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
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
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
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
What to Expect During FOUNDATION Training
Cornerstone offers different training modules depending on what type of electronic service a user has access to including FOUNDATION Training, File Cabinet, Calendar Compliance, and Vision Training.
Recently, I was asked to assist with training for the FOUNDATION (SDS Management) System. Although I often work with the FOUNDATION system internally at Cornerstone, learning to lead one of these training events introduced me to many new features of the system which can benefit all users.
In our FOUNDATION training, we cover:
How to use the provided submittal form to help with adding and removing Safety Data Sheets (SDS).
How to locate an SDS through simple and advanced search options by using any category or site-specific cross-reference set-up
How the advanced search can be customized to fit your needs.
Do you need to quickly find which chemicals have an EHS in the constituents?
Do you need to have the ability to identify which materials have the highest VOC to ensure continual Air Permit compliance?
How to print secondary container labels based on the GHS information on the SDS which is entered by Cornerstone’s Chemical Management Department.
Maintaining current Tier II reporting year inventory for each SDS or product.
How to access past reported Tier II reports.
Please join us for one of our monthly FOUNDATION training sessions to learn about the many things that your system has to offer.
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
Recent Posts
Indiana Facilities: Additional Filing Step for Tier II Required
Submission of Tier II form is required under Section 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) is due annually by March 1st. The purpose of the form is to provide State, local officials, and the public with specific information on potential hazards including the locations and amount, of hazardous chemicals present at facilities during the previous calendar year.
For Indiana facilities that report at least one extremely hazardous substance (EHS), an additional step in the filing process will be implemented for reporting year 2022. The EHS list identifies chemicals that could cause serious irreversible health effects from accidental release. To assist the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) in development of their hazardous materials response plans, facilities will be asked[CL1] to complete six required inquiries on the Tier II.
Type(s) of common transportation routes for EHS chemicals to and from facility.
Process for Shelter in Place and/or Evacuation of Onsite and Off-Site populations
Process for Alerting/Warning the Public and Special Facilities
How many individuals trained in emergency response and what are their respective training levels/capabilities?
List the equipment or resources available for hazardous materials response at the facility
Provide the name, title and contact information for the individual(s) who has the authority to commit the facility’s resources in time of emergency.
Facilities reporting a pure or a mixture EHS (i.e., lead acid batteries) will be asked to provide response to each question per the Indiana Department of Homeland Security.
If your Indiana facility is contracted with Cornerstone to file Tier II reports, you would have received an email in mid-May with the questionnaire in preparation for these new requirements to be applied to Reporting Year 2022.
If you’re ready to make Cornerstone your Tier II partner, contact us at info@corner-enviro.com
Recent Posts
1-bromoprane: Its Regulatory Evolution from Unregulated to a Hazardous Air Pollutant
Remember 10 to 12 years ago when solvent salesmen were touting a great “alternative” to Trichloroethylene or TCE. The alternative was 1-bromopropane (1-BP). It had several appealing selling points since it worked almost as well, it was unregulated and, thanks to the removal of “once in, always in”, the solvent swap could get sources out of the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning NESHAP (40 CFR 63, Subpart T). As a result, a large number of industrial users flocked to it. Yeah, it was more expensive, but what was the downside? There wasn’t one at the time (at least they thought).
It didn’t take long to figure out that 1-BP wasn’t some inert, benign chemical. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services classified it as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen”. The US EPA then followed their standard protocol of first throwing it on a petition to add it to the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) list on February 6, 2015.
Later that year, 1-BP was added to the 313 Chemical list as it was to be tracked and potentially reported for sites that qualified for TRI 313 reporting beginning with RY 2016 by sources that clipped the usage of 10,000 pounds per year for Otherwise Used chemicals.
Fast forward almost 7 years later and finally, on December 22, 2021, the EPA signed the final rule adding 1-BP to the HAP list. The ruling was published in the January 5th Federal Register, and went effective February 4, 2022.
