Orders for federal employees and contractors and the expanded scope to healthcare workers (which included a fair amount of detail about how they would be implemented), the President’s announcement and new Action Plan about the OSHA ETS for general industry were essentially bare bones, with almost no detail about what will be in the ETS and how it will operate.

 

Critical Questions Need Answers

 

For example, the announcement did not provide specific direction or information to answer several critical questions regarding the scope and implementation of the ETS for general industry, including the following.

 

·    How do employers count the 100-worker threshold (by establishment or company-wide, how do you count temp, part-time, and seasonal workers, does it count remote/telework staff, etc.)?

·    Who pays for the testing program (employers or employees)?

·    If employers have to pay for testing, is it just for the test kits, or also employees’ time getting tested?

·    Under a work-required vaccine program, will days away for adverse effects of the vaccine have to be recorded on employers’ 300 Logs?

·    If the FDA approves booster shots for the general population, will a booster shot be required to consider an employee fully vaccinated?

·    Does the rule account in any way for natural antibody immunity for employees who have been infected and recovered from COVID-19?

·    Assuming employers have to pay for time to get vaccinated and recover from ill effects of the vaccine, is there a limit to how much time?

·    What type of test will be acceptable for the testing program?

·    What documentation will be required to verify vaccination and testing status, and will employers have to keep those records, as employee medical records, for the life of employment + 30 years?

·    Will there be time for the ETS to go into effect, or will testing be required for employees who are willing to get vaccinated until they can get vaccinated?

·    Will there be conditions that could result in the ETS being shelved?

·    If we achieve a 100% fully vaccinated workforce, can we dispense with all of the other COVID-19 protocols (i.e., distancing, masks, pre-work screening, etc.)?

·    How will the rule intersect with the ADA/Title VII requests for medical and religious exemptions?

 

Industry needs these answers to determine how it may be impacted by the ETS. For several reasons, industry may have a great opportunity to provide meaningful and impactful comments on the ETS rulemaking.

 

First, the career staff at OSHA did not have advanced notice of the President’s announcement, so there was no foundational work on a draft rule and staff may not be as personally invested on any particular provisions or issues.

 

Second, this ETS would provide cover to employers who have wanted to set vaccine mandates, but were reluctant to do it unless or until others did the same (i.e., to help alleviate concerns about losing workers to neighboring businesses that had more relaxed COVID-19 policies).

 

Accordingly, the White House and OSHA have been viewed as open to specific input from industry about how best to implement the ETS for general industry.

 

NASF has continued to work closely with industry trade groups and coalitions to help shape the Administration’s COVID policies and ETS and the potential impacts on the surface finishing industry.

 

If you have any questions or would like additional information on these developments regarding COVID in the workplace, please contact Christian Richter or Jeff Hannapel with NASF at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

NASF / Defense Workshop on Chromium Plating at SURFIN

 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) continues to advance a new rulemaking to transition hexavalent chromium plating to trivalent chromium for decorative chromium plating, functional chromium plating and chromic acid anodizing.

 

In response to this rulemaking effort, NASF has scheduled a DoD Workshop on Hexavalent Chromium: Emerging California Restrictions & Implications for the U.S. Defense Supply Chain to be held at SUR/FIN in Detroit on November 3, 2021 from 1:15 to 4:00 PM eastern time.

 

The workshop will include the following presentations.

 

•           Jeff Hannapel (NASF) – Summary of CARB Plan for Phase-Out

•           Keith Legg (Corrdesa) – DOD Supply Chain Implications & SERDP/ESTCP Hexavalent Chromium Replacement Projects

•           Steve Gaydos (NASF Technical Fellow) – Aerospace Applications and Alternatives

•           Scot Bryant (Noblis) – Adoption of hexavalent Chromium-Free Surface treatment Technologies by DOD Organizations

•           Tim Hall (Faraday Technology) & Doug Hughes (Macdermid Enthone) – Aqueous Trivalent Chromium Technology

•           Doug Morrison (Trion Coatings) – Ionic Liquid Hard Chromium Process

 

The aim of workshop is to educate people on California’s efforts to phase-out hexavalent chromium processes, identify some of technologies to replace hexavalent chromium processes, and discuss the potential impacts on the surface finishing and defense industries and supply chain. It is intended to be an interactive session where audience contributions and participation are welcome.

