EPA Finalizes National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Certain PFAS
On April 10, 2024, EPA announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS.
On April 10, 2024, EPA announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS. To inform the final rule, EPA evaluated over 120,000 comments submitted by the public on the rule proposal, as well as considered input received during multiple consultations and stakeholder engagement activities held both prior to and following the proposed rule. EPA expects that over many years the final rule will prevent PFAS exposure in drinking water for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses.
EPA is also making unprecedented funding available to help ensure that all people have clean and safe water. In addition to today’s final rule, $1 billion in newly available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help states and territories implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems and to help owners of private wells address PFAS contamination.
EPA finalized a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) establishing legally enforceable levels, called Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for six PFAS in drinking water. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA as contaminants with individual MCLs, and PFAS mixtures containing at least two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS using a Hazard Index MCL to account for the combined and co-occurring levels of these PFAS in drinking water. EPA also finalized health-based, non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for these PFAS.
The final rule requires:
Public water systems must monitor for these PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027), followed by ongoing compliance monitoring. Water systems must also provide the public with information on the levels of these PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027.
Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed these MCLs.
Beginning in five years (2029), public water systems that have PFAS in drinking water which violates one or more of these MCLs must take action to reduce levels of these PFAS in their drinking water and must provide notification to the public of the violation.
Recent Posts
News Update: SEC Adopts Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors
UPDATE, April 5, 2024
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has delayed the implementation of its climate-related disclosure rule in response to legal challenges from two fracking companies and various business groups. This decision awaits the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on the appeals. Despite this, the SEC continues to assert its authority to mandate public companies to disclose their climate-related risks to investors and is prepared to defend the rule's validity in court. The stay temporarily halts the rule, which would first apply to large accelerated filers for fiscal years beginning in 2025, with other companies following at least a year later. Legal experts recommend companies continue preparing for compliance, while the appeals process could extend over months or years.
Washington D.C., March 6, 2024
The Securities and Exchange Commission today adopted rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures by public companies and in public offerings. The final rules reflect the Commission’s efforts to respond to investors’ demand for more consistent, comparable, and reliable information about the financial effects of climate-related risks on a registrant’s operations and how it manages those risks while balancing concerns about mitigating the associated costs of the rules.
The adopting release is published on SEC.gov and will be published in the Federal Register. The final rules will become effective 60 days following publication of the adopting release in the Federal Register, and compliance dates for the rules will be phased in for all registrants, with the compliance date dependent on the registrant’s filer status.
Recent Posts
Combating Burnout: Key Strategies for a Healthier Workplace
Exploring the shadowy impact of workplace stress, this article delves into how pervasive job-related burnout threatens personal well-being and dampens productivity and communication. Discover essential strategies for employers to foster a supporti...
Workplace stress is a significant yet often overlooked safety risk that can impact a number of people. According to research by the American Institute of Stress, 83% of workers in the United States experience stress related to their jobs.1 Workplace stress causes, on average, 120,000 deaths each year.2 This stress doesn't just impact personal well-being; it also undermines job performance, productivity, and interpersonal communication.
There are many different causes of workplace stress. Concerns about job security, such as the fear of reduced hours or layoffs, can weigh on employees. Similarly, taking on additional responsibilities without adequate support or feeling unable to take sufficient breaks can increase stress levels. A significant stressor for many is being unable to maintain a healthy work-life balance, especially if there is an expectation to respond to work-related emails and answer work calls during personal time.
While the list of stressors extends beyond these examples, the collective impact can significantly affect your overall well-being. Fortunately, there are steps employers can take to alleviate workplace stress. A survey conducted by the American Psychological Association in 2021 revealed that over 87% of employees believe employers can help alleviate stress by offering flexible work hours, promoting the use of PTO, or encouraging employees to take regular breaks throughout the day.3 These proactive measures not only improve employee satisfaction but also foster a healthier and more productive work environment. The World Health Organization estimates that for every dollar an employer spends on mental health concerns, they receive a return of four dollars.1 Investing in mental health support benefits individuals and produces a return for employers, highlighting the importance of employee well-being in the workplace.
When we are stressed, fatigued, or mentally unwell, our ability to perform tasks safely and effectively is decreased. By addressing mental health concerns and providing support, employers promote a healthier work environment and enhance overall safety. Take some time to see what kinds of support your workplace offers.
1 World Health Organization. “Mental Health at Work.” 2022. https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/promotion-prevention/mental-health-in-the-workplace.
2 Goh, J., Pfeffer, J., & Zenios, S. A. “The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States.” March 13, 2015. Management Science, 62(2), 608-628
3 American Psychological Association. “Vacation Time Recharges US Workers, but Positive Effects Vanish within Days, New Survey Finds.” June 27, 2018. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/06/vacation-recharges-workers.
Recent Posts
EPA News Update: Proposal to Change RCRA Regulation
News Update
On January 31, 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a proposal to change the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This change adds nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals to its existing list of hazardous constituents.
To learn more about this change, read here. To read more EPA news, visit the EPA website.
Update: Notice of this proposal was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2024.
Recent Posts
Safety First: The General Duty Clause's Impact on Toxic Substance Management
Don’t Forget the General Duty Clause! Even if you don’t violate a specific air quality regulation, you could still violate the General Duty Clause.
Don’t Forget the General Duty Clause! Even if you don’t violate a specific air quality regulation, you could still violate the General Duty Clause.
Under the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(1), the General Duty Clause states: “The owners and operators of stationary sources producing, processing, handling or storing such substances [i.e., a chemical in 40 CFR part 68 or any other extremely hazardous substance] have a general duty [in the same manner and to the same extent as the general duty clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)] to identify hazards which may result from (such) releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques, to design and maintain a safe facility taking such steps as are necessary to prevent releases, and to minimize the consequences of accidental releases which do occur.”
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cited industries for violating the general duty clause of the Clean Air Act. The general duty clause requires facilities to take precautions to prevent the release of hazardous air pollutants, even if those pollutants are not explicitly regulated under the act.
Violations of the general duty clause have been cited, and violators fined. Just last year, for example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) settled with Greenfield Global USA, Inc., a chemical repackaging and storage company in Brookfield, Connecticut, for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act's General Duty Clause (CAA GDC) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Greenfield agreed to pay a penalty of $179,596 and certify compliance with all CAA GDC and EPCRA requirements.
EPA inspectors found that Greenfield failed to design and maintain a safe facility to prevent releases of toxic chemicals under the CAA GDC requirements. Additionally, the company did not correctly submit nine reports on certain toxic chemicals to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database for 2017 and 2018. Greenfield stored and processed various toxic chemicals, including highly hazardous substances like chloroform, formaldehyde, and sulfuric acid.
The facility's location near retail businesses, highways, and a residential neighborhood, as well as neighboring environmental justice concerns, raised concerns about potential risks to human health and the environment due to the presence of carcinogenic and highly flammable substances.
Don’t forget that you have a general duty to manage your toxic substances safely!