So, if your operation uses 1-BP in a vapor degreaser, aerosol solvent, or other form of degreaser, it would behoove you to react as quickly as you can. Depending on your operations, you may find you only require a minor modification to your air permit, or it could result in a change to your permitting level. Either way, jump on it or seek out a professional consultant with knowledge in this area (yes, I can help), whatever makes the most sense for you.
So, what’s going to happen down the line for 1-BP? It could find its way into a NESHAP. That would be kind of ironic since it became famous for getting sources out of a NESHAP. Go figure!!
Further Information
Cornerstone’s air experts follow the state permitting regulations that affect our clients very carefully. Contact us at info@corner-enviro.com to discuss your facility’s situation and how it may affect any new project plans.
Greg Towler is a Senior Air Quality Project Manager whose role is to oversee and perform air permitting and compliance-related projects and work directly with clients to achieve full compliance. He also performs compliance work in wastewater, stormwater, hazardous waste generation, EPCRA reporting and general environmental compliance.
#CleanAirAct #EPA #Sustainability
Recent Posts
Making the P2 Connection with the FOUNDATION Product Approval Module
Passage of the Pollution Prevention Act by Congress in 1990 was intended to focus industry as well as the U.S. public on efforts to reduce the amount of pollution being generated across the country.
The law gave the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) the responsibility and the authority to develop and implement a source reduction strategy. As a result, EPA worked to integrate Pollution Prevention (P2) practices into general industry and reduce pollution “at the source” and not at the tailpipe, outfall, or landfill. The Act also required that EPA collect and disseminate information related to P2 to the public.
After passage of EPA’s mandate, each state then implemented its own P2 program which the federal law required to be as or more stringent than the program implemented by EPA. In the early 1990s, Indiana, for instance, adopted a very narrow definition whereby true Pollution Prevention could only be achieved through process change, in-process closed-loop recycling, or input substitution.
Using Indiana’s model as an example, the state’s goal was to reduce pollution through improved efficiency, recycling/reusing waste before it could be sent to a landfill, and by making changes to the raw materials used in the manufacturing process (input substitution). By focusing on the raw materials used in, or incidental to, production, a facility could identify less toxic materials to facilitate more environmentally safe production processes.
How can Cornerstone help your facility improve its P2 performance?
In the early 1990s, Cornerstone developed a chemical inventory system to analyze and track the chemical composition of materials used in production and manufacturing. Over time, Cornerstone’s chemical inventory system was further developed by adding SDS management to create the current FOUNDATION SDS Management and Chemical Inventory System. In addition, FOUNDATION determines the applicability of substances to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Clean Air Act, and OSHA regulations to help ensure continuous compliance.
While working with IDEM (the Indiana Department of Environmental Management) during the development of its P2 program, Cornerstone introduced me to the methodology of using a chemical inventory system to assist with Input Substitution. It seemed like the perfect tool to support P2 efforts through the identification of materials that could be substituted thereby protecting the environment (i.e., P2) and creating safer workplaces.
What can FOUNDATION’s Product Approval Module do?
The Product Approval Module in FOUNDATION enables users to fully evaluate and approve (or reject) materials to be used in their operation. The regulatory lists reviewed range from EPCRA, HAPs, Proposition 65 Chemicals, Carcinogens, Reach, ROHS, and can also incorporate customer-specific restrictions and chemicals of concern. Candidate lists are generated for each applicable regulation to which a chemical is subject. The Product Approval Module is also useful in compiling information for ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) reporting related to customer requirements.
If a team of individuals is responsible for approving materials to be used in production, Cornerstone’s IT team works with the client to create a fully customized Product Approval system which enables mutual review, evaluation, and approval. A streamlined online approval process such as this eliminates delays in review and ensures a holistic approach product review.
Further Information
For more information or a webinar on our Product Approval system, please contact Cornerstone or your Sales Representative.
