NASF Public Policy Update

January 2022

With the beginning of a new year, several significant regulatory developments are emerging. This month’s update provides a summary of these key developments in Washington and states that are impacting the surface finishing industry.

·     U.S. Supreme Court Blocks OSHA’s COVID-19 Workplace Vaccine Standard – The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay for now on the implementation of the OSHA COVID-19 Vaccine, Testing and Face Coverings emergency temporary standard.

·     EPA Proposes to List PFOS and PFOA as (Superfund) Hazardous Substances – EPA submitted proposed a rule to list PFOS and PFOA as Superfund hazardous substances to the White House for review. The rule could subject PFOS and PFOA to release reporting and cleanup cost recovery requirements.

·     EPA Adds N-Propyl Bromide to Hazardous Air Pollutants List – The first new chemical since the Clean Air Act Amendments were passed in 1990 is added to the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

·     Science Advisory Board (SAB) Criticizes Draft EPA PFAS Documents Over Lack of Transparency – Scientific panel questions EPA’ s scientific data and conclusions to support drinking water standard for PFOS and PFOA.

·     Wisconsin State Agency Recommends Stringent Groundwater Standard for Hexavalent Chromium – New standard for hexavalent chromium in groundwater is several orders of magnitude more stringent that existing federal and state standard.

A more detailed summary of these issues is provided below.

Supreme Court Issues Stay of OSHA’s COVID-19 Workplace Vaccine Standard

The Supreme Court on January 13 issued a decision to stay OSHA’s COVID-19 emergency workplace standard that applies to employers with at least 100 employees. Here is a link to the opinion of the Court. As a result, the enforcement of the mandate has been halted and there are no regulatory obligations to meet under the rule, such as employers needing to determine each employee’s vaccination status and requiring unvaccinated employees to wear face coverings and be subject to weekly COVID testing.

Only a Temporary Stay

While the Court’s decision technically is only a temporary stay of the ETS pending a full review of the legal challenges to the rule by the Sixth Circuit (such as whether the Constitution would allow OSHA to impose the broad-ranging requirements of the ETS), the Court appeared to signal that it believes OSHA exceeded its statutory authority in issuing a workplace standard to address an issue of broad public health. The Court specifically noted that:

“Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather.

That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.”

Additional Arguments and Outlook

The Court also stated:

“[t]hat is not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate occupation-specific risks related to COVID–19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible. . . . But the danger present in such workplaces differs in both degree and kind from the everyday risk of contracting COVID–19 that all face.”

For now, implementation of the rule is blocked and the ETS requirements are not in effect. The substantive legal issues on whether OSHA has authority to issue such a broad-ranging ETS will be argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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

EPA Submits for White House Review its Proposed Rule to List PFOS and PFOA as Hazardous Substance under CERCLA

On January 10, 2022, EPA formally submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) its first-time plan to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as “hazardous substances” under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA or the Superfund law). Such a designation would set new precedent as EPA has never before designated a new chemical as a CERCLA hazardous substance.

OMB reviews are generally intended to last 90 days, so EPA appears to be on track to issue the proposal in March 2022. The agency expects to issue a final rule in the summer of 2023.

Once finalized, the regulation would trigger a host of actions, from release reporting to cost recovery and contribution claims. The reporting will enable federal, state, and local authorities to collect information regarding the location and extent of releases of PFOS and PFOA. In addition, EPA, other agencies or private parties may be able to seek cost recovery or contributions for costs incurred for the cleanup of releases of PFOS and PFOA.

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

EPA Adds N-Propyl Bromide to Hazardous Air Pollutants List 

EPA has set a new precedent and is adding a new chemical, n-propyl bromide (also known as 1-bromopropane), to the Clean Air Act’s list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), also known as air toxics.

This chemical is used as a degreaser and cleaner for metal parts in the surface finishing industry, with specific aviation and aerospace applications. HAPs are those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects. The original list of HAPs in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 included 189 pollutants. Since 1990, EPA has removed two pollutants from the list, but until now has not added any new ones.

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on Jan. 5, 2022. The consequences of a new HAP listing could be significant. New HAP listings could reopen current air rules for industry source categories and drive modifications to facility permits.

The additional potential new HAP emissions could also trigger some area (smaller) sources to become major sources subject to more stringent requirements. EPA will be working to revise current NESHAP regulations and identify whether additional NESHAP are warranted.

The addition of this new HAP will likely be subject to a legal challenge because the administrative process that EPA used to add the new HAP has been criticized by several stakeholders because it was not consistent with notice and comments requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Several industry trade groups have indicated that they intend to challenge EPA’s perceived “regulatory shortcut” to listing new pollutants. The outcome of the legal challenge will likely set the precedent for future HAP listing decisions such as possible HAP listings for PFOS and PFOA.

EPA will be working to revise current NESHAP regulations and identify whether additional NESHAP requirements are warranted. Under a separate action, EPA is developing a regulatory infrastructure that will address compliance and implementation issues that may arise from the addition of a new chemical to the list of HAPs.

More information is available on the EPA website at:  https://www.epa.gov/haps/addition-1-bp-npb-clean-air-act-list-hazardous-air-pollutants.

NASF will continue to work with other industry trade groups on the effort and provide updates to members. If you have any questions or would like additional information on this issue, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

Science Advisory Board (SAB) Criticizes Draft EPA PFAS Documents Over Lack of Transparency

In the first week of January 2022, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) PFAS Panel reviewed draft documents for deriving a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as well as an analysis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction as a result of reduced PFOA and PFOS exposure in drinking water.

EPA uses health-based MCLGs to set enforceable drinking water standards after taking into consideration cost and technology concerns. EPA will use the CVD document in its cost-benefit analysis for the enforceable drinking water standard.

EPA has asked the panel to weigh in on a number of issues related to the MCLG documents, including whether the agency:

·     clearly described the studies it considered in developing the MCLG process documents

·     chose the right endpoints for assessing noncancer effects

·     made the right cancer classifications and properly calculated the cancer slope factor

·     used the appropriate toxicokinetic models

·     chose the appropriate epidemiological studies to derive the reference doses (RfDs) for PFOA and PFOS, and

·     appropriately decided to use a relative source contribution of 20 percent.

EPA Science Advisors Critiqued the Draft

EPA science advisors criticized several aspects of the draft documents the agency plans to use to set enforceable drinking water limits, saying that even when the agency’s approach appears to be reasonable, EPA has failed to adequately explain its rationale.

The criticisms follow, and in some cases echo, concerns a variety of public commenters have raised about the documents, where state health officials, industry groups and drinking water officials have said the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies. Specifically, the panel reviewed a draft framework for estimating noncancer risks associated with PFAS mixtures, raising concerns it could hamper ongoing state efforts to control the chemicals.

While the SAB panel raised numerous technical concerns over EPA’s data and conclusions, it was not clear if the panelists would provide clear direction to EPA. Public commenters urged the SAB to provide specific recommendations and definitive direction to EPA regarding the scientific basis provided to support a drinking water standard for PFOS and PFOA.

The technical and scientific information provided by EPA and reviewed by the SAB will be part of the administrative record to support EPA’s rulemaking process to set drinking water standards for PFO and PFOA.

On behalf of NASF, The Policy Group will continue to work with EPA, state agencies, drinking water utilities, and industry trade groups on this rulemaking development and provide updates to NASF members. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Christian Richter or Jeff Hannapel with NASF at crichter#@thepolicygroup.com or jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

Wisconsin State Agency Recommends Stringent Groundwater Standard for Hexavalent Chromium

The Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating Council (comprised of representatives from several state agencies, the Governor’s office and universities) prepares an annual report that summarizes the operations and activities of the council, describes the state of the groundwater resource and its management and makes recommendations. In the 2021 Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating Council Report to the Legislature, the naturally-occurring chromium in groundwater was referenced.

The report noted that “[a]s water flows underground, metals such as chromium, may be dissolved from rock or soil and be mobilized, and therefore present in groundwater. Natural sources of chromium in groundwater include some types of igneous bedrock and soils derived from those bedrock sources.”

While both trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium are found in groundwater, in Wisconsin water quality analysis for chromium is generally done for “total chromium.” The US EPA has established a public water supply MCL for total chromium at 100 micrograms per liter (μg/L) and, in Wisconsin, the groundwater quality enforcement standard for total chromium is also 100 μg/L.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Remediation and Redevelopment program requested a health-based groundwater standard for hexavalent chromium.

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) recently recommended a groundwater quality enforcement standard of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) and a preventive action limit (PAL) of 7 ng/L for hexavalent chromium based on its potential to cause cancer. DHS must identify the health-based level at the estimated cancer risk of one in one million for a person with body weight of 177 pounds.

The PAL is then set at ten percent of the enforcement standard as required by state statute. The scientific Support Documents for this recommended standard is available on the DHS website at: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p02434v.pdf.

Wisconsin has issued a white paper for rule development for this stringent groundwater standard, and has requested comments on the white paper. This recommended level for hexavalent chromium is several orders of magnitude more stringent that the existing standard for total chromium. and could have a significant impact on the monitoring, control and remediation of groundwater in Wisconsin.

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

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 includes presentations and briefings from national and global experts on pertinent policy, technical, regulatory, and strategic management issues impacting the surface finishing industry, including environmental regulatory issues, labor and workplace trends, tax and economic policy, supply chain challenges, globally regulatory developments, and election forecasts.

The schedule includes a Welcome Reception on the evening of April 4, Policy Briefings, Lunch Keynote Speaker, and Evening Reception on April 5, and an opportunity the following day for meetings on Capitol Hill to educate lawmakers and staff on the importance and impact of the surface finishing industry, the challenges facing companies, and specific policy priorities of concern on the 6^th.

Please join your industry colleagues at this significant and informative event. More information on the Washington Forum will be available shortly on the NASF website at: https://nasf.org/events/washington-forum/.

If you have any questions, please contact Christian Richter or Jeff Hannapel with NASF at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or 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 on this or membership matters, please contact Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com, Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

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 Hill – The 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 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.