It has been a historic year in 2025 on the public policy front with the many changes underway in Washington and beyond. With new faces at the agencies, historic changes underway across the federal government and new challenges emerging on metals and minerals, regulation, tariffs, defense and manufacturing competitiveness, there has been much on the agenda.

To keep members informed and hear your questions and concerns, we’ll look forward to seeing you and presenting the NASF Public Policy Update on Thursday, June 6 @ 9:00 – 10:00 am CT on the show floor stage.

We will be covering a number of topics and providing updates on major issues that impact the industry. We’ll also be available to answer questions all week as well.

In the meantime, see some of the latest developments this month below.

See you in Rosemont!

Federal Nickel Toxics and Exposure Profile Removed for Further Agency Review

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has temporarily removed its recently finalized Nickel Toxicological Profile and related nickel documents from its public webpage. The agency, which operates under the Centers for Disease Control, states that it is now evaluating earlier health calculations associated with its final publication for nickel several months ago.

The ATSDR’s final Nickel Toxicology Profile, which it developed over several years and published in November 2024, raised major concerns for NASF and other sectors. Among the more problematic issues was its extremely conservative approach to human exposure in its calculations, which were not aligned with other authoritative health, scientific and regulatory bodies. Because the ATSDR profiles are considered the “gold standard” for regulators and public health agencies across the U.S. and worldwide, the final profile would drive significant changes to nickel regulation for industry.

NASF will keep members apprised of any new developments on this issue.

REMINDER: NASF Automotive Roundtable Webinar Recording Available to Members on Trivalent Chromium and PFAS Transition

NASF members can view the webinar recording of the association’s recent trivalent chromium webinar, developed in collaboration with the Detroit-based Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). For the past three years NASF has been collaborating with the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), automotive OEMs, chemical suppliers, and finishing applicators to trivalent chromium coatings in the automotive supply chain.

Among the highlights of the webinar, which features a dozen panelists and a Q&A session from the automotive, supplier and plating community, were key remarks by industry colleagues from Toyota and General Motors, who reviewed emerging policies and timelines for transition from hexavalent to trivalent chromium for decorative plating and chromic acid etch, as well as eliminating PFAS in the supply chain.

NASF and AIAG have plans to continue the initiative and expand the discussion into 2026 on emerging OEM timelines, practical challenges and further opportunities for coordination.

If members have further questions or would like additional information on the project and outlook, please reach Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or Jeff Hannapel and jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com .

NASF Coordinates with Industry Allies in Response to White House Request for Deregulatory Action

In response to a White House request for information on areas that would benefit from deregulation, NASF coordinated this month with key manufacturing allies to urge the administration to rescind EPA’s August 2024 assessment for hexavalent chromium. The White House Office of Management and Budget requested suggestions for “regulations that are unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound.”

An existing federal court order requires EPA to revise the current U.S. drinking water standard for chromium within three years once EPA’s scientific assessment is completed. However, NASF and several other trade associations agree with EPA’s own Science Advisory Board that the document contained significant and consequential deficiencies which were never addressed prior to agency’s final action. As a result, EPA’s conclusions could likely lead to a drinking water value below average background levels, with costs to municipal drinking water systems as well as industry reaching $20 billion over time with little to no public health benefit.

NASF was joined by the Specialty Steel Industry of North America, the Industrial Fasteners Institute, the National Tooling and Machining Association, the Precision Machined Products Association, the Precision Metalforming Association and the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute.

NASF Calls for EPA to Withdraw Pending Federal Stormwater Permit Rule for Industrial Discharges

NASF has been closely engaged in EPA’s industrial stormwater discussions, and recently joined with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to urge that agency to withdraw its December 2024 proposed Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for industrial stormwater discharges. The proposal was included in the Biden administration’s last tranche of regulatory actions and deadlines for the agency before the inauguration.

Among the issues raised particularly for small business were the potential for significant costs and unintended consequences for facilities nationwide, including the proposed inclusion of PFAS in the monitoring requirements for rule. In broader comments to the agency, the industry recommended that EPA:

• provide evidence that metal finishing and others significantly impacting stormwater discharges;
• disclose the data it used to justify proposed PFAS reporting; and
• consider the total costs of monitoring and sampling.

NASF and others are urging EPA to delay PFAS monitoring in the stormwater permit rule renewal until more information is available and an appropriate dialogue with industry is convened.

EPA Advancing on New Plan to Address PFAS

EPA has been taking next steps on PFAS policy since agency chief Lee Zeldin recently released a widely anticipated outline to address PFAS contamination that, unlike other environmental policy announcements, maintains many of the priorities from the Biden Administration, albeit with a shift in emphasis. EPA’s PFAS actions will fall under three broad categories:

• strengthening science;
• fulfilling statutory obligations; and
• enhancing communication and building partnerships.

The development of effluent guideline limitations (ELGs) for metal finishing was included in the list of PFAS actions that EPA plans to address and was expected based on our ongoing discussions with the agency.

Zeldin’s announcement reflects his longstanding advocacy on PFAS from serving his Long Island district in Congress, including support for funding local communities’ cleanup of PFAS-contaminated water systems and promoting the need for a “polluter pays” model for PFAS contamination. He has expressed interest in working with Congress to exempt only “passive receivers,” like POTWs, drinking water agencies, local governments, and farmers, from bearing the costs for PFAS remediation pursuant to Superfund.

The agency has also stated that it is exploring better ways to use RCRA authorities to address PFAS contamination rather than Superfund. In addition, EPA is actively evaluating how to provide relief and more feasible compliance with the PFASA drinking water standard for drinking water providers.

EPA still intends to designate a PFAS lead official to help align and manage the broad array of PFAS efforts across different agency programs. NASF will continue to actively engage on these issues at both the federal and state level and provide updates to NASF members on critical developments. If you have any questions or would like ‎additional information regarding EPA’s new PFAS strategy or its potential impacts on the surface finishing industry, 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. For more information, contact: Christian Richter (202-257-‎‎0250) or Jeff Hannapel (202 257-3756) with NASF.‎

October 2024

We noted in recent weeks during the NASF Washington Forum and in association chapter ‎meetings that EPA’s schedule for the proposed rule to address PFAS in wastewater discharges ‎from surface finishing operations has been delayed from December 2024 until May 2026. EPA ‎is currently in the process of reviewing, evaluating, and analyzing the data from the surveys. In ‎addition, the agency must take additional key steps during this period, including:‎

• conducting further follow up on survey responses;‎
• completing site visits and onsite sampling for a small group of facilities;‎
• reviewing industry discharge data and treatment technology options;‎
• evaluating financial and economic data;‎
• assembling a small business impact panel to assess potential impacts on small ‎operations; and
• developing proposed rule language.‎

With respect to site visits, the agency plans to conduct single grab samples of wastewater at 20 ‎facilities and multiple samples at another five facilities. EPA does not expect to begin site ‎visits and sampling until after the first of the year. ‎

The NASF Government & Industry Affairs team continues to meet with EPA officials on these ‎and other developments in the PFAS wastewater discharge rule. If you have any questions ‎regarding EPA’s rulemaking for discharges of PFAS in wastewater from surface finishing ‎operations, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at ‎jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com. ‎

EPA Identifies 27 Candidates for “Priority” Selections Under Federal Chemicals Program: ‎Organics and 4 Metals Included

In a significant new development, EPA in late September named 27 candidate chemicals from ‎which they will choose five substances to “prioritize” under the Toxic Substances Control Act ‎‎(TSCA) for risk evaluation and ultimately regulation. The list included 10 chemicals that were ‎identified last year and 17 chemicals that were included for the first time. For the first time ‎ever, four metals were included on the candidate list: antimony, arsenic, cobalt and lead, and ‎their compounds. ‎

The 10 substances from last year are 4-tert-octylphenol [also known as (4-(1,1,3,3-‎tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)]; the high-profile plastic additive bisphenol-A (BPA); hydrogen ‎fluoride (HF); the anti-cracking chemical in vehicle tires known as 6PPD; styrene; benzene; ‎ethylbenzene; naphthalene; tribromomethane; and triglycidyl isocyanurate.‎