Recent Posts
SDS and Document Hosting
A few years ago, Cornerstone was approached by a client that needed to improve how they were delivering branded safety data sheets (SDSs) to users of their products after they determined their staff was spending an excessive amount of time responding to these requests. Having used our IT solutions in the past, they reached out for support to design an automated, efficient system to manage this process and thus our SDS (and document) hosting platform was born.
How does a hosting platform work?
A document hosting application allows customers to visit your web site, search for the document they need and download it immediately.
Let’s look at an example. You sell cleaning products. You have a customer who is looking for an SDS for your brand of stainless steel polish. The customer would visit your website and click on a link which would forward them to a page to begin an SDS search.
After typing in ‘stainless steel polish’, they would be presented with the SDSs that best match from the hundreds of products you sell. The customer then clicks on a link to the exact product they need which would be displayed a PDF of the SDS that can be downloaded or printed.
With Cornerstone’s hosting platform, not only can you deliver SDSs more efficiently, the system also allows for easy distribution of other documents for the products you sell such as technical data sheets, instructions, manuals, or diagrams.
Sounds like it could be expensive and time consuming to set up, right? That’s where Cornerstone’s SDS and Document Hosting solution comes in. Our team will get you up and running quickly, cost effectively and with minimal IT resources required on your part.
Depending on your specific needs, our hosting solution can be deployed as a standalone website or can be seamlessly integrated into your existing website.
Some of the additional features of our Professional plan level include:
User definable fields
Password protection at the site level and at the document level if needed
Multi-language site support
Multi-language document support
Automated document distribution
For more information about Cornerstone’s SDS and Document Hosting platform, contact Cornerstone at info@corner-enviro.com, on our website at https://www.cornerstone-ehs.com/contact-us/ or call (317) 733-2637.
Recent Posts
Are You Prepared for the Tier II Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting Deadline?
Tier II Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reports are due annually on March 1. Since these reports cover materials for the entire previous year, it’s important to continually track the chemicals/products entering and leaving your facility. Maintaining on-site inventory throughout the year will allow for a smooth Tier II reporting season. Don’t let the deadline sneak up on you!
The following is a quick overview of the EPCRA regulation and Tier II reporting:
What is EPCRA?
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 was created to help communities plan for chemical emergencies. This regulation requires industry to report on the storage, use, and release of hazardous substances to federal, state, and local governments. EPCRA serves as the governing body for Tier II reporting.
What makes a chemical reportable under Tier II?
Reporting is applicable for any OSHA-hazardous chemical stored on site that exceeds the federal threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds, and any EHS stored in excess of 500 pounds or its threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is less. Exceeding the threshold at any time during the reporting year triggers the reporting requirement. It is also important to note that individual states may have more stringent reporting requirements.
What is an EHS?
The Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS) list identifies chemicals that could cause serious irreversible health effects as a result of a release. A full list of EHS chemicals can be found on epa.gov.
What storage information is needed to file the Tier II?
Reporting requirements include details of specific location(s) within a subject site where reportable chemicals are stored. In addition, the type of container utilized and exact maximum amount (typically measured in pounds) of hazardous chemicals present at the facility at any one time during the previous calendar year must be reported.
How do I know what reporting requirements exist for my state?
Although each state’s reporting system may vary, any subject facility must file a Tier II report annually with the State, County (LEPC), and local Fire Department. Additional information regarding filing criteria by state, along with associated fees, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/epcra/state-tier-ii-reporting-requirements-and-procedures.
Further Information
With a well-organized system in place, compliance with the Tier II reporting requirements is much easier to achieve. Cornerstone is an industry leader in chemical inventory management, electronic SDS imaging, and software management systems. Our proprietary software (FOUNDATION) combines both EPA and OSHA chemical tracking and reporting functions and provides a foundation for all compliance recordkeeping and reporting. Additionally, we have a team of experts who can assist with Tier II reporting and help keep your hazardous chemical data up to date throughout the year, so you will always be ready for the March 1 deadline.