 

We look forward to SUR/FIN in Detroit on November 3rd for this critical and informative workshop. If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

Support the NASF 1000 Today!

 

The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative and legal actions impacting the industry, NASF members and their workplaces.

 

All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-day public policy activities.

 

The commitment to this program is one of the most vital contributions made in support of surface finishing and directly shapes the future of the industry.

 

The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation.

 

Specific projects funded through the NASF 1000 make a measurable difference in how the industry navigates emerging challenges, communicates credibly with policy makers, and advocates for a strong science base for rules or standards that affect surface finishing.

 

Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. If you have any questions or would like additional information regarding the NASF 1000 program or the broad array of NASF public policy activities, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

 

___________________________________________

 

If you have any questions or would like additional information on this matter, please contact Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com, Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

To join NASF or find out more about membership, please contact Matt Martz at mmartz@nasf.org.

EPA Will Set New PFAS Discharge Limits for Surface Finishing

Date: September 11, 2021
Category: Member News, NASF National, Regulation

NASF Logo

EPA to Set New Federal Wastewater Discharge Standards

for PFAS in Surface Finishing Operations

 

September 9, 2021

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 (Preliminary Plan 15), announcing that it will commence a rulemaking process to set first-time ever wastewater discharges for PFAS from key industries.

 

The agency’s announcement was not unexpected, and its effort will focus on chromium plating and related processes in the surface finishing industry as well as certain chemical manufacturers and formulators of PFAS.

 

The announcement follows extensive discussions between NASF and senior EPA officials since the Trump administration released its PFAS Action Plan in 2019. The plan prioritized surface finishing and other industries for potential water regulation under the Clean Water Act’s effluent guidelines program.

 

Industries Impacted Under New PFAS Rulemaking Process

 

After concluding several studies that EPA launched in 2018, the agency has determined that revised effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and pretreatment standards are warranted for:

 

Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) — EPA listed this category to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) discharges from facilities manufacturing PFAS (which includes chemical formulators in this source category). EPA identified six OCPSF facilities that currently manufacture PFAS in the US.

 

EPA also identified eight additional OCPSF facilities that use PFAS feedstocks to formulate other products. EPA has not developed a comprehensive list of all PFAS manufacturers and formulators in the U.S. and considers it probable that there are many more OCPSF facilities using PFAS that EPA has not yet identified.

 

Metal Finishing — The agency plans to revise the existing Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR Part 433) to address PFAS discharges primarily from chromium electroplating facilities, based on the information collected through earlier studies.

 

NASF has been working closely with EPA officials on various aspects of PFAS use in the industry and will continue to do so through the next stages in the rulemaking development process. To inform the discussion with EPA and various state agencies, NASF has created a web-based PFAS Resource Center, which can be accessed here. Watch for new updates to the site soon.

 

The EPA Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 15 is available here.

 

Launching the Rulemaking Process, Collecting Industry Data

 

EPA will initiate a multi-year rulemaking process of collecting data on existing PFAS discharges levels, identifying available treatment technologies for PFAS discharges, and conduct a formal assessment of technical and economic feasibility for available treatment technologies to determine what pretreatment standards may be appropriate.

 

EPA’s action to advance a rulemaking for the metal finishing category could allow the agency to proceed without an accelerated legislative mandated schedule prescribed by Congress. The House has passed language in the recent infrastructure bill targeting metal finishing and several other sectors for urgent action on PFAS, but the Senate’s measure did not include these provisions.

 

EPA has not yet announced a timetable for the rulemaking process, and has invited NASF to provide information and further input on the rulemaking development process.

 

Further Review of Other Industries

 

As part of Preliminary Plan 15, EPA also announced that it would be conducting further research and studies regarding discharges of PFAS to determine if a rulemaking is warranted for the other industry categories, including:

 

·     landfills,

·     pulp, paper, and paperboard facilities,

·     textile and carpet manufacturers, and

·     commercial airports.

 

NASF Meetings Ahead with EPA

 

NASF will be meeting again shortly with EPA officials and will provide NASF members with updates on the rulemaking process.

 

If you have any questions regarding EPA’s action, please reach NASF by contacting Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or Jeff Hannapel at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

Older posts