NASF Public Policy Update

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

March 2022

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A more detailed summary of these issues is provided below.

 

NASF Washington Forum, April 4-6, 2022

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

EPA Releases Strategic Plan Highlighting Priorities for 2022-2026

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

NASF 1000

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

MCTA UPDATE

Date: January 24, 2022
Category: Events, Regulation

MassDEP Continues Stakeholder Process for New Air Permitting Regulations MEPA Institutes New CIA Regulations MassDEP continues to collect stakeholder input into the regulations being promulgated under the state’s new Climate Law. Draft regulations must be in place by October 2022 with final regulations promulgated by April 2023. The meeting is scheduled for January 25 at 1 pm and will be repeated on January 26th at 6 pm. Registration is required, The laws require that facilities holding “certain air permits” conduct a Comprehensive Impact Analysis (CIA) as part of their permit application. Which permits will be impacted has yet to be determined, with social justice groups arguing that all permits — including non-stationary permits and permit renewals — be included. The January Meeting will focus on the CIA process and environmental indicators the applicant will be required to assess as part of the permitting process. More than 80 indicators were listed by environmental justice organizations at its November meeting. This number has been whittled down to 40, and includes such qualitative indicators as food insecurity and heat deserts. MassDEP’s presentation is available online as are videos of past meetings. MEPA has already posted its final regulations for project tripping its threshold mandated under the climate law. The new regulations are available on its website. These regulations require a CIA for any project impacting air quality within a 5-mile radius of an environmental justice community. Please contact me at katherine@masscta.org if you have any questions.

NASF Public Policy Update January 2022

Date: January 18, 2022
Category: Regulation

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 6th.   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 December 29, 2021

Date: December 31, 2021
Category: Regulation

NASF Public Policy Update

December 29, 2021

 

As the year comes to a close, speculation abounds over whether the U.S. Supreme Court will block OSHA from enforcing its emergency COVID-19 workplace standard for large employers – the Court will hold a special hearing on January 7, 2022 as OSHA delays enforcement efforts until January 10, 2022. See the detailed update with an FAQ link further below.

 

Agencies: The Centers for Disease Control just updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidance that cuts from 10 to 5 days the recommended isolation period for asymptomatic individuals.

 

White House: President Biden signed bipartisan defense policy legislation authorizing $770 billion for the Pentagon.

 

Congress: Democrats are assessing options for advancing pieces of their economic and social agenda when they return from the holidays after failing to win passage of the $2.5 trillion package this year.

 

Action to Continue Next Year: This month’s update wraps up a year of action from NASF. Just a few notable recent developments of many more anticipated in 2022:

 

• Congress took up legislation specifically targeting the surface finishing industry for the first time in recent memory with a focus on new discharge restrictions.

 

• The Biden administration’s EPA launched a multi-year rulemaking to assess the impact of the finishing industry’s wastewater discharges as well on human health and the environment, with an option to impose more stringent controls.

 

• California and other states have been increasingly active with proposed bans, product disclosure rules and other initiatives that will impact finishing.

 

The agenda in the coming year will be challenging and there will be much to accomplish. In January we’ll have some early indicators on what’s likely to unfold in the midterm election year.

 

December Issue Summary:

 

CDC Shortens Isolation and Quarantine Recommendations – The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) yesterday announced it was shortening its recommended isolation and quarantine periods for the general population.

 

OSHA’s COVID-19 Standard for Employers is Back On – In the latest decision in a flurry of litigation, the U.S. 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 17, 2021, reversed a nationwide stay that had prevented OSHA from implementing its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for the workplace. OSHA has announced it will delay its enforcement efforts until January 10, 2022 as Supreme Court has scheduled an expedited review of the ETS for January 7, 2022.

 

President Biden Signed the $770 billion Defense Policy Bill – The President signed into law the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week. The legislation, which authorizes funding the Pentagon’s activities for fiscal year 2022, recently passed the Senate on December 15 by a wide margin of 88-11, adding $25 billion more than the White House originally requested.

 

EPA Prepares for Drinking Water Standard for PFAS – EPA released stringent health-based levels to serve as guidance for setting drinking water standard for PFOS and PFOA.