Recent Posts
Dramatic History of PFAS Leads to Present-Day EPA Actions
I’ll admit it — I’m a true crime junkie.
It started with a podcast and has moved into documentaries. Never, not once, did I imagine that my professional life would seep into my guilty pleasure. I was happily binging on a new podcast when suddenly the topic went from unsolved historical mysteries to the Dupont Chemical Scandal, which is a 20-year legal battle between Dupont (the manufacturers of such products as Teflon) and a West Virginia farmer whose cows kept mysteriously dying. Bonus: There’s a newer movie about this case as well! Dark Waters contains a rather star-studded cast too including Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway, and Tim Robbins.
A recently proposed EPA rule has once again brought Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) or ‘forever chemicals’ into conversations and compliance questions. For more technical information on what PFAS are and the proposed rule, check out our blog post on the topic.
Dupont Chemical and PFAS: An Extremely Abbreviated History
In 1802 (not a typo…1800s, people!), Éleuthère Irénée du Pont, who emigrated from France after the French Revolution, founded a company to produce gunpowder called E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company near Wilmington, Delaware. Being a horrid name for all the marketing reasons (kidding, I have no idea why), the company was later renamed Dupont. Fast forward to 1930 when Dupont and General Motors joined to form Kinetic Chemicals to produce Freon.
In January 1935, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company formally opened the Haskell Laboratory of Industrial Toxicology, which at the time was "one of the first in-house toxicology facilities." According to a 1935 news item in the Industrial and Engineering Chemistry journal,“the purpose of the du Pont facility was to thoroughly test all du Pont products as a public health measure to determine the effects of du Pont's finished products on the health of the ultimate consumer and that the products are safe before they are placed on the market.”
Now, I’m not going to throw stones or try to spoil the ending here but based on what happens next, I’m not so confident that this Haskell Lab crew was cut out for the job.
In 1937, a 27-year-old research chemist named Roy Plunkett was working with Freon refrigerants and accidentally (yes, accidentally) invented a new chemical. Polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), a saturated fluorocarbon polymer, would become known as the "first compound in the family of Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs).” PFCs are a group of hundreds of human-made compounds collectively known as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances or PFAS or forever chemicals.
After ten years of research, this saturated fluorocarbon polymer would be introduced under its commercial name, Teflon. Side note: Roy would later be inducted into the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame for his invention of Teflon.
DuPont chemical plant in Washington, West Virginia, started using PFAS in their manufacturing process in 1951. Shortly after which, a Dupont employee received an inquiry into the possible toxicity of ‘C8.’ Quick explanation in the most simple way I can: C8 is basically an eight carbon chain chemical structure that includes Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), which are long-chain PFAS. C8 is super stable and hardy and literally takes forever to break down. OH!! and it’s really good at attaching to soils and migrating into aquifers. So, in 1956, a study at Stanford University found that PFAS binds to the proteins in human blood, and five years later an in-house DuPont toxicologist deemed C8 to be toxic and should be handled with extreme care. Around this same time, it is known that DuPont buried as many as 200 drums of C8 on the banks of the Ohio River near the plant. SPOILER ALERT: This was not a well-thought-out plan.
Alright so that’s the backstory blip as it pertains to DuPont, but please note I’ve left out A LOT about 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), the Oakdale Dump, PFAS in firefighting foams, Wolverine, and just general poor handling of a potentially toxic substance since way back.
Fast forward to 1998 when Robert Bilott with Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP (a Cincinnati based attorney) took the case to represent Wilbur ‘Earl’ Tennant. Tennant was a farmer in Parkersburg, West Virginia, who blamed DuPont’s Washington Works facility for his cattle dying. Ok, so that sentence doesn’t even do it justice. Over 250 of Tennant’s cattle died of a ‘mysterious wasting disease.’ While the cause of death was never conclusively linked with the chemical contamination from DuPont, the company quietly settled with the Tennant family for an undisclosed amount. Sidenote: This farmer did dissections on his own cows in attempts to determine and document cause of death because area veterinarians didn’t want to get involved. He recorded and documented his findings on video including “blackened teeth, liver, heart, stomachs, kidneys and gall bladder; unusual discolorations — some dark, some green — and textures; cows with stringy tails, malformed hooves, giant lesions protruding from their hides and red, receded eyes; cows suffering constant diarrhea, slobbering white slime the consistency of toothpaste, staggering bowlegged like drunks.”
