October 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA Proposes to Expand List of PFAS Subject to TRI Reporting

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

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

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

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

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

EPA Changes Name of RCRA Cleanup Program

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

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

NASF 1000

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

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

Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. For more information, contact: Christian Richter (202-257-‎‎0250) or Jeff Hannapel (202 257-3756) with NASF.‎