 

EPA Looks to Expand RCRA Corrective Action Authority to Address PFAS Contamination – EPA announces that it intends to list four PFAS as hazardous constituents under federal hazardous waste laws and expand its corrective action authority for cleanup of releases of PFAS and other emerging contaminants.

 

ProPublica Releases Map of Toxic “Hotspots” from Industrial Air Emissions – Areas identified by zip-code are described as “sacrifice zones” that threaten disadvantaged communities with industrial air emissions.

 

EPA Proposes to Formally Scrap Trump “Waters of the US” Rule – EPA signed a proposed rule to scrap the Trump-era WOTUS rule and replace it with pre-2015 regulations until it can develop a new revised WOTUS rule.

 

More details on these topics are below:

 

CDC Shortens Isolation and Quarantine Recommendations

 

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced this week it was shortening its recommended isolation and quarantine periods for the general population.

 

The CDC’s statement lays out the new guidance, which recommends five days of isolating instead of 10 for people who have tested positive for Covid-19 but are asymptomatic. The CDC’s actual Isolation Guidance webpage, however, was not yet updated at press time.

 

Among other highlights the CDC statement notes that “[b]oth updates [to the isolation and quarantine periods] come as the Omicron variant continues to spread throughout the U.S. and reflects the current science on when and for how long a person is maximally infectious.”

 

The CDC statement, including summaries and graphics for easy reference, can be found here.

 

 

OSHA Vaccine Mandate Rule Back On, U.S. Supreme Court Schedules Expedited Hearing

 

OSHA’s issuance on November 5, 2021 of its long-anticipated emergency temporary standard for COVID-19 spawned a wave of litigation that has left many employers confused and frustrated.

 

Lower courts have since been split on the constitutionality of the standard which, as we summarized in last month’s report, requires a vaccine-or-test requirement for employers with more than 100 employees.

 

In response to a number of lawsuits, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay of OSHA’s enforcement, which was directly followed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on December 17, 2021, that allowed the rule to go forward.

 

In response to petitioners’ requests to reinforce the stay, the U.S. Supreme Court has now scheduled a special hearing for a group of federal vaccine mandate cases on January 7, 2022.

 

OSHA Enforcement Discretion until January 10, 2022

 

OSHA has clarified that it will use its enforcement discretion and not issue citations for violations regarding ETS testing requirements until Jan. 10, 2022, if employers are exercising “reasonable, good-faith efforts” to come into compliance with the standard.

 

More guidance will be made available in early January in light of the upcoming oral arguments before the Court and other likely announcements. In the meantime, NASF members with more than 100 employees should consider any steps that might be be taken to ensure compliance with OSHA’s vaccine and testing mandates in the event the emergency standard survives in the coming weeks.

 

To assist members in understanding the basics and finer points of the standard, our colleagues at Conn Maciel Carey in Washington have shared an extensive list of Frequently Asked Questions for companies to consult.

 

President Biden Signs Bipartisan $770 Billion Defense Policy Bill

 

The President this week signed into law the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week. The legislation, which authorizes funding for the Pentagon’s activities for fiscal year 2022, passed the Senate on December 15 by a wide margin of 88-11.

 

An earlier version passed the House by a vote of 316-113 in September. The bill authorizes $25 billion more than the White House originally requested. A summary of the bill can be found here.

 

The show of bipartisan support may nudge congressional leaders toward a compromise package on federal spending bills, none of which have yet been agreed to – Congress instead has passed two short term bills to keep the government funded at last year’s levels until its self-imposed deadline of February 18.

 

EPA Releases Draft Health-Based Levels for PFAS in Drinking Water

 

As part of its PFAS Strategic Roadmap, EPA committed to developing a proposed drinking water standard for PFOS and PFOA by Fall 2022 and a final standard by Fall 2023.

 

As part of this process, EPA must first set a health-based maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG).  The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to consider cost and technical feasibility when setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as the enforceable drinking water standard.

 

Draft Values Much Lower

 

EPA recently released draft risk values for PFOS and PFOA that are orders of magnitude lower than EPA calculated in 2016, raising potential new challenges for drinking water utilities.

 

EPA is proposing a reference dose (RfD) (or greatest amount an adult can ingest daily over the course of a lifetime without health risks) of 1.5 x 10^-9 milligrams/kilograms (mg/kg)-day for PFOA and an RfD of 7.9 x 10^-9 mg/kg-day for PFOS.

 

This is significantly more stringent than the RfD values of 2 x 10^-5 mg/kg-day for both chemicals that EPA used in setting its 2016 lifetime health advisories of 70 ppt for the chemicals.

 

Using the same formula EPA used in developing the 2016 health advisories, and adjusting it to be protective of children, would result in a range of 6 to 7 parts per quadrillion (ppq), or 0.006 to 0.007 ppt, for PFOA and 30 to 37 ppq, or 0.030 to 0.037 ppt, for PFOS — levels that are below most laboratories’ detection limits.

 

Furthermore, if EPA finalizes its proposed health-based conclusion that PFOA is a likely carcinogen, then the MCLG would be zero. However, any final enforceable drinking water standard would most likely be some number above zero because economic and technical feasibility considerations for setting the MCLs. Many environmental organizations have advocated for an MCL of 1 ppt for all PFAS.

Non-enforceable Health Advisories are De Facto Limits

 

In addition to any MCLG, EPA is also likely to issue revised non-enforceable health advisories before setting MCLs. Even though the health advisories are non-binding, for drinking water utilities they are in practice de facto MCLs due to public pressure.

 

With more stringent PFOA and PFOS health advisories, as well as an upcoming first-time health advisory for additional PFAS, utilities will be forced to make decisions about whether to take contaminated wells offline or to buy wholesale water from other suppliers.

 

On November 16, 2021, EPA released a press release indicating that it had submitted the draft risk values for PFOS and PFOA to the Science Advisory Board (SAB).

 

Outlook for Action

 

While the agency has not set a target date for revised PFOA and PFOS advisories, EPA has indicated that it “will move as quickly as possible to issue updated health advisories for PFOA and PFOS that reflect” the new science and input from the agency’s Science Advisory Board, which is scheduled to review the PFOS and PFOA documents in December 2021 and January 2022.

 

While EPA has a lot of work to do before it can issue a proposed drinking water standard for PFOS and PFOA next year, it appears that the MCLG and likely health advisories for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water could be very stringent (and possibly below detection limits).

 

NASF will continue to work with EPA officials and provide critical updates on this rulemaking to NASF members.

 

If you have any questions or would like more information regarding the draft health-based levels that will be used to set drinking water standards for PFOS and PFOA, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

 

EPA to List PFAS as RCRA Hazardous Constituents and Trigger Broader Corrective Action Authority

 

EPA in October responded to a petition submitted by the Governor of New Mexico by announcing that it would initiate two new rulemakings under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) related to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

 

The Agency has not yet formally proposed either rule.

 

Rulemaking to Add Four PFAS Chemicals to the RCRA List of Hazardous Constituents

 

EPA announced it intends to add four PFAS chemicals: PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and GenX to the list of RCRA “hazardous constituents” (40 C.F.R. Part 261, Appendix VIII).

 

EPA has not indicated that it intends at this time to list the four chemicals as “hazardous wastes” that would be subject to the full range of regulatory controls under Subtitle C of RCRA.

 

Listing the chemicals as hazardous constituents would, however, trigger cleanup authority under the RCRA “corrective action” program.

 

Under the RCRA corrective action program, permitted treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste must institute corrective action as necessary to protect human health and the environment for all releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any solid waste management unit at the facility.

 

Accordingly, listing the PFAS chemicals as hazardous constituents would allow the use of the RCRA corrective action program to cleanup releases of PFAS.

 

Rulemaking to Broaden RCRA Corrective Action Authority

 

In its October 26, 2021 response to the Governor of New Mexico, EPA also announced that it would initiate a rulemaking to “clarify” that the corrective action program provides authority to require investigation and cleanup for wastes that meet the RCRA statutory definition of hazardous waste, rather than just wastes that meet the narrower regulatory definition that establishes the scope of EPA’s hazardous waste management standards under RCRA Subtitle C.

 

This would apparently amend the rules to apply the broader statutory definition for purposes of corrective action. If such a change were adopted, EPA could potentially require permitted facilities to undertake corrective action not only for releases of wastes that are listed as hazardous wastes or characteristically hazardous (as well as for releases of listed hazardous constituents, as discussed above), but also for releases of wastes covered by the broad statutory definition of hazardous waste.

 

Accordingly, EPA could potentially address releases of all PFAS chemicals (not just the four listed as hazardous constituents) as well as other emerging contaminants of concern without going through the process of listing them as hazardous constituents and without expanding the hazardous waste listings or characteristics.

 

This potential rulemaking to broaden RCRA corrective action authority to cover PFAS and other emerging contaminants could have significant impacts for facilities where these chemicals were used.

 

Regulatory agencies could have an additional enforcement tool to require the cleanup of PFAS that have been released to the environment. NASF will continue to monitor this rulemaking effort and provide updates to NASF members. If you have any questions or would like additional information on this issue, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

 

New Map Released of Toxic Hotspots from Industrial Air Emissions

 

Investigative journalist group ProPublica has released an analysis indicating where toxic air pollution is emitted from industrial sources and could be elevating cancer risk in their communities. The report and detailed map are available on the ProPublica website at: https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/.

 

ProPublica’s analysis of five years of modeled EPA data identified more than 1,000 toxic hot spots across the country and found that an estimated 250,000 people living in them may be exposed to levels of excess cancer risk that the EPA deems unacceptable.

 

The EPA’s threshold for an acceptable level of cancer risk is 1 in 10,000, meaning that of 10,000 people living in an area, there would likely be one additional case of cancer over a lifetime of exposure.

 

EPA has also said that the added level of cancer risk from air pollution should be far lower, 1 in a million. The ProPublica map highlights areas where the additional cancer risk is greater than 1 in 100,000 — 10 times lower than the EPA’s threshold.

 

The group argues that the EPA has never released this data in a way that allows the public to understand the risks of breathing the air where they live.

 

Using the reports submitted between 2014 and 2018, ProPublica calculated the estimated excess cancer risk from industrial sources across the entire country. Individual manufacturing facilities can be identified through a search of zip codes. In many cases the risks identified by this report may be significantly overestimated.

 

The group also asserts that the EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones” where residents breathe carcinogens. The report claims that census tracts with majority non-white populations experience about 40 percent more cancer-causing industrial air pollution on average than tracts where the residents are mostly white.

 

Environmental advocacy groups and community organizations are using this tool to identify areas of potential concern with an emphasis on environmental justice. It may be advisable to review this report and map to ensure that the information provided for your area is accurate.

 

If you have any questions or would like additional information on the report and map of toxic hotspots, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.

 

EPA Scraps Trump “Waters of the US” Rule and Intends to Propose Refined Definition 

 

On November 18, 2021 EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, signed a proposed rule that would scrap the Trump-era Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), and replace it with more restrictive pre-2015 rules.

 

The Trump Administration repealed the 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule in 2019, and in June 2020, replaced it with the new NWPR that narrowed the definition of WOTUS that were subject to federal authority under the Clean Water Act. The NWPR was the subject of substantial legal challenges and recent federal court rulings vacated the Trump-era rule.

 

This recent action to scrap the NMPR is the next step to solidify the rules of the road for a stable implementation of WOTUS while the agencies continue to consult with stakeholders to refine the definition of WOTUS in both implementation and future regulatory actions.

 

Outreach to Achieve a Durable Definition

 

EPA chief Michael Regan noted that “whiplash” from shifting definitions of WOTUS has created uncertainty and that EPA is continuing outreach to find a definition that protects public health and the environment, including downstream communities, while supporting agriculture and other industries reliant on clean water.

 

Earlier this year Reagan said that EPA does not intend to simply pull the Obama rule off the shelf after the agency has learned so much over the years.