Recent Posts
Designation of PFOA and PFAS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
EPA maintains a list of over 12,000 perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly referred to as ‘forever chemicals.’ Learn more.
The EPA maintains a list that currently includes over 12,000 perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that are known to accumulate in the environment as well as bodies of people and animals and may be linked to harmful health effects relating to reproduction, thyroid and liver function, the immune system, and cancer. These are commonly referred to as ‘forever chemicals’ because they contain a strong carbon-fluorine bond, don’t break down over time, and can dissolve in water.
In October 2021, the EPA released a PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which outlines plans to research, restrict, and remediate PFAS. The term PFAS refers to synthetic or man-made chemicals that have been used since the 1940s in many household and industrial products. They are known for their resistance to grease, oil, water, and heat and have been used in various products, including stain- and water-resistant fabrics, carpets, nonstick cookware, cleaning products, paints, and fire-fighting foams.
The PFAS Strategic Roadmap included a commitment to designate specific PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Such designations would trigger various actions and regulations involving reporting, notification, cleanup, remediation, and cost/liability.
In September 2022, the EPA proposed a rule to designate two of the most widely used PFAS — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and their salts and structural isomers — as hazardous substances under CERCLA. The EPA is currently reviewing comments received on this proposed rule, and a final rule is expected as soon as August 2023.
If this designation is finalized, facilities across the country would be required to report releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed the reportable quantity assigned to these substances. CERCLA section 102(b) states that the reportable quantity of any hazardous substance is one pound unless changed by other regulations; therefore, any person in charge of a facility would need to report releases of PFOA and PFOS of one pound or more within a 24-hour period. The EPA has the authority to initiate or oversee the cleanup and remediation of sites contaminated with hazardous substances. So the hazardous substance designations would also enhance the ability of federal, tribal, state, and local authorities to obtain information about the location and extent of releases.
CERCLA already grants the EPA authority to address PFOA and PFOS releases because they are considered to be pollutants and contaminants, and EPA can respond if the release or threat of release presents an imminent and substantial danger to public health or welfare. However, if PFOA and PFOS are designated as CERCLA hazardous substances, then EPA can respond without making a determination of imminent and substantial danger.
CERCLA establishes a legal framework for holding responsible parties accountable for costs associated with cleanup. The proposed rule would, in certain circumstances, force the polluter to pay by allowing EPA to seek to recover cleanup costs from a responsible party or to require such a party to conduct the cleanup.
EPA anticipates that a final rule would generally encourage and create incentives for better waste management and treatment practices by facilities handling PFOA or PFOS. As more research is conducted, EPA plans to consider listing additional PFAS as hazardous substances. In April 2023, the EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) asking the public for input regarding potential future hazardous substance designations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under CERCLA.
For more information regarding PFAS, visit EPA’s website.
Catherine Nies is a Chemical Data Management Specialist. Her responsibilities focus on the output end of our Foundation system, verifying the information and deciding what reports to produce, including Tier II, permit summaries, EPCRA reports, and any other high-priority needs of our clients. A second responsibility for Catherine is tracking EPA, OSHA, CDC, and state and local regulatory updates.
Recent Posts
Go Wild! The Benefits of Native Landscaping
Learn about the advantages of turning your yard into a space that supports native plants, animals, and habitats.
The summer heat has taken hold, and you’re probably struggling to keep that lawn at your home or business alive and green. What better time to learn about the advantages of turning all or a portion of that area back into a space that supports native plants, animals, and habitats? Traditional lawns require significant investments of time and resources while providing little in return.
Pollinators, for one, depend on native habitats for survival. According to the USDA, “Three-fourths of the world’s flowering plants and about 35 percent of the world’s food crops depend on animal pollinators to reproduce”. Native flowers in a former lawn space can support insect and bird pollinators with nectar and pollen as a much-needed food source, allowing them to complete their critical pollinating roles.
Once established, native habitats also require significantly less watering and eliminate the need for harsh chemicals and fertilizers. National Audubon Society experts estimate, “the traditional suburban lawn on average has ten times more chemical pesticides per acre than farmland”. Natural areas reduce groundwater penetrating chemicals and conserve our most precious resource, water.
Natural spaces also provide the reward of connecting on a personal level with the outdoors. Researchers at the Mental Health Foundation have observed that “people who are more connected with nature are happier and more likely to report feeling their lives worthwhile.” What better way to promote positive mental health than to create and enjoy a biodiverse area?
Lastly, we see more and more habitat loss and migration spaces being eliminated due to human sprawl and development. To put this in perspective, there are currently more than 63,000 square miles in the US of turfgrass. That’s larger than the state of Georgia (LawntoWildflowers.org). Rewilding even a portion of this massive space would provide much-needed resources for birds, insects, and other living creatures that depend on natural land.
Hopefully, these benefits have shown you why this summer could be the perfect time to convert your lawn into a native and rewarding landscape.
Resources:
Why Native Plants Matter | Audubon
Nature: How connecting with nature benefits our mental health | Mental Health Foundation
Bringing your lawn back to life by converting turfgrass to native wildflowers — Lawn to Wildflowers
Travis Clark is a Cornerstone Account Manager with a focus on business development. He manages corporate clients primarily in the industrial sector with a focus on manufacturing and logistics. He counsels clients in the areas of EPA and OSHA regulatory compliance management, quality certifications, and sustainability. He works closely with these operations to provide guidance on minimizing risk and implementation of cost-saving initiatives.
Recent Posts
The Sackett Case: How the Supreme Court's Wetlands Decision Alters Environmental Regulations
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that narrowed the definition of water in the Clean Water Act. Learn more.
In late May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that narrowed the definition of water in the Clean Water Act. This is the second recent court decision that significantly affects the regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. Less than 11 months earlier, a Supreme Court ruling curbed the EPA’s authority to limit coal plant emissions.
The May 2023 decision affecting the Clean Water Act pertains to wetlands. Michael and Chantell Sackett own a parcel of land about 300 feet from Priest Lake, one of Idaho’s largest lakes. The Sacketts want to build a house on their land, but the property has been considered part of a large wetland complex that, like all wetlands, requires a permit for any type of development. A government agency denied a Sackett petition for developing their land, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. A majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the family.
At the heart of the Sackett family case was the definition of wetlands, which have long been protected under the Clean Water Act enacted in 1972. Wetlands have generally been defined as areas that are wet for all or part of a year, such as bogs, marshes, swamps, and fens. Development has not been allowed on wetlands that are adjacent to a body of water, even if a levee or other barrier separates the two. The definition of water has been vague in the Clean Water Act, however. In its recent ruling, the court determined that wetlands must have a continuous surface connection to a navigable body of water. Accordingly, the ruling specifies that wetlands must directly adjoin rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water.
Proponents of the decision indicate that there is now a clear, workable standard for regulators to utilize in implementing the Clean Water Act. Organizations focused on property rights applaud the decision as a clarification of the freedoms of landowners, including water. Critics of the decision maintain that scaling back the scope of the EPA’s authority could have devastating effects on water quality, including a possible increase in pollution, disruption of ecosystems, and harm to wildlife. They note that wetlands often serve as a buffer that will disappear with additional development, thereby increasing the risk of contaminated water runoff and related issues.
