Critical Minerals – The United States hosted a Critical Minerals Ministerial in early February, ‎bringing together representatives from more than 50 countries and the European Commission to ‎discuss global supply chain challenges related to critical minerals and rare earth elements. The ‎meeting, led by senior U.S. officials from across the Administration, focused on the role these ‎materials play in advanced manufacturing, energy technologies, and emerging industries, as ‎well as the risks associated with concentrated global supply.‎

NASF PFAS Litigation Initiative – PFAS-related litigation continues to expand nationwide, ‎with new lawsuits in recent months involving manufacturers, surface finishers, and suppliers. In ‎response, NASF has launched a new PFAS litigation monitoring and member guidance initiative ‎to help members stay informed as these cases continue to develop across the country.‎

Economic Outlook – Several widely followed economic reports released over the past two ‎weeks provide an updated snapshot of conditions facing manufacturers. The Conference Board’s ‎Consumer Confidence Index, released January 27, fell to 84.5, down from 94.2 in December. ‎The report showed declines in both how consumers view current conditions and their ‎expectations for the months ahead, indicating growing caution among households.‎

TSCA Reform – Congress is once again examining changes to how EPA reviews and regulates ‎chemicals under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In late January, the House ‎Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on draft legislation that would adjust EPA’s ‎approach to both existing chemicals (including metals) already in commerce and new chemicals ‎entering the market, including reformulated products and new materials for industrial ‎applications.‎

WOTUS Clarifications – A major effort to clarify how wetlands and land uses are regulated ‎under the Clean Water Act is advancing through an EPA proposed rule that responds to the ‎recent, ground-breaking Supreme Court Sackett decision. The proposal represents the latest ‎attempt to clarify the scope of federal authority over local land-use decisions involving ‎wetlands and related water features on private property.‎

More details on these topics are below…‎

‎___________________________________________‎

U.S. Hosts Critical Minerals Ministerial Focused on Supply Chain Coordination

The United States hosted a Critical Minerals Ministerial in early February, bringing together ‎representatives from more than 50 countries and the European Commission to discuss global ‎supply chain challenges related to critical minerals and rare earth elements. The meeting, led by ‎senior U.S. officials from across the Administration, focused on the role these materials play in ‎advanced manufacturing, energy technologies, and emerging industries, as well as the risks ‎associated with concentrated global supply. Discussions covered a range of minerals critical to ‎industrial manufacturing, including copper, nickel, cobalt, lithium and other metals and ‎materials used across downstream supply chains.‎

Strengthening Supply Chain Resilience

The U.S. Department of State highlighted discussions at the ministerial centered on ‎strengthening supply chain resilience through greater coordination among participating ‎countries, expanded investment, and improved logistics and processing capacity. The United ‎States also announced a series of new bilateral frameworks and memoranda intended to support ‎cooperation on critical minerals development, financing, and trade.‎

U.S. officials emphasized that many of the initiatives discussed are ongoing or newly launched ‎efforts, and that further work will be required to address challenges related to pricing, ‎investment risk, and market structure. Several agencies discussed existing and planned ‎financing tools aimed at supporting domestic and international critical minerals projects, while ‎also underscoring the importance of private-sector participation.‎

New Research Reports Released on Critical Minerals Market Challenges

Recent analysis from Washington policy organizations is also informing the Administration’s ‎growing focus on critical minerals. A December 2025 brief from the SAFE Center for Critical ‎Minerals Strategy, Critical Minerals Pricing Mechanisms, along with a January 2026 report ‎from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) titled Minerals at War, ‎examine how structural market distortions – particularly in key metals – can undermine supply ‎security. ‎

The CSIS report frames critical minerals as a long-term national security challenge and ‎highlights historical examples where governments combined pricing tools, procurement, ‎financing, and allied coordination to stabilize strategic supply chains. Together, these analyses ‎underscore growing interest in whether limited, targeted market interventions may be ‎considered alongside traditional trade and investment tools, though how such approaches would ‎be designed or applied remains an open question. NASF will continue to track these discussions ‎as they evolve.‎

NASF Launches PFAS Litigation Update and Member Guidance Initiative

PFAS-related litigation continues to expand nationwide, with new lawsuits in recent months ‎involving manufacturers, surface finishers, and suppliers. In response, NASF has launched a ‎new PFAS litigation monitoring and member guidance initiative to help members stay informed ‎as these cases continue to develop across the country.‎

Surface Finishing Focus ‎

As part of this effort, NASF is working with Keller and Heckman LLP, a Washington-based law ‎firm with extensive experience in PFAS and chemical regulatory matters, to develop and ‎present a series of member-only webinars and to participate in key industry events later this ‎year. These briefings will focus on PFAS litigation as it relates specifically to surface finishing ‎and other downstream industrial users, including recent cases, emerging legal theories, and ‎practical considerations relevant to plating and finishing operations.‎