 

Changes to the rule are anticipated because Regan that EPA officials have learned lessons from both versions of the rule, have seen complexities in both approaches, and have determined that both rules did not necessarily listen to the will of the regulated community and public interests.

 

EPA’s action decision drew a partisan response, with Republicans warning the rule would frustrate infrastructure and Democrats stating that the proposal paves the way to develop a definition that provides certainty and better protects our nation’s precious waters and wetlands, while also supporting economic opportunity and industries that depend on clean water.

 

It is not clear yet when EPA will release a new definition for what constitutes a “water of the U.S.,” and which wetlands and streams will be protected under the rule. It is likely that the new WOTUS rule will more closely resemble the 2015 Obama WOTUS rule compared to the 2020 Trump WOTUS rule.

 

More information on WOTUS and recent regulatory action is available on the EPA website at www.epa.gov/wotus. If you have any questions or would like additional information about the WOTUS rule development process, please contact Jeff Hannapel 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 on this or membership matters, please contact Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com, Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.

NASF POLICY UPDATE

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

NASF Public Policy Update Recent Developments November 1, 2021   Federal actions this fall have placed historic regulatory attention on the finishing industry and its practices. This update highlights several topics, including:   ·    Calls intensify to regulate the entire surface finishing industry, ·    EPA expands its regulatory authority over articles containing chemicals substances, ·    NASF comments on PFAS reporting requirements, ·    OSHA awaits final COVID vaccine rule review from White House reiview, and ·    a NASF/US Department of Defense Workshop on chromium plating to be held at SUR/FIN.   Major Regulatory Milestones   Activist Groups in October Called out the Entire Finishing Industry for New Water Rules – In recent weeks, more than a dozen of the top U.S. activist groups – including the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council – issued a joint statement to EPA and the public and included a call to regulate the entire surface finishing industry with new PFAS effluent requirements, arguing:   The EPA should develop [new discharge requirements] for ALL metal finishers, not just chrome platers.”   Congress and EPA are Targeting Surface Finishing – Congress has introduced new legislation that is gaining more attention – and EPA announced the launch of a first-of-its-kind regulation – specifically targeting the surface finishing industry for nationwide testing, monitoring and enforcement of new wastewater discharge requirements for PFAS chemicals.   Rare Media Coverage of the Finishing Industry on Capitol 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.

NEW ENGLAND CHAPTER ANNUAL FALL SEMINAR 2021

Date: October 13, 2021
Category: Chapter News, Member News, NASF Chapters, Regulation

 

NEW ENGLAND CHAPTER ANNUAL FALL SEMINAR 2021

 

The New England Chapter of NASF was grateful to once again be able to host an in-person Seminar for the benefit of its membership and the entire metal finishing community. The event was held on Wednesday October 6, 2021.  With the COVID pandemic having forced the adoption of a Virtual format for the past year and a half, the resumption of in-person meetings and the opportunity to not only learn but to network with fellow metal finishers was a welcome change and was enthusiastically received by all in attendance.

 

The event was once again a four-hour Continuing Education Conference offering continuing education contact hours towards Wastewater license renewal. This was especially significant being that 2021 is a WWT License renewal year for all licensed operators in Massachusetts.  The Seminar consisted of four presentations over a four-hour period from 1:00 to 5:00 preceded by a luncheon for all attendees and speakers.

 

Matt Wright from HRP Associates opened the Seminar with a presentation entitled PFAS What Businesses Need to know stressing the importance of due diligence in preparing for regulatory enforcement of this emerging environmental hot-button issue. He stressed that saying “there is no PFAS in our plant” won’t be enough and everyone should be ready to back up statements with facts. This was followed by a presentation from Jim Walsh of MacDermid-Enthone on another hot-button issue, Sustainability. Jim gave examples of how correct equipment choices can not only lead to a company’s financial success but also to its future environmental success. David Calnan of CCI Chemicals followed with a presentation on Wastewater Treatment Options for the metal finishing industry stressing alternative treatment techniques and water recycling. The seminar closing speaker was Katherine Robertson of the Massachusetts Chemistry & Technology Alliance (MCTA) who gave an eye-opening update on the year-long Ad Hoc Toxic Use Reduction Act (TURA) Committee Hearings on reform to this burdensome Massachusetts environmental regulation and what metal finishers will be facing if certain regulatory changes become effective.