For over seven years, Rachel Powell has worked as a Chemical Data Management Specialist at Cornerstone. She assists clients in setting up and maintaining their Safety Data Sheet FOUNDATION System and facilitates new user training monthly. Additionally, each year, she files Tier II Emergency and Chemical Reports on behalf of our clients.
Recent Posts
Biochar for Environmental Remediation
For thousands of years, innovative farmers have added a charcoal-like substance—biochar—to the soil to improve crop productivity. But what is biochar?
For thousands of years, innovative farmers have added a charcoal-like substance—biochar—to the soil to improve crop productivity. Between 450 BCE and 950 CE, native farming communities of the Amazon basin successfully converted low-fertility, tropical soils to agricultural soils through the amendment of biochar, compost, manure, and other waste. Unknown to these farmers, the physical and chemical properties of the biochar in these terra preta soils (“black soil” in Portuguese) were helping to retain soil nutrients that otherwise would have been leached away during the tropical precipitation. In recent decades, interest in biochar has experienced a resurgence as insightful scientists have looked to those same properties that helped biochar mitigate nutrient leaching for utility in environmental remediation endeavors.
What is biochar? Analysis of the name likely draws up images of a burned forest, perhaps a biological experiment involving fire, or a new product riding today’s wave of environmental interest. In summary, when any carbon biomass (e.g., wood waste, plants, or even animal waste) is exposed to high heat in an oxygen-free environment, this biomass converts to a solid, charcoal-like product known as biochar. In this form, the carbon is resistant to decomposition and is chemically stable. Macroscopically, biochar appears as dusty, black charcoal pieces with grains of generally 0.1 centimeters or smaller. But it’s the microscopic properties of biochar that make it unique. Consider a cross-section of a plant under a microscope with all the plant’s xylem, stoma, cells, and other tissues shown in detail. Then, imagine removing all liquid components and leaving only this skeletal framework behind. This solid, carbon-based matrix makes up biochar and instills it with tremendous surface area. This surface area and its generally negative surface charge are the basis for biochar’s environmental applications.
The high surface area and negative surface charge of biochar enable it to adsorb various substances and chemicals. Within the terra preta soils, nitrogen and other nutrients from manure and other wastes would adhere to the biochar’s surface rather than be leached away during rainfall. This maintained nutrient availability to the crops grown by the Amazonian farmers. Similarly, pollutants (particularly those with a positive charge) cling to biochar and can include organic compounds and heavy metals. Pollutants adhering to biochar are immobilized and prevented from entering the water supply—much as a charcoal filter will screen particles from drinking water. Adding biochar has been shown to help stabilize heavy metals in soil and thus may make it a valuable tool in mine reclamation and the treatment of industrial spills.
In addition to stabilizing metals and chemicals, research suggests that the simultaneous adsorption of organic compounds and microorganisms to biochar facilitates metabolic interaction and expedites the degradation of these pollutants. Bioremediation, the use of microbes to clean up contaminated soil and groundwater, may be enhanced with biochar. One method of bioremediation—bioaugmentation—involves the introduction of a concentrated culture of microbes to the contaminated site. The physical application of these microbes requires mixing them with a carrier medium and amending the area of treatment with this mixture. A slurry containing biochar not only acts as an effective carrier but also provides a protective habitat for the microbes within the pores and rough surface of biochar. As aforementioned, biochar’s affinity for adsorbing organic pollutants helps to bring both the organic pollutants and the microbes into association, thus accelerating the breakdown of these toxins. One study found enhanced bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons when using biochar as a carrier. Other studies have found similar success when using biochar in bioremediation.
Biochar may also be used to control ongoing pollution from agriculture and large-scale industrial processes. Wetlands and biofilters (engineered filtration systems composed of soil, sand, gravel, and plants) are often constructed to treat agriculture and industrial wastewater naturally. Biochar has demonstrated promise in augmenting contaminant removal of wetlands and biofilters when included among the substrates. Simply put, biochar's unique but consistent properties make it transferrable to various remediation methods.
Thousands of years ago, the Amazonian farmers understood little of biochar, except that adding it to soils improved the success of their harvests. Today, we know the properties of biochar and learn how it can be used in other applications. As our technology advances and our environmental standards improve, our environmental needs will evolve. Meeting these needs will require viewing old technology with a fresh perspective. There is no single solution to our environmental dilemmas. However, the investigation of novel ideas, such as biochar for remediation, can help us along the way.
Dan Smith is an Environmental Specialist for Cornerstone Environmental, Health and Safety out of our Zionsville office. His seven years in environmental consulting include experience in environmental compliance, site assessments, monitoring, remediation, and health and safety. When not at work, he can be found hiking, biking, or engaging in other outdoor activities.
Recent Posts
Recent Changes to the SARA Title III TRI (Toxic Release Inventory)
Think you are ready to file your Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), aka Form R, reports just the same as you did last year? Hold on a minute. While you might not have an issue doing this, make sure to check the TRI Chemical List for any changes before you press submit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making major changes to the list over the next two years.
The EPA makes changes to the TRI chemical list on a periodic basis though EPA-initiated review and the chemical petitions process.
Recent TRI Chemical List ChangesUnder the automatic listing provisions of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act: Four PFAS were added for reporting year 2022. Reporting forms on these chemicals are due July 1, 2023, for 2022 data if TRI reporting thresholds are met. Nine PFAS were added for reporting year 2023. Reporting forms on these chemicals are due July 1, 2024, for 2023 data if TRI reporting thresholds are met. See Addition of Certain PFAS to the TRI by the National Defense Authorization Act for more information. In November 2022, EPA added 12 chemicals in response to a petition submitted under Section 313(e) of EPCRA. Reporting forms on these chemicals are due July 1, 2024, for 2023 data if TRI reporting thresholds are met.
*from epa.gov
For the Cliff’s Notes version from our technical expert (and skip the clicking)…Or easier still…just call us to help!
For the 2022 reporting year, due by July 1, 2023, the EPA has added four Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) to the EPCRA Section 313 reportable chemical list:
CAS RN Chemical name
375-73-5 Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (de minimis 0.1%)
29420-49-3 Potassium perfluorobutane sulfonate
65104-45-2 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,12-heneicosafluorododecyl ester, polymer with 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,10- heptadecafluorodecyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,10,10,11,11,12,12,13,13,14,14,14- pentacosafluorotetradecyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8- tridecafluorooctyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate
203743-03-7 2- Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, hexadecyl ester, polymers with 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, γ-ω-perfluoro-C10-16-alkyl acrylate and stearyl methacrylate
Note that the de minimis value for each of these PFAS is 1% unless otherwise noted above. The manufacturing, processing, and otherwise use reporting threshold is 100 pounds for each of the PFAS listed above.
Please also note that the PFAS chemical names and CasRNs are listed on separate tables from the remainder of reportable chemicals on the List of Lists.