Updates, Education and Risk Awareness

Recent PFAS lawsuits have increasingly moved beyond chemical manufacturers to name ‎downstream industrial users, waste handlers, and suppliers, including companies involved in ‎surface finishing. Through this initiative, NASF will provide periodic updates on litigation ‎trends, significant court developments, and general risk awareness considerations. The program ‎is intended to help members better understand the evolving PFAS litigation landscape and does ‎not constitute legal advice. Additional details on webinar scheduling and content will be shared ‎with members in the coming weeks.‎

Recent Economic Reports Point to Mixed Signals But Some Good News Moving into ‎February

Several widely followed economic reports released over the past two weeks provide an updated ‎snapshot of conditions facing manufacturers. The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence ‎Index, released January 27, fell to 84.5, down from 94.2 in December. The report showed ‎declines in both how consumers view current conditions and their expectations for the months ‎ahead, indicating continued caution among households.‎

Manufacturing Activity Increasing

Manufacturing activity data moved in the opposite direction. S&P Global’s U.S. ‎Manufacturing PMI for January, released January 24, increased to 52.4, up from 51.8 in ‎December, reflecting the sharpest upturn since May 2022. The report noted that production ‎increased and new orders returned to growth, while firms continued to cite cost pressures and ‎weaker export demand.‎

Manufacturing Jobs Trending Lower

Many saw the recent employment data show manufacturing job levels meaningfully lower over ‎the past year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Employment Statistics ‎report (as reflected in Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data), total U.S. manufacturing ‎employment declined by roughly 70,000 jobs from December 2024 to December 2025. ‎

Employment also moved lower in the final month of 2025, falling from approximately 12.70 ‎million jobs in November to about 12.69 million jobs in December, or about 8,000 jobs. ‎Average weekly hours in manufacturing declined slightly in December as well, from 40.1 hours ‎to 39.9 hours. The next monthly report will be issued in the coming days.‎

NASF will continue to track these key indicators and share updates as new data are released for ‎manufacturers as well as for surface finishing operations.‎

For a copy of the most recent NASF Economic Report for Surface Finishing: 2025, please ‎contact Jeff Hannapel at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or Christian Richter at ‎crichter@thepolicygroup.com. ‎

Congress Looking to Make Changes to Federal Chemicals Regulations

Congress is once again examining changes to how EPA reviews and regulates chemicals under ‎the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In late January, the House Energy and ‎Commerce Committee held a hearing on draft legislation that would adjust EPA’s approach to ‎both existing chemicals (including metals) already in commerce and new chemicals entering ‎the market, including reformulated products and new materials for industrial applications.‎

Real-World Scenarios and Hazards ‎

For manufacturers, the proposal matters because it would influence how quickly EPA completes ‎chemical reviews and how risk decisions are made. The draft would push EPA to focus risk ‎evaluations on real-world hazards and human exposures, rather than more speculative scenarios, ‎and would seek to reduce delays in EPA’s pre-manufacture review process for new chemicals. ‎Many industry supporters argue this could improve predictability for companies developing new ‎products or responding to supply-chain and regulatory pressures.‎

Coordination between EPA and OSHA on Requirements

The draft legislation would also encourage greater coordination between EPA and other federal ‎agencies, such as OSHA, to avoid overlapping or conflicting requirements. While supporters say ‎the proposal would promote science-based regulation and more practical compliance outcomes, ‎critics argue it could weaken health and environmental protections. The proposal faces an ‎uncertain path in Congress, but it reflects ongoing interest in revisiting how TSCA is ‎implemented. NASF will continue tracking the discussion and assessing what potential changes ‎could mean for surface finishers and downstream manufacturers.‎

EPA Clarifications to “Waters of the United States” Rule Are Advancing

A major effort to clarify how wetlands and land uses are regulated under the Clean Water Act is ‎advancing through an EPA proposed rule that responds to the recent, ground-breaking Supreme ‎Court Sackett decision. The proposal represents the latest attempt to clarify the scope of federal ‎authority over local land-use decisions involving wetlands and related water features on private ‎property.‎

The proposal includes revised definitions for what water features on private land constitute ‎‎“waters of the United States” (WOTUS) and will determine the precise scope of federal Clean ‎Water Act permitting. Once finalized, the rule will affect whether facilities need permits for ‎activities such as filling, excavation, or site development associated with expansions or ‎infrastructure improvements.‎

Certainty and Durability for Future Decisions

The proposed clarifications seek more certainty for landowners with new definitions for key ‎terms such as what qualifies as a “relatively permanent” water and what constitutes a ‎‎“continuous surface connection” between a water feature and an adjacent jurisdictional water. ‎EPA, along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, also proposes confirming that certain ‎features – including groundwater, most ditches constructed in dry land, and certain other ‎features – are excluded from federal jurisdiction. Agency officials have stated that these ‎changes are intended to narrow the scope of regulated waters and reduce uncertainty for ‎regulated entities.‎