 

We continue to live in a very different world and it is encouraging that once again we were able to assemble for an in-person conference and networking that this event offered. We must continue to offer, through the combined efforts of NASF Board Members, Committee Members, Chapter Membership and dedicated and talented members of the Metal Finishing Community as a whole, events such as this which can be offered for the benefit of our membership.

 

 

 

 

 

EPA Will Set New PFAS Discharge Limits for Surface Finishing

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

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.

Meeting Reminder: Members Meeting & Strategy Session on Tuesday, 7/13

Date: July 12, 2021
Category: Chapter News, Member News, Regulation

Strategy Session To Fight TURA Fee Hike at 2 PM

Members Meeting/Regulatory Update Follows at 3 PM

Consider this a reminder that MCTA has scheduled two meetings on Tuesday, July 13, 2021.

2 PM: A strategy session to coordinate opposition to the proposed fee increase for TURA filers;
3 PM: Quarterly Members Meeting.

Agenda for Members Meeting

Welcome, Adam Diamond, Astro Chemical, MCTA Chair

Program Update, Katherine Robertson. Executive Director

trategy Session Recap, Katherine Robertson. Executive Director

Regulatory Update, Jamie Dunbar & Chris Niles, O’Neill and Associates

MCTA Strategy Session/Members Meeting

Tue, Jul 13, 2021 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM (EDT)

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/961996493

You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (872) 240-3412

Access Code: 961-996-493

New to GoToMeeting? Get the app now and be ready when your first meeting starts: https://global.gotomeeting.com/install/961996493

 

 

 

 

 

NASF Public Policy Update – June 2021

Date: June 16, 2021
Category: Chapter News, Member News, NASF Chapters, NASF National, Regulation

CLICK HERE FOR THE MONTHLY UPDATE

 

 

 

 

 

NEW ENGLAND CHAPTER HOSTS WINTER VIRTUAL SEMINAR

Date: March 8, 2021
Category: Chapter News, Events, Member News, NASF Chapters, Regulation

The New England Chapter of NASF once again hosted a virtual seminar for the benefit of their membership and the entire metal finishing community. The event was held on Tuesday March 2, 2021.  With the COVID pandemic still forcing the  elimination of in-person meetings the executive board is realizing the necessity to continue to have events that will not only educate but, to whatever extent possible, bond those associated with metal finishing community.

The event was once again a four-hour Continuing Education Conference offering continuing education contact hours towards Wastewater license renewal. It was conducted by means of a Zoom format and attracted about forty attendees. It consisted of four presentations in two segments from 9:00 to 11:00 and 1:00 to 3:00, offering a more user-friendly format for all attendees.

Levi McGuire from PAVCO opened the Webinar with a presentation on Zinc-Nickel plating, covering the advantages and drawbacks of alternative chemistries from both an application and wastewater treatment perspective. This was followed by an eye-opening presentation by Paul LaFlamme of Centrend on cyber security highlighting the upcoming very elaborate security requirements that will be necessary to conduct business primarily with, but not exclusive to, all government/defense agencies in the not too distant future.

The afternoon session featured presentations by a team comprised of Jeff Mosholder of Newpath LLC plus Alisa Werst and Roger Booth of HRP Associates.

This trio covered the mandatory RCRA training required of all personnel handling hazardous waste and also covered commonly made environmental record keeping and reporting errors that could result in regulatory inspection citations. 

Special thank Rob Capalbo of NBC TV Springfield affiliate WWLP for acting as technical director, support and moderator as he once again helped to successfully bring this Virtual Seminar to reality.

We continue to live in a very different world and, until we can all once again assemble for in-person conferences and networking, must continue to offer, through the combined efforts of NASF Board Members, Committee Members, Chapter Membership and dedicated and talented members of the Metal Finishing Community as a whole, events such as this which can be offered for the benefit of our membership.