For the 2023 reporting year, due by July 1, 2024, the EPA automatically added in 9 PFAS to the EPCRA Section 313 reportable chemical list:
375-22-4. Perfluorobutanoic acid
2218-54-4 Sodium perfluorobutanoate
2966-54-3 Potassium heptafluorobutanoate
10495-86-0 Ammonium perfluorobutanoate
45048-62-2. Perfluorobutanoate
2728655-42-1 Alcohols, C8-16, γ-ω-perfluoro, reaction products with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, glycidol and stearyl alc.
2738952-61-7 Acetamide, N-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]-, 2-[(γ-ω-perfluoro-C4-20-alkyl)thio] derivs.
2742694-36-4 Acetamide, N-(2-aminoethyl)-, 2-[(γ-ω-perfluoro-C4-20-alkyl)thio] derivs., polymers with N1,N1-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine, epichlorohydrin and ethylenediamine, oxidized
2744262-09-5 Acetic acid, 2-[(γ-ω-perfluoro-C4-20-alkyl)thio] derivs., 2-hydroxypropyl esters
The EPA has also added the following 12 chemicals to the EPCRA Section 313 list beginning reporting year 2023, in response to a petition filed by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute:
683-18-1dibutyltin dichloride
96-23-11,3-dichloro-2-propanol75-12-7formamide
1222-05-51,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran;*111-41-1n-hydroxyethylethylenediamine
5064-31-3nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium salt140-66-9p-(1,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl) phenol87-61-61,2,3-trichlorobenzene
2451-62-9triglycidyl isocyanurate115-96-8tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate13674-87-8tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate
25155-23-1tris(dimethylphenol) phosphate
*classified as a Persistent Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) chemical with a 100 pound reporting threshold
This Month in Environmental History: The Ozone Hole
In May 1985, a group of scientists from a British Antarctic Survey discovered a hole in the (Antarctic) Ozone. Learn more.
While my childhood is mostly gaps or memories created from thumbing through yearbooks or my dad’s slides, I do have solid memories of my first pair of high-top Air Jordans in the fifth grade and the time I peed my pants taking a standardized test in the first grade. I vaguely remember learning that littering was bad for the environment and, later, in middle school, understanding that my can of hairspray might also be bad somehow and looking for the ‘no CFCs*’ labels on bottles at the drugstore.
It was probably my middle school science class before a teacher mentioned the ozone layer and the subsequent havoc that the human population wreaked on the thin part of Earth’s atmosphere that absorbs a portion of the radiation from the sun.
In May 1985, a group of scientists from a British Antarctic Survey (Cambridge) published a ‘letter’ in the scientific journal Nature titled Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. (Abstract below)
Translation: the discovery of the (Antarctic) Ozone Hole, thought to be one of the most striking indictors of ozone depletion. According to NASA, the depletion of the ozone layer is recognized as on the Earth’s most important environmental issues.
In October 1985, the area of the ozone hole was measured at 7.25 million square miles. Thirty-seven years later in October 2022, it measured 10.23 million square miles. For reference, the entire continent of North America is just over 9.5 million square miles.
Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction
Abstract: Recent attempts1,2 to consolidate assessments of the effect of human activities on stratospheric ozone (O3) using one-dimensional models for 30° N have suggested that perturbations of total O3 will remain small for at least the next decade. Results from such models are often accepted by default as global estimates3. The inadequacy of this approach is here made evident by observations that the spring values of total O3 in Antarctica have now fallen considerably. The circulation in the lower stratosphere is apparently unchanged, and possible chemical causes must be considered. We suggest that the very low temperatures which prevail from midwinter until several weeks after the spring equinox make the Antarctic stratosphere uniquely sensitive to growth of inorganic chlorine, ClX, primarily by the effect of this growth on the NO2/NO ratio. This, with the height distribution of UV irradiation peculiar to the polar stratosphere, could account for the O3 losses observed.
For more information on Federal (Clean Air Act) and International (Montreal Protocol et al) actions to address Ozone Depletion, visit this site.
*chlorofluorocarbons and other Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS)
Sources: Farman, J., Gardiner, B. & Shanklin, J. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315, 207–210 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1038/315207a0
Recent Posts
SEC Rule on Climate-related Disclosures
In January 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cited April as the release date for a long-anticipated final action – a rule on companies' climate-related disclosures.
For reference:
Scope 1 emissions are considered direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sources that are controlled by a company such as emissions from energy to run equipment, heating and cooling, and company vehicles.
Scope 2 emissions are indirect GHG emissions created by the production of energy (electricity, steam, heat, or cooling) the organization buys.
Scope 3 emissions are indirect GHG emissions that are not owned or controlled by the reporting organization. This category is much more encompassing as it addresses emissions generated by customers who use the products and by suppliers making products the company uses. Addressing Scope 3 involves tracking emissions across the entire value chain from suppliers to end users.
Scope 1 and 2 emissions tend to be easier to track, measure, and, to an extent, control. Options, such as solar and other renewable energy sources and switching company vehicles to electric models, are a few examples. With regard to Scope 3 emissions, EPA suggests that an “organization may be able to influence its suppliers or choose which vendors to contract with based on their practices.” For other companies, the focus can be less on suppliers and more about their customers’ use of products.
The reality is the upcoming SEC final rule release will regulate publicly traded companies; however, these publicly traded companies will be obligated to heighten their demands on the private sector suppliers to the companies subject to the SEC rule. Private companies will very likely be affected by new vendor or customer requirements. Small and mid-market organizations may not have the capability to effectively manage in-house. For those organizations already addressing Scope 1 and 2, it will be critical to ensure the process is accurate. A periodic third-party audit will be prudent. While not anticipated to have a reporting date before 2025 (for FY 2024), if not yet addressed, a plan to identify, manage and measure Scope 3 should be considered.
It is and will be critical for organizations to publicly communicate accurate, complete, and reliable environmental data, which includes environmental risks, opportunities, and practices as well as GHG emissions that are useful in decision-making for stakeholders.
A recent article in Environment+Energy Leader reminds us that there is good news. “…the good news is that these new standards and requirements are aligning around a common core, giving the markets more comparable information, and giving companies clearer direction. Organizations must understand that C-suites and Boards of Directors will be held accountable for disclosures and data management. It will be critical to ensure that data is reliable.”
Important Notes:
The proposed SEC rule would provide a safe harbor for liability from Scope 3 emission disclosure and exemption from Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirement for smaller reporting companies.
The proposed disclosures are anticipated to be similar to currently accepted disclosure frameworks such as ISSB (IFRS) and CDP.
Sources:
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-inventory-development-process-and-guidance
Recent Posts
Industrial Stormwater Best Management Practices
Stormwater is the water that originates from precipitation such as heavy rain or meltwater from hail or snow. Many industrial facilities introduce materials to stormwater through the outdoor storage, handling, and transfer of product materials, by-products, and waste products. These industrial products often contain pollutants such as metals, oil, and grease which negatively impact stormwater runoff. Additionally, industrial activities can cause erosion and sediment problems that also impact stormwater runoff.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are pollution control measures designed to prevent or reduce the effects of pollutants in stormwater runoff from industrial stormwater discharges. Some BMPs are specific and well-defined, while others are general in nature. Facilities determine which BMPs to use based on permit requirements, the facility’s specific industrial materials, and the facility’s specific activities.