The 17 new candidates are 1-hexadecanol; 2-ethylhexyl 2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB); ‎creosote; di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP); n-nitroso-diphenylamine; p,p’-oxybis (benzenesulfonyl ‎hydrazide); m-xylene; o-xylene; n-xylene; antimony and antimony compounds; arsenic and ‎arsenic compounds; cobalt and cobalt compounds; lead and lead compounds; long-chain ‎chlorinated paraffins (C18-20); medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (C14-17); and bisphenol-S ‎‎(BPS).‎

Under TSCA, the existing chemicals EPA selects for its risk evaluation process must first go ‎through a “prioritization” process lasting nine to 12 months, where the agency considers ‎available data on uses, risks and other properties of the chemical or chemical group. The agency ‎then designates each as either high- or low-priority, and then must immediately begin risk ‎evaluations for high-priority chemicals. Based on the risk evaluation EPA will identify any ‎‎“unreasonable risks” associated with the use of the chemical, and propose regulations and ‎management options to address those risks.‎

This year EPA also decided to release the candidate list in a more public forum and has ‎promised to expand public input and data-gathering in the pre-prioritization process, including a ‎public comment period. Last year, EPA released 20 candidates for TSCA review only at ‎closed-door stakeholder meetings and faced complaints over the process from environmental ‎and industry groups not invited to those sessions. ‎

If you have any questions regarding EPA’s candidate list or the TSCA risk evaluation process ‎for existing chemical, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at ‎jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com. ‎

EPA Proposes to Expand List of PFAS Subject to TRI Reporting

EPA in early October proposed to add 16 individually listed per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ‎‎(PFAS) and 15 PFAS categories representing more than 100 individual chemicals to the Toxic ‎Release Inventory (TRI) list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting requirements. The proposed ‎PFAS chemical categories are comprised of an acid, associated salts, associated acyl/sulfonyl ‎halides, and an anhydride. ‎

EPA proposed to set a manufacturing, processing, and otherwise use reporting threshold of 100 ‎pounds for each individually listed PFAS and PFAS category being proposed for listing by this ‎rulemaking and to designate all PFAS listed under this action as chemicals of special concern. ‎Fortunately, most surface finishing operations would not typically exceed the reporting ‎threshold of 100 pounds of PFAS. Facilities should, however, make a determination whether ‎the reporting threshold is met, especially chemical suppliers of PFAS products.‎

Finally, EPA also addressed what events may trigger the automatic addition of PFAS to the TRI ‎list, such as where EPA has identified a specific toxic value for a PFAS substance. For ‎example, a facility must now report 6:2 FTS under TRI if the reporting threshold of 100 pounds ‎is exceeded.‎

EPA also announced that it plans to designate the new additions as “chemicals of special ‎concern” that would prevents the de minimis exemption from applying to the chemicals. Under ‎TRI’s de minimis exemption, facilities that report to the inventory are allowed to disregard ‎minimal concentrations of chemicals in mixtures or trade name products in reporting releases ‎and other waste management calculations. But the de minimis exemption, which EPA ‎characterizes as a burden-reduction tool, does apply to chemicals classified as “chemicals of ‎special concern.”‎

The comment deadline for the proposed rule is November 7, 2024, but several industry trade ‎groups have requested extensions of the comment deadline. More information on the proposed ‎rule and a complete list of new PFAS that may be subject to TRI reporting are available on the ‎EPA website here.

EPA Changes Name of RCRA Cleanup Program

On October 21, 2024, EPA announced that it is renaming its former Corrective Action Program ‎to the “Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program.” The program is responsible for remediation under ‎the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to EPA officials, renaming ‎the program is part of an effort to better explain the program’s goals in “plain English.” The ‎term “corrective action” is used in the RCRA statute and regulations to mean the cleanup of ‎hazardous waste and constituents, but in common use it has many other meanings, so the public ‎does not immediately connect it with cleanup. ‎

The new name for the program is not a change from a regulatory standpoint, as EPA will ‎continue to use the term “corrective action” as a regulatory and legal term. The rebrand is ‎simply intended to communicate more clearly the purpose and goals of the hazardous waste ‎cleanup program. ‎

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. For more information, contact: Christian Richter (202-257-‎‎0250) or Jeff Hannapel (202 257-3756) with NASF.‎