Small Business Concerns and Permitting Issues

Industry groups generally view the proposed clarifications as a positive step toward a more ‎predictable permitting framework for facility expansions and site improvements. However, ‎some stakeholders have raised concerns by tying permitting conditions and decisions to a “wet ‎season,” noting that a seasonal approach could introduce new problems. While the issue is often ‎discussed in agricultural contexts, input from business and construction stakeholders has urged ‎EPA to provide greater clarity to ensure that seasonal interpretations do not complicate ‎permitting decisions or long-term site planning for regulated facilities.‎

While the proposed rule does not eliminate all uncertainty, it represents the latest effort to draw ‎clearer jurisdictional boundaries for land-use decisions. NASF will continue to monitor the ‎rulemaking process and provide updates as EPA and the Corps move toward a final rule.‎

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.‎

As midterm elections loom this November and the congressional calendar is shortened, legislative productivity on Capitol Hill has fallen to historic lows at this point, with 40 bills enacted last year. At the Supreme Court, a decision on the legality of the President’s emergency tariffs is expected shortly, putting more than $200 billion in tariff revenue generated last year at stake.

In the executive branch, while historic deregulation and a reshaping of the federal bureaucracy remain top White House priorities, leadership at EPA, OSHA, and other agencies will continue to pursue major regulatory initiatives with implications for U.S. industry.

NASF is engaged across the board on a wide range of matters affecting the industry, including metals and supply chain discussions, materials uses and restrictions pending in the U.S. and globally, a nationwide PFAS decision for metal finishing in 2026 and larger PFAS litigation that touches downstream industrial users, including plating and finishing operations.

See more on recent and emerging developments as we kick off the New Year. A headline summary and expanded updates are below…

__________________

Latest Small Business, GDP Data – As the New Year Begins, U.S. Chamber Small Business Index Points to Slight Softening Despite Solid Recent GDP Growth – As the first week of January gets underway, recently released survey data reinforce what many small businesses and manufacturers are reporting as they plan for the months ahead. The MetLife & U.S. Chamber of Commerce Small Business Index (SBI), published in mid-December, registered 68.4 for the fourth quarter, down from 72.0 in the prior quarter and broadly in line with year-ago levels.

Deregulation – EPA Enforcement Office Announcement Highlights Focus This Year on “Compliance First” Approach – EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) just issued a December 5 memo that focuses on a “compliance first” approach to environmental enforcement actions. The memo emphasizes prioritizing environmental compliance across all types of enforcement activities using what EPA describes as the most efficient and defensible means available, while aligning enforcement actions with the Trump administration’s executive orders and priorities.

Legislation – New PFAS Liability Legislation Introduced in House and Senate – New PFAS-related liability legislation was re-introduced in Congress in mid-December that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to establish a federal cause of action and authorize medical monitoring for individuals significantly exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), with claims directed at parties involved in PFAS manufacturing.

European Commission is Seeking Input on Workplace Exposure Limits for Chromium and Other Key Substances – The European Commission in December a consultation on occupational exposure to certain chromium compounds and six other substances as part of its ongoing review of workplace health and safety rules under the Carcinogens, Mutagens and Reprotoxic Substances Directive (CMRD).

_____________

As the New Year Begins, U.S. Chamber Small Business Index Points to Slight Softening Despite Solid Recent GDP Growth

As the first week of January gets underway, recently released survey data reinforce what many small businesses and manufacturers are reporting as they plan for the months ahead. The MetLife & U.S. Chamber of Commerce Small Business Index (SBI), published in mid-December, registered 68.4 for the fourth quarter, down from 72.0 in the prior quarter and broadly in line with year-ago levels. While most underlying measures did not show sharp declines, the survey shows some softening in areas such as comfort with cash flow and plans for future hiring and investment.

The most significant challenge facing small business owners is inflation, followed by workforce pressures. Fewer respondents report being very comfortable with current cash flow, and assessments of local economic conditions declined slightly, with 43% saying their local economy is in good health. Concerns related to employee retention and attracting qualified workers increased compared to late 2024, underscoring ongoing labor constraints.

These conditions persist even as the most recent official GDP data, released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis in late December, showed strong economic growth in the third quarter of 2025. Other industry-specific indicators also point to a moderation in activity. For many manufacturers and finishers, the data underscore a familiar reality heading into the new year: headline economic growth has not fully alleviated cost, labor, and operating challenges on the ground.

For more information, please contact Jeff Hannapel (jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com) or Christian Richter (crichter@thepolicygroup.com) with NASF.

EPA Enforcement Office Will Focus on New “Compliance First” Approach in 2026

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) just issued a December 5 memo that focuses on a “compliance first” approach to environmental enforcement actions.