BMPs should be considered as a system or series of activities that may include non-structural and structural BMPs.
Non-structural BMPs are management techniques implemented through simple daily duties. The facility identifies and implements site-specific BMPs which have a direct impact on the day-to-day operations. Some of the more common non-structural BMPs include good housekeeping, eliminating and reducing exposure, management of salt and/or industrial storage piles, management of runoff including soil and erosion prevention, and dust control.
Structural BMP options vary depending on the pollutants each can treat, efficiency, maintenance issues and limitations of controls. Structural BMPs are more technical in nature and advanced technical expertise is required to make informed decisions about implementing structural stormwater BMPs. It
is suggested to consult with a licensed professional engineer early in the decision process. Common structural BMPs include sedimentation systems (e.g. retention ponds), infiltration systems (e.g. stormwater trenches), filtration systems (e.g. vegetative filters), and proprietary systems (e.g. vortex separators).
Federal regulations require stormwater discharges associated with specific categories of industrial activity to be covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. EPA has developed a fact sheet for each of the 29 industrial sectors regulated by the NPDES permits. Each fact sheet describes the types of facilities included in the sector, typical pollutants associated with the sector, and types of stormwater control measures used to minimize the discharge of the pollutants. These BMP fact sheets are a great starting point for determining the various pollutants which cause stormwater pollution at a facility and provide BMPs that are applicable to a specific industrial facility operation.
Regular inspections of a facility’s BMPs are required by the NPDES permits. These inspections are integral in determining if structural and nonstructural BMPs are properly functioning, require maintenance, or need to be changed. Inspections also determine the accuracy of the facility’s written stormwater plan, as all observations and any changes made as a result of the inspections must be documented in the written plan.
For more information on BMPs for stormwater, check out EPA.gov or reach out to your Cornerstone Team directly.
Recent Posts
The History of Earth Day
After celebrating the 53rd Earth Day this past weekend, it seems like an opportune time to look back at the history of Earth Day.
After celebrating the 53rd Earth Day this past weekend, it seems like an opportune time to look back at the history of Earth Day as many of the rules and regulations Cornerstone works with now came about because of Earth Day.
A Wisconsin Senator by the name of Gaylord Nelson was the one behind getting the very first Earth Day started. He was worried about the shape of the environment in the U.S and, after taking notice of the energy behind the anti-war protests by students, decided that something similar could be done to raise public awareness about air and water pollution. The original plan for Earth Day, before it was even given the catchy moniker, was for a teach-in on various college campuses to the national media on April 22nd; however, that all changed when a young activist named Denis Hayes, who was in charge of organizing the event, decided to promote it across the country. His efforts helped gather a number of individuals, groups, and organizations together and it was decided to change the name of the event to “Earth Day”.
The first Earth Day took place on April 22nd, 1970 and the response from the American people was overwhelming. Over 20 million people went out to protest, rally, and demonstrate across the nation to bring attention to the environment and its importance. For anyone curious, the population of the United States of America in 1970 was over 200 million people; meaning that about 10% of all Americans turned out for Earth Day and supporting the environment (Census Bureau, 2021). Earth Day was so effective that by the end of the year, Congress approved and the President signed the Clean Air Act into effect as well as the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency; both of which are just as, if not more, effective and relevant today at defending our environment. It could be said that this helped get the ball rolling for other key environmental legislation to be passed, such as the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Earth Day later went on to become recognized around the world, with groups from a wide variety of countries taking part in the efforts to raise awareness about the importance of protecting the environment. Earth Day has even taken on the effort to raise awareness about the need to address the growing issue of climate change. Even after 50 years, Earth Day is still observed by about 1 billion people across the Earth.
Some people participate in Earth Day through more political means by joining marches, protests, letter-writing campaigns and other public demonstrations to raise awareness and show support for the environment. Others volunteer for various environmental projects, cleaning up trash from their local beach or park, planting trees and/or other native plants, cutting down invasive species, and even educating others in their local community about the importance of the environment. You don’t have to solve the climate crisis to take part in Earth Day.
Recent Posts
Setting Yourself Up for Success: Air Compliance Inspections
Picture this…. it’s a beautiful April day, and it’s the first warm day of the year. You walk into work feeling refreshed and energized, confident of the great day that lies ahead. You begin your morning routine… maybe you scroll through your email or daily schedule, or perhaps you enjoy a cup of coffee or tea and chat with a coworker. When out of nowhere, your phone rings. It’s security. There’s a state inspector is at your gate for a surprise air audit. Suddenly, you’re a little less confident in the great day that lies ahead and a lot more stressed out.
Sound familiar? Whether you call this an air audit or an air inspection, any EHS manager knows this exact scenario, as we have all been through it before. No matter what you call it, these unexpected visits from any regulatory agency can be a hassle. I worked as an environmental manager in industry for several years; however, prior to that, I worked as a state inspector. By seeing both sides of air inspections, I learned a lot… some of which I would like to pass along to you by offering advice on how to not only make air inspections go quicker, but also give the inspector exactly what they need.
1. Read your permit!
Although this may seem obvious, there are many managers who have either only partially read their permit or haven’t read it at all. Knowing what information an inspector will request and what machines they want to see will ensure a speedy inspection.
2. Ensure you are familiar with past inspection reports and corrective actions.
Before an inspector shows up at your door, review past inspection reports and ensure that corrective action has been taken from previous violations. This shows the inspector that you and your company take environmental compliance seriously. The state typically takes more aggressive action on violations that occur more than once.
3. Make yourself aware of regulations that are not contained in your permit.
Not knowing that you were applicable to regulations is not an excuse for non-compliance. Although most states do a sufficient job of including all applicable federal regulations in their air permits, what about the regulations that are passed between your facility’s permit cycles? The most common federal regulations affecting industrial sources are those concerning boilers and stationary generators. If you need assistance in determining your applicability to federal air regulations, Cornerstone offers a NESHAP and NSPS applicability determination to ensure your facility is in full compliance with all applicable air regulations.
4. Always have a hard copy of your most recent air permit somewhere that is easily accessible.
The inspector will most likely have their own hard copy with them when they request a tour of your facility. They will ask questions related to identifying the emissions units and operations listed in the permit. Having your own copy of the permit in front of you to field questions will make the tour go much more quickly and smoothly.
5. Know the terminology in your permit.
If you call a certain emission unit “Axle Refurbishment Booth” and IDEM calls it “Paint Booth #5” in your permit, it’s going to take both yourself and the inspector several minutes trying to match up emissions units to what is at your facility. Although this problem is easily resolved during permitting activity, it is of no help to you during a surprise inspection.