The Tennant family purchased 68 acres along West Virginia Route 68 in 1968 but in 1984 they sold a portion of their adjoining land to Dupont. This land was to become the Dry Run Landfill. The Tennant family claims that there was noticeable difference in the land within a year of the property sale. Cattle began to die, deer carcasses were found, and “there were no minnows in the streams.”
In 1999, Bilott filed a federal suit in the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of Wilbur Tennant against DuPont. A report commissioned by the EPA and DuPont and authored by six veterinarians (three chosen by the EPA and the others by DuPont) found that Tennant's cattle had died because of Tennant's "poor husbandry," which included "poor nutrition, inadequate veterinary care and lack of fly control."
While performing research during the suit, Bilott found an article identifying a surfactant called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA aka C8) in Dry Run Creek. So, in 2000 he requested more information through a court order to DuPont. DuPont was ordered to submit 110,000 pages of documents dating back to the 1950s. A year later (2001), DuPont settled out of court with Tennant for an undisclosed sum. Shortly after which, Bilott made a substantial submission to the EPA and US Attorney General demanding that "immediate action be taken to regulate PFOA and provide clean water to those living near."
While Tennant settled, Bilott filed a class action suit against DuPont in August 2001. According to a 2004 report by ChemRisk, an industry risk assessor hired by DuPont, “Dupont's Parkersburg, West Virginia-based Washington Works plant had dumped, poured and released over 1.7 million pounds of C8 or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into the environment between 1951 and 2003.”
In 2017, DuPont agreed to pay $671 million to settle with approximately 3,550 personal injury claims involving the leak of PFOAs used to make Teflon in Parkersburg, West Virginia. DuPoint denied any wrongdoing.
Obviously, this is a seriously brief snapshot and by no means an exhaustive history of DuPont’s use and handling of PFAS or use in other applications. Find more information and actions to address public health at https://www.epa.gov/pfas.
From the Center for Disease Control’s website:
“In the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (Fourth Report), CDC scientists measured PFOA in the serum (a clear part of blood) of 2094 participants aged 12 years and older who took part in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 2003–2004. Serum PFOA levels generally reflect exposure that has occurred over several years. By measuring PFOA in serum, scientists can estimate the amount of PFOA that has entered people’s bodies.
CDC scientists found PFOA in the serum of nearly all the people tested, indicating that PFOA exposure is widespread in the U.S. population.”
In summary, some guy accidentally invented a chemical that has been around since the late 1930s and is now being phased out because it has been shown to cause increased cholesterol levels, low infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS)...oh and it will definitely mess up your livestock if they drink from a contaminated water source!
Time to go buy a cast iron skillet!
Recent Posts
Update SDS Regularly for Better Work Safety
Safety Data Sheets inform employees about the hazards of the chemicals in their workplace, how to obtain information on chemicals, and what to do if a spill or accident occurs with those chemicals in order to provide a safe, secure workplace. The information contained on each SDS also enables organizations to better understand the chemicals they use and how those substances impact the environment. Constant communication of SDS updates to staff is a vital way to promote a positive safety culture in any company. It creates a safer, more informed environment for employees. Changes to SDS can impact the handling or transport of material, as well as disposal methods, and the potential health hazards to employees.
What OSHA regulations require SDS?
The OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (OSHA, 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) and Appendix D) requires manufacturers and importers of a new hazardous chemical to obtain or develop safety data sheets. From there, the manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors are responsible for passing that information along as the product moves through the supply chain. Those entities also are required to update existing SDS as new information becomes available regarding identification, handling, and spill response of hazardous chemicals. This applies to every hazardous chemical they produce or import. The HCS requires that SDSs be updated by the chemical manufacturer or importer within three months of learning of "new or significant information" regarding the chemical's hazard potential. The downstream or end users are responsible for the use and maintenance of SDSs, including accessibility to the most recent version of SDSs for all employees. Users can request updated SDS information from the original supplier or manufacturer. All along the supply chain, employers must provide training to employees regarding how to access an SDS and communicate changes to employees in a timely manner.
What other mandates require SDS?
The U.S. EPA also has regulations that address SDSs. These documents were a requirement under the Clean Water Act of 1970 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. Subsequently, these were reaffirmed under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which is also known as Title III. Many state and local environmental and safety agencies have a number of regulations that may redundantly require SDSs. Most corporate safety and environmental protection programs also rely on SDSs to educate and inform workers about dangers in the workplace.
What are the dangers of an outdated SDS?
If a manufacturer chooses not to maintain up-to-date SDS documents on file, they are denying their staff valuable information about specific chemicals substances and how to safely handle them. This puts employees at risk and could lead to workplace incidents and injuries or environmental damage. In addition, OSHA or EPA inspectors have the authority to issue violations and assess fines for non-compliance with SDS-related regulations.
Further Information
With Cornerstone’s Foundation SDS Management and Chemical Inventory System, our Chemical Management team do the work for our clients to ensure that their SDS are regularly updated. For a free demo, contact us.
Yabelin Batista has been with Cornerstone since 2019. She is a member of the Chemical Management department at Cornerstone, Environmental, Health and Safety. One of her main responsibilities consists of sourcing and updating current Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for a wide array of products in our Foundation SDS Management and Chemical Inventory System. Her efforts help ensure our customers have the latest documents available.
Recent Posts
Fast Facts About Tier II
By Rachel Powell Tier II Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reports, commonly referred to as “Tier II”, is due annually on March 1st. The following is a quick overview of reporting requirements.
What is EPCRA?
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 was created to help communities plan for chemical emergencies. It also requires industry to report on the storage, use and releases of hazardous substances to federal, state and local governments. EPCRA has four major provisions and serves as the governing body for Tier II reporting.
What makes a chemical reportable under Tier II?
Any OSHA-hazardous chemical stored over the federal threshold quantity of 10,000 pounds or more and any extremely hazardous substance (EHS) stored in quantities of 500 pounds or its threshold planning quantity (TPQ), whichever is less. Individual states may have more stringent reporting requirements. Exceeding the threshold at any time during the reporting year triggers the reporting requirement.
What are EHS chemicals?
EPA has designated EHS chemicals as those which could cause serious irreversible health effects from accidental releases. A full list of EHS chemicals can be found on epa.gov.
What storage information is needed to file the Tier II?
Reporting requirements include a section that lists specific location(s) within a facility where reportable chemicals are stored. In addition, the type of container being utilized and exact maximum amount (usually measured in pounds) of hazardous chemicals present at a facility at any one time during the previous calendar year must be reported.
How do I know what reporting requirements exist for my state?
Although each state’s reporting system can vary, Tier II reports must be filed annually with the State, County (LEPC) and local Fire Department. Additional information regarding filing criteria by state, including what fees are associated, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/epcra/state-tier-ii-reporting-requirements-and-procedures.
How can I prepare for this next year?
Don’t let the March 1 annual Tier II reporting deadline sneak up. Since the spring deadline covers materials for the previous calendar year, it’s important to track all chemicals/products that enter and leave your facility on an ongoing basis. Maintaining on-site inventory throughout the year will allow for a smooth Tier II reporting season.For the past seven years Rachel Powell has served as a Chemical Data Management Specialist at Cornerstone. She assists clients in setting up and maintaining their Safety Data Sheet Foundation System. On a monthly basis she serves as a facilitator who trains new users. She serves as a Tier II Emergency and Chemical Report filer for our clients on an annual basis.