The memo emphasizes prioritizing environmental compliance across all types of enforcement activities using what EPA describes as the most efficient and defensible means available, while aligning enforcement actions with the Trump administration’s executive orders and priorities.

The agency says it intends to focus enforcement efforts on achieving timely compliance rather than pursuing enforcement actions that may extend negotiations or delay corrective action at a facility.

The memo and the announcement accompanying it underscore that EPA’s core enforcement functions will be maintained – including monitoring compliance with environmental laws and returning regulated entities back to compliance – while placing greater emphasis on practical outcomes and clarity around the requirements of the law.

For manufacturers and surface finishers, the policy signals a continued shift toward resolving compliance issues earlier in the process and potentially fewer prolonged enforcement disputes. While EPA has noted that enforcement will continue where violations persist, the compliance-first approach reflects a more selective and outcome-focused approach, particularly in non-criminal matters.

NASF will continue to monitor how this policy is implemented across EPA programs and what it may mean for compliance expectations, inspection activity, and enforcement risk in the months ahead.

For more information, please contact Jeff Hannapel (jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com) or Christian Richter (crichter@thepolicygroup.com) with NASF.

New PFAS Liability Legislation Introduced in House and Senate

New PFAS-related liability legislation was re-introduced in Congress in mid-December that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to establish a federal cause of action and authorize medical monitoring for individuals significantly exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), with claims directed at parties involved in PFAS manufacturing.

The legislation, H.R. 6626 / S. 3460 – the PFAS Accountability Act of 2025 – was introduced by Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Additional House co-sponsors include Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

The bill has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary committees.

Environmental groups and other plaintiffs have argued for some time that medical monitoring should be allowed as a remedy for exposures to PFAS because some related health effects may take years to develop.

Key Provisions

Federal Cause of Action – The bill would add a new section to TSCA titled “Individuals Exposed to Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.” It would allow individuals who have been “significantly exposed to PFAS,” or who have reasonable grounds to suspect significant exposure, to bring claims individually or as part of a class action in federal district court.

Claims could be brought against any person that engaged in any portion of a manufacturing process that created the PFAS to which the individual was exposed and foresaw or reasonably should have foreseen that the creation or use of PFAS would result in human exposure.

Presumptions of Exposure – The bill establishes rebuttable presumptions of “significant exposure,” including where PFAS were released into areas of exposure for a cumulative period of at least one year or where biomonitoring results show PFAS or PFAS metabolites in the body. Defendants would be permitted to rebut the presumption through independent testing at their expense.

Medical Monitoring – The legislation would authorize courts to award medical monitoring where significant PFAS exposure has resulted in an increased risk of developing disease and where additional or more frequent diagnostic testing is reasonably necessary and effective. Where toxicological data are insufficient, courts would be permitted to lower the standard for scientific proof and may order additional studies.

Definition of PFAS – The bill defines PFAS broadly as any per- or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.

Versions of the PFAS Accountability Act have been introduced in prior Congresses but have not advanced into law. The legislation also specifies that it does not preempt or limit state law claims or remedies.

NASF continues to monitor this and other PFAS legislation and their potential implications as the PFAS policy landscape continues to evolve.

For more information, please contact Jeff Hannapel (jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com) or Christian Richter (crichter@thepolicygroup.com) with NASF.

European Commission is Seeking Input on Workplace Exposure Limits for Chromium and Other Key Substances

The European Commission in December a consultation on occupational exposure to certain chromium compounds and six other substances as part of its ongoing review of workplace health and safety rules under the Carcinogens, Mutagens and Reprotoxic Substances Directive (CMRD).

The CMRD is the European Union’s primary framework governing worker exposure to hazardous substances associated with cancer, genetic damage, or reproductive health effects. It sets binding occupational exposure limits (OELs) that employers must meet across EU member states.

Information collected through the consultation will help determine whether the Commission introduces new or updates existing exposure limits as part of the latest revision of the Directive. Substances under review include:

• chromium VI compounds
• respirable crystalline silica
• certain chlorinated solvents
• chloroprene
• glycidyl methacrylate, and
• nitrosamines.

The survey is aimed at companies and workers that use or generate these substances, as well as national authorities and occupational safety professionals, and will remain open until January 12. Input will inform future regulatory decisions that could affect compliance obligations, workplace controls, and operating costs for EU-based facilities.

In the meantime, the EU is finalizing its earlier, or sixth, revision of the CMRD, which will introduce new exposure limits for substances such as cobalt compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

NASF will continue to monitor chromium developments in Europe on both the occupational exposure and chemicals management fronts in the coming year, as we expect more activity ahead on workplace and substance restrictions fronts.

For more information, please contact Jeff Hannapel (jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com) or Christian Richter (crichter@thepolicygroup.com) with NASF.

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.‎

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.‎