6. Keep all of your air recordkeeping in one place.
If you prefer to retain hard copies, keep all permit-required records (as well as the permit itself) in a labeled binder or file that is easily accessible. If you retain records digitally, ensure that all records are kept in one file that is easily accessible, regardless of internet availability. Storing all air recordkeeping in one place not only speeds up the inspection itself but also serves as a security blanket if you are on vacation when the inspector shows up and your second-in-command has to conduct the inspection.
7. Use the exact phrasing in your records as the permit.
This allows the inspector to quickly and easily skim your documents for compliance. Ensure that your units of measure match the units of measure in the permit limits and audit your own records to ensure that all permit-required information is reflected in the records. It is a good practice to highlight the “final” data such as tons of pollutants per year to draw the inspector to the most important information.
8. Regularly communicate with other departments about recordkeeping needs.
If the permit-required recordkeeping involves information from other departments in your company such as purchasing, don’t wait until the day of an inspection to request those records. On a monthly basis, send out a request for information (i.e., purchase records, usage information, etc.) to the necessary departments. This will ensure that you can provide an inspector with information in a timely manner.
9. Make note of any non-operational dates.
If you have daily records such as pressure drop readings, it is necessary to note which days your units were not in operation. If an inspector reviews records and sees days with nothing noted, they will assume that this is a missed record. A good rule of thumb to operate under is that it doesn’t count if it’s not written down.
10. It is important to speak with discretion during an audit.
Although it is important to be kind, allow the inspector to ask questions before providing technical answers. Air compliance is full of acronyms and jargon. If you accidentally say the wrong term, the inspector’s interest could pique and open a can of worms you did not mean to open.
During the peak of COVID lockdowns, most state agencies turned to alternative inspection protocols such as requesting records virtually and performing outdoor-only inspections. As we enter 2023, Cornerstone sees a mix of states who have maintained COVID protocols, states which have created hybrid in-person and virtual inspections, and some states that have gone back to full on-site unannounced inspections. It’s important to be prepared for any of these possibilities and respect the timeline that your inspector has provided.
Air inspections can be intimidating, but by setting yourself up for success and following audit best management practices, you can ensure that all future air inspections are quick and hiccup-free.
Recent Posts
Sustainability and the Increasing Demand for ESG Reporting in Business
A growing number of investment groups, businesses, employees, and other relevant stakeholders are starting to ask companies about their sustainability and ESG (Environmental Social Governance) metrics. Some companies are even receiving requests to disclose their sustainability performance through various ESG reporting frameworks. Many companies find themselves unprepared to respond to such questions.
To better understand this trend, it is important to understand what sustainability and ESG are. Why should companies care about these concepts? Why are stakeholders asking about sustainability programs and requesting ESG disclosures through reporting frameworks? What are these ESG reporting frameworks? All these questions and more will be answered here.
What is sustainability and ESG?
Sustainability is commonly defined as the ability to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of the future to meet its own needs (United Nations Brundtland Commission). While sustainability is usually associated with the environment and topics such as climate change, renewable energy/energy use, and water use, this is only one-third of what makes up sustainability. The other two parts of sustainability consist of the economy and society. These three parts, often referred to as the three pillars or spheres of sustainability, are interconnected. Doing something in one sphere can affect (for better or worse) the other two spheres. The idea of sustainability is to affect all three areas in a positive way.
ESG falls under the umbrella of sustainability and is very similar. So much so that, for all intents and purposes, the terms could be used interchangeably. The difference, however, is that rather than looking at the economic side of things, ESG looks at the governance of an organization through scopes such as data management, anti-corruption, and other policies and procedures. ESG is mostly used in business settings and functions as a more quantifiable type of sustainability, with ESG metrics providing an easy way to measure and compare sustainability performance. ESG disclosure refers to the process of publicly reporting an organization’s sustainability and ESG performance. Organizations tend to either: 1) release a Corporate Social Responsibility report detailing their sustainability performance over the past year, or 2) disclose the relevant information in accordance with one or more ESG reporting frameworks.
Why should companies/organizations care about sustainability and ESG?
Aside from the benefits to the environment and society, sustainability can also benefit the business itself. Many sustainability and ESG-related initiatives are aligned with business goals, at the same time, just as many business-related initiatives can be aligned with sustainability and ESG. The difference lies in the intent behind the initiative. The following are real-world examples of initiatives that address both sustainability and business goals:
Reducing the number of natural resources needed (or wasted) to manufacture a certain product can benefit the environment by conserving those resources but it also benefits the company by reducing overall costs.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives address the governance side of ESG but can also benefit the company itself. As a result of such inclusivity, existing employees may decide to stay and prospective employees may decide to join, thus improving talent acquisition and retention.
Assisting the local community through a food drive or community service event addresses the social side of ESG while also benefiting the company through a positive brand image, possibly helping to cultivate beneficial community connections.
Many environmental regulations are aligned with sustainability to some degree. Therefore, by pursuing certain sustainability initiatives in these areas of regulation companies can be better prepared for any stricter regulations if they come. Furthermore, there is the potential for these companies to qualify for some financial or tax incentives based on different ESG metrics or for implementing different sustainability initiatives.
ESG metrics are important for any organization or business to consider. Various ESG metrics can help identify areas of improvement in a company as well as potential problems before they become serious. ESG metrics are also helpful for tracking progress in a company's sustainability performance. Disclosing ESG metrics and sustainability performance is important for improving transparency, something a greater number of stakeholder groups are looking for in a company.
Sustainability efforts and ESG can also trickle down (or, rather, up) from clients to companies, from companies to their suppliers, and vice versa. If a company or supplier can’t meet their clients’ needs for sustainability, they may lose those clients to another firm that can. Overall, businesses that disclose their ESG performance and/or make efforts to improve their sustainability gain an advantage over their competitors.
What are ESG reporting frameworks?
ESG reporting frameworks help stakeholder groups understand how sustainable a company is by providing measurable and quantitative metrics; thereby enabling comparisons to be made between similar companies as well as displaying measurable improvements to a company’s sustainability efforts.
There are several major ESG reporting frameworks currently being used: GRI Standards, SASB Standards, CDP, and TCFD. Although there are other reporting frameworks out there, those listed above are perhaps the most common.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) Standards were some of the first ESG reporting standards to be developed and GRI remains one of the most prevalent ESG frameworks. There are about 32 reporting standards from three sections: environment, economy, and people (though not all of these standards need to be addressed or reported on). Organizations that are reporting in accordance with the GRI standards need only prioritize reporting on their material topics; topics that represent an organization’s most significant impacts on the environment, the economy, and people and their human rights.
SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) Standards consist of 77 standards for various industries, all of which are focused on the ESG issues most relevant to the financial performance and enterprise value of an organization.
TCFD (Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) does not have any standards but rather recommendations for climate-related disclosures around four key company areas: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets.
CDP (formerly known as Carbon Disclosure Project but now just CDP) consists of three questionnaires for ESG reporting: Climate Change, Water Security, and Forests. An organization can report through one questionnaire or all of them. When completed, organizations are provided a letter grade based on the quantity and quality of questions answered. CDP reporting is completed annually and, in order to qualify for a grade, must be submitted mid-year.
While many of these frameworks differ in the level of detail and information required, they also tend to overlap, working together to achieve their common goal of improved transparency. For example, the climate-change questionnaire for CDP actually addresses all the recommendations from TCFD. This allows organizations to report through CDP while also reporting in line with the TCFD recommendations.
Why are stakeholders asking about sustainability and requesting ESG disclosures through ESG reporting frameworks?
As sustainability has grown in demand, investors, businesses, and other stakeholder groups have started taking it into account when making business decisions. People are becoming more environmentally and socially conscious if only to protect their bottom line. As a result, companies and businesses unable to keep up may lose out on valuable investors, clients, or even employees to competitors that are more sustainable (or at least transparent with their ESG metrics). Companies wanting an extensive sustainability report may request relevant ESG metrics or a complete ESG report from each of their suppliers and distributors in order to determine the full extent of their environmental and social impact. Recently, major automotive companies have requested that their suppliers disclose annual greenhouse gas emissions through an ESG framework or other reporting forum.
Automotive manufacturers, however, aren’t the only ones requesting their suppliers conduct ESG audits. In November, the White House administration proposed a new rule that could roll out in 2023: the Federal Supplier Climate Risks and Resilience Rule. This rule would require federal contractors receiving more than $50 million dollars in annual contracts from the U.S. Federal Government to report their greenhouse gas emissions and assess their climate risks through CDP. Federal contractors with annual contracts between $7.5 and $50 million dollars would only be required to report on their scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions. On top of this, there is a proposed ruling from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about requiring ESG-related metrics in company disclosures.
In general, sustainability and ESG are likely something that companies and organizations will be seeing more of soon, regardless of regulations. Sustainability isn't just about social and environmental impacts, but also about bettering the economy and business as a whole.
Recent Posts
Is Your Environmental Program Getting the Recognition It Deserves?
Companies have made significant strides over the past decades to achieve regulatory compliance. As of late, more and more businesses have been highlighted in the media for going above what is asked of them in an effort to become stewards for environmental consciousness. One of the most effective means to accomplish this goal is to implement an Environmental Management System (EMS). An EMS provides the framework to develop your system for maintaining compliance with environmental regulations by establishing a set of policies and procedures to follow. The EMS reduces the guesswork and unwanted actions that sometimes occur in daily operations which can lead to non-compliance issues.
Many state agencies promote regulatory compliance through voluntary programs that provide instruction on how to implement an EMS and encourage participation in a range of recognition programs. For example, Indiana sponsors the Environmental Stewardship Program (ESP) and a Governor’s Award for Pollution Prevention. These are separate programs, but both are intended to recognize regulated entities that go above and beyond current environmental regulations.
Applications for these programs can be tedious and time-consuming and can get lost in the shuffle of your other daily routines and responsibilities. Cornerstone’s team can assist in exploring these state-specific recognition programs and, after working with your team to determine which program best fits your needs, scoping the project to keep it manageable. Additionally, we can assist in completing and submitting the application for a recognition program in your state.
Our Division of Quality Management Services has decades of experience in every aspect of developing an ISO 14001 EMS as well as other comparable programs. In addition to full-service implementation consulting, we offer the following services:
Aspects and Impacts – Conduct onsite evaluations and written findings.
Policies and Procedures – Drafting and oversight of policies and procedures.
Application Submittal – Completing and submitting applications for approval.
Audits – Conducted at specified intervals for program compliance by a third party.
Projects – Sustainability projects with carbon footprints, energy audits, waste to energy, and solar.
Contact Cornerstone for support in meeting your Environmental Recognition Program and be the leader in your state.
Bill Hess is Cornerstone’s Manager of Business Development, Northern Midwest Region. He has been on a career path in Sustainability for more than 40 years and just celebrated 22 of those years with Cornerstone. He specializes in ensuring our clients have the resources they need for Environmental Management, Safety Culture Improvement, Loss Prevention, ISO Services, Safety Training, Industrial Hygiene Services, and SDS (MSDS) Management.
Recent Posts
Back and Neck Pain: Is Your Posture To Blame?
Is it not uncommon to hear someone complain about a sore back or a stiff neck. While many people experience these discomforts, very few give their posture much thought. Your posture, however, has an impact on your life both inside and outside of the office. As a matter of fact, the cause of your discomfort may very well be due to poor posture. Here are some questions to keep in mind throughout the day to help evaluate your posture.
While sitting, ask yourself:
Are your shoulders back?
Is your back straight?
Is your head in line with your back?
Are both your feet flat on the floor?
Are your knees at a 90-degree angle?
If using a keyboard or mouse, are your arms at a 90-degree angle with your wrists flat?
While standing, consider:
Are your shoulders back?
Is your back straight?
Is your head in line with your back and not titled to look at a screen?
Are your hips level?
Are your feet shoulder width apart?
Are you engaging your abdominal muscles?
If you answered no to any of those questions, that’s okay! Even I answered no to some questions. It does mean, though, that your posture could use some work.
Maintaining proper posture will help you avoid injuries and muscle pain that can prevent you from working or doing household chores. Your muscles work more efficiently with good posture.
Here are some tips to have better posture:
Take a wall test.
Stand with your heels roughly 4 – 6 inches from the wall with your shoulder blades and buttocks touching the wall. Measure the distance between your neck and the wall. Repeat with your lower back. Both measurements should be 2 inches or less.
If there is too much space between your back and the wall, engage your abdominal muscles a little more.
If there is not enough space or you have no space between you and the wall, arch your back enough so that you could fit your hand comfortably in the gap.
Create mental reminders to check your posture.
Every time you are stopped at a red light, think about your posture.
Put a sticky note on your monitor at work to remind you to sit correctly.
When you enter a new room, think about your standing posture.
On your phone or favorite device, add a daily digital reminder to correct your posture.
Replace standard equipment with products that have an ergonomic design.
Keyboards, computer mice, desks, footrests, gardening tools, and even snow shovels have an ergonomic option. Next time you go to purchase an object, see if there is an ergonomic option.
Strengthen your muscles
Do some yoga or Pilates to help strengthen your muscles and improve your posture.
It is never too late to improve your posture. It takes work and dedication to continually have good posture. Just taking a few minutes each day to remind yourself about your posture could make a big difference in your neck and back pain.
Recent Posts
West Virginia v EPA
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency was filed. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court ruled that Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Clean Air Act (CAA) the authority to devise emission caps on carbon emissions. Headlines swept the nation ranging from disappointment to outright misinformation.
How Did We Get Here?
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 as a comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The CAA covers a wide scope of air topics including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and lays the groundwork for Major Source thresholds (a.k.a. the Title V Program). The CAA has been used by the EPA for decades to regulate sources of air pollution and create environmental programs, even if the CAA does not expressly mention the pollutant or program.
As society advanced and technology furthered our ability to evaluate sources of air pollution, many environmental leaders and researchers began to address carbon emissions throughout the country. Did you know that coal-fired power plants are the single-largest source of carbon emissions in the United States? In 2015, as a response to the growing need for regulations to curb carbon emissions, the EPA created the Clean Power Plan (CPP) in order to address carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal and natural gas-fired power plants. The EPA cited Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as the basis for the CPP. Although Section 111 promulgates New Source Performance Standards, certain pollutants from existing sources were regulated under Section 111(d). Under this section, individual states set the actual enforceable rules surrounding an environmental program, while the EPA set the emission limit with which the entity must comply. Interestingly, this section of the CAA has only been cited a handful of times since the CAA’s enactment in 1970. The CPP set emission limits based on three different criteria, most of which encouraged a shift in energy production from high-emitting sources to low-emitting sources (i.e., a change from coal to renewable energy).
As a result of both lobbying efforts and administration changes, the CPP was stayed by the Court in 2016 and underwent a cycle of repeals and rebranding for several years. The EPA reevaluated the regulatory authority of the plan (specifically the use of Section 111(d)) and replaced the CPP with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, based on a different Section 111 citation than before. With the promulgation of ACE, many states and industry leaders petitioned the courts on the legality of the EPA’s regulatory reach.
This issue was finally brought to the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In a 6-3 opinion, SCOTUS invoked explicitly for the first time in court history the “major questions doctrine”. The major questions doctrine requires that Congress speak clearly when authorizing agency action in certain extraordinary cases to strike down an agency rule. In summary, the court ruled that because the CAA did not explicitly address carbon emissions, the EPA could not use the CAA to do so. In the future, Congress would have to either amend the CAA to explicitly include carbon emissions or pass an entirely new act.
This leads us to June 30, 2022. The SCOTUS opinion was handed down, and the news took the public by storm. Headlines ranged from “Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Power to Curb Emissions” (Harvard School of Public Health) to “US Supreme Court Deals Blow to Climate Action” (Human Rights Watch). I saw countless posts across social media platforms claiming that SCOTUS had taken away the government’s right to regulate any air pollutants, as well as concern for the future of global warming and carbon emissions. In light of the sensationalism that surrounded this court ruling, it is important to know the facts and how they may impact the future of our legal system, as well as the EHS (Environmental, Health and Safety) industry.
What did the court do?
SCOTUS ruled that Congress must pass explicit legislation giving the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions from coal and natural gas-fired power plants.
What did the court NOT do?
West Virginia v. EPA did not limit the EPA’s power to regulate and control criteria air pollutants (carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, lead, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide) and hazardous air pollutants.
What does this mean for me?
If your organization isn't a coal or natural gas-fired power plant, this regulation does not directly affect your operations or current regulatory requirements.
What does this mean for the future of the EPA?
The court’s precedent of the major questions doctrine will put all agency regulations under a microscope of scrutiny. Any agency regulation (whether it be the EPA, DHS, DOT (Department of Transportation), FCC, etc.) that does not derive from an explicit act of Congress will most likely not receive interpretive deference from the courts.
Recent Posts
The Legacy of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy
As we wrapped up the Toxic Release Inventory (Form R) reporting for the year, curiosity got me as to how this program came about. So, I decided to refresh my memory and dive back into my college years during which I studied Environmental Management at Indiana University.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a great website filled with amazing resources and content. However, in looking for detailed information on the history of a specific regulation, they tend to provide only a summary -- presumably to allow space for more current resources.
This is the EPA version of how TRI came to be:
On December 2, 1984, a cloud of extremely toxic methyl isocyanate gas escaped from a Union Carbide Chemical plant in Bhopal, India. Thousands of people died that night in what is widely considered to be the worst industrial disaster in history. Thousands more died later as a result of their exposure, and survivors continue to suffer from permanent disabilities.
The incident raised public concern about toxic chemical storage, releases, and emergency response. It led to the passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) under the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Section 313 of EPCRA established the Toxics Release Inventory.
Boom! There you have it…explained, right? Yeah, not so much.
Here’s the more detailed -- but not too wordy -- version of what happened… But, before I get into the aftermath of this catastrophic event, let’s discuss what led to it.
When the facility was built in Bhopal (in the 1970s), the site was zoned for light industrial and commercial use, not for the hazardous industry, as the plant was approved only for the formulation of pesticides. MIC was only to be imported in small quantities. However, pressure from competitors in the chemical industry led to the manufacture of raw materials and intermediate products for the formulation of the final product. This was inherently a more hazardous process.
By the early 1980s, the plant had significantly reduced production due to a decrease in demand for pesticides. Local managers of the UCIL plant were instructed to close the plant in preparation for sale in the summer of 1984. When no buyer was found, UCIL made plans to dismantle key production units. All the while, “the facility continued to operate with safety equipment and procedures far below the standards found in its sister plant in Institute, West Virginia.” It seems the local government was aware of the safety issues but hesitant to place burdens on the struggling industry at risk of losing the economic gains afforded by such a large employer
“The vent-gas scrubber, a safety device designed to neutralize toxic discharge from the MIC system, had been turned off three weeks prior. Apparently, a faulty valve had allowed one ton of water for cleaning internal pipes to mix with forty tons of MIC. A 30-ton refrigeration unit that normally served as a safety component to cool the MIC storage tank had been drained of its coolant for use in another part of the plant. Pressure and heat from the vigorous exothermic reaction in the tank continued to build. The gas flare safety system was out of action and had been for three months.”
On Sunday, December 2, the 100 workers on the late shift at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) facility in Bhopal, India were in the process of making the pesticide Sevin. This involved mixing carbon tetrachloride, methyl isocyanate (MIC), and alpha-naphthol.
While most of the one million residents of Bhopal slept, at 11:00 p.m. a plant operator noticed a small leak of MIC gas and increasing pressure inside a storage tank.
Around 1:00 a.m. on December 3, 1984, more than 40 tons of methyl isocyanate gas leaked from the pesticide plant. Within hours, an estimated 3,800 people perished, and the final death toll is estimated to be between 15,000 and 20,000 which includes premature deaths reported during the two decades following the disaster.
In a settlement mediated by the Indian Supreme Court, Union Carbide Corporation accepted moral responsibility and agreed to pay $470 million to the Indian government to be distributed to claimants as a full and final settlement. By the end of October 2014, according to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, compensation (~$486,101,760) had been awarded to 574,366 people (dependents of the deceased, seriously injured, permanently disabled, cancer and kidney patients, and temporally disabled people). This averages out to approximately $846.33 per person.
This disaster cast a spotlight on the urgent need for enforceable international standards for environmental safety, preventative strategies to avoid similar accidents, and help ensure industrial disaster preparedness.
Enter the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
TRI tracks the management of certain toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to human health and the environment. U.S. facilities in different industry sectors must report annually how much of each chemical is released to the environment and/or managed through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. (A "release" of a chemical means that it is emitted to the air or water, or placed in some type of land disposal.)
https://www.britannica.com/event/Bhopal-disaster
https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/what-toxics-release-inventory
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-4-6
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/explosion-kills-2000-at-pesticide-plant