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
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
Using Artificial Intelligence to Interpret and Predict ESG Initiatives
I think there is a misunderstanding in today’s world regarding what AI is and what it can do. The latest trend is generative AI, a form of artificial intelligence capable of generating new content. This can be seen from things like ChatGPT, which can write entire novels when given a prompt on a particular subject, or DALL-E, which can create amazing images. Not every AI falls into this category, though. Other types of AI, such as predictive analytics and machine learning algorithms, are also relevant. This distinction is helpful in realizing that AI cannot independently generate completely new ideas; AI models are trained on existing data and patterns. Recognizing this fact will help set realistic expectations for what AI can and cannot do. It will not create an unknown product that the world has never seen.
“If the hot new fad is AI, surely there must be some way to incorporate that into our current business to make us more efficient.” The answer is yes! AI algorithms can analyze large datasets to identify trends, assess environmental impacts, or evaluate organizational social governance practices.
AI can make all aspects of your company’s environmental, health, and safety goals more efficient. You can leverage current AI tools with no platform by feeding it your data and asking for suggestions on improvements. For example, you can train generative AI with your current accident data. With a few of the correct prompts, it can generate a safety plan to help improve worker safety or perhaps identify vulnerabilities you haven’t even thought of.
In the future, AI will not only interpret existing data but also predict our future goals. Using predictive analytics and AI-driven forecasting models, we can anticipate environmental risks, forecast resource demands, and predict social trends. Looking further into the future, I can envision a scenario where workers wear AI components to help them identify hazards, prevent injuries, or even maximize their productivity.
There are some drawbacks to AI that also need to be considered. Ultimately, the predictive models are only as good as the data given to them. Companies are also responsible for protecting private individual data. It’s essential to make sure the data is high-quality and ethically handled. Companies must have a transparency and accountability policy regarding sensitive data.
AI technologies will have a positive and profound impact on sustainability, social responsibility, and corporate governance, and I encourage you to begin researching how AI data-driven models can help your company right now.
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
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
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
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
Stormwater "Red Flags"
Many years ago, I interned for the local County Health Department and assisted them with water quality monitoring. The department monitored the water quality from twelve points along the rivers and streams in the county. Rain or shine, I headed out every Wednesday morning to collect samples. At each location, I pulled on the hip waders and walked a few meters from the shore to measure oxygen levels and collect a sample for the lab. Every week I plated petri dishes and counted E. coli colonies. Some days the water quality of the river was excellent and other days the bacteria levels (E. coli) in the river were dangerously high. What spiked the levels of bacteria levels in a body of water that moved over 30,000 cubic feet per minute? Rainfall, or more accurately: the pollution that the rainfall carried.
I later found out that some of the sampling locations were near animal farms, hence the E. coli. Water is often called the ‘universal solvent’ because more substances dissolve in water than in any other liquid. The Clean Water Act defines the term “pollutant” broadly.
“[A pollutant] includes any type of industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. Some examples are dredged soil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste.”
The Environmental Protection Agency and state governments work hard to protect waters through the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Many industries obtain NPDES general stormwater permit coverage if they discharge into water of the United States. Sampling from a site’s discharge point(s) is an important part of the general NPDES permit. The data is compared with benchmark thresholds as an indicator of the effectiveness of the permit and stormwater control measures. Unlike an air permit, a stormwater sample result that exceeds one of the benchmark thresholds is often considered a “red flag” as opposed to a violation.
No one wants to have a “red flag” when they submit their stormwater results, but it may point to a problem with an exposed pollutant source at your site or a stormwater control measure that is not working correctly. Stormwater regulations protect our waters and, ultimately, protect our drinking water and health. As cliché as this sounds, our actions upstream impact our water downstream. Whether it’s general housekeeping at your facility or making sure a driver safely transfers material from your site, every action matters. Monitoring the exterior of your facility weekly is a great activity to ensure your site is not unintentionally polluting. Atypical events such as a leak or spill that was not cleaned up can be caught in time before the rainfall.
Remember that rivers, despite their size and capacity, can be significantly impacted by our actions. Let’s minimize the pollution the rain carries to keep the rivers healthy.
Recent Posts
Proposed Changes to CWA Discharge Planning
In late March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the “Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Worst Case Discharge Planning Regulations.” The proposed rule will require all non-transportation related onshore facilities that store hazardous substances with potential to cause substantial environmental harm above Clean Water Act (CWA) threshold amounts to prepare and submit a Facility Response Plan (FRP) to the EPA. The response plans will address potential worst-case discharges into or on navigable waters or conveyances to navigable water under adverse weather conditions.
The rule will apply to facilities meeting the following criteria:
Capacity to store certain substances: facilities with a maximum capacity above 10,000 times the Reportable Quantity (RQ) of CWA hazardous chemical such as sulfuric acid, ammonia, benzene, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, etc.
Location: facilities within a half mile of navigable waters or conveyances to navigable waters.
Potential harm (based on past chemical releases or modeled worst case discharges): facilities which meet the first two criteria will have to evaluate whether a discharge could cause harm to public water system receptors or to fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments. A facility will also be required to submit an FRP if they have met the capacity and location criteria and have had a reportable discharge of a CWA hazardous substance within the last five years.
Even if a facility did not meet all three criteria, an EPA Regional Administrator could still require the facility to complete an FRP based on site-specific factors.
The response plans will include identification of qualified individuals and key response resources, hazard evaluations, drills and exercises, release detection, response actions, and communication plans with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC).
EPA enacted regulations for worst case discharges of oil under 40 CFR Part 112, subpart D in 1994. It has not proposed any regulations for CWA hazardous substances until this rule, which could affect a variety of industries and manufacturers. The proposed rule considers the impact of climate change on increased discharge risks as well as impacts to communities with environmental justice concerns.
Recently, the EPA extended the comment time for the proposed rule to July 26, 2022. When the final rule is issued, facilities will be required to determine if they are subject, and if so, prepare and submit an FRP within twelve months of the effective date of the rule. Newly constructed facilities will be required to submit a FRP before starting operations. In addition, updates to the FRP will be required every 5 years or within 60 days of a change that impacts the facility’s potential to cause substantial harm to the environment.
Catherine Nies is a Chemical Data Management Specialist. Her responsibility 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, state and local regulatory updates.
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
Make Sure Your EHS Recordkeeping is "Turnover-Proof"
It happens all the time... an inspector from EPA or OSHA goes to a facility and asks for copies of required documentation and compliance records.
What happens if you are new to your position and are asked to produce those documents?
You're certain that the previous EHS Manager kept them ‘somewhere’, but you don’t know where. You fumble around at an unfamiliar desk, rifle through a couple of file cabinets, and frantically click files in your company’s shared hard drive. While you are doing that, the regulator is getting annoyed, looking around, and thinking of other questions he or she is now going to ask you.
If the information had been readily available, you could have had them out the door already but, instead, you’re scrambling to locate anyone who might know where the information is stored.
As the economy continues to return to normal and a demand for higher wages increases in many sectors, employee turnover has become one of the biggest issues manufacturing companies must address. It isn’t only hourly employees leaving for greener pastures. EHS personnel are finding new opportunities as well.
So, what happens when they leave and take all their knowledge with them?
Develop a Team to Manage EHS Recordkeeping
EHS recordkeeping requirements don’t stop just because you lose the expertise you’ve come to depend on. If your facility is still operating, you must continue to keep records as required by federal, state, and local regulations. One of the issues that I run into as an onsite environmental auditor is facility personnel not knowing where the records are kept. When longtime EHS personnel leave, many times you don’t know what you don’t know. So, you don’t know what to ask. In other words, when that employee is gone, so are years of institutional knowledge about who submits Tier II reports, who collects used oil bills of lading, who completes stormwater sampling, etc.
One way to prevent this is to create an internal storage system controlled by one person but accessible by many. Have your EHS Manager train two or three people on how to access information in your system. Have those two or three people assess the system and make changes based on their suggestions. One person controlling a recordkeeping system will almost always lead to confusion when someone else tries to use it. Use plain language in file descriptions and group things by media (air, water, hazardous waste, SDSs, HazCom, etc.) and by year.
Have your IT team create a file structure to store those records that is accessible by authorized personnel and regularly backed up to prevent file loss. Make sure that everyone who receives documents (EHS, purchasing, maintenance, quality) knows where those documents are stored. You could even use an outside vendor like Cornerstone and our electronic file cabinet system to help you maintain your documentation. Whatever method you choose to manage this information, ensure it is secure, regularly backed up and that multiple people understand how to access the system.
Turnover is inevitable but you don’t have to be caught scrambling when it happens. Plan for the future by creating redundancy and putting in place a system that can be handed down to the next person.
Recent Posts
Emergency Generator Inspections and RICE MACT Compliance
This year was the first in my career in which EPA issued a Notice of Violation to a client due to non-compliance with a facility’s emergency generator maintenance and records.
The majority of my clients have an emergency generator on site. Many maintain them appropriately and keep the required records, but sometimes these requirements can slip through the cracks. Facilities should be aware of the requirements that apply to generators and ensure they are documenting compliance.
The potential consequences of non-compliance include inspection violations, fines, and required reporting in annual compliance certifications.
DOES YOUR FACILITY HAVE AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR?
The first step is to determine if your facility has generators on site. This may seem obvious, but I have seen several instances where a facility’s environmental team was either unaware they had a generator or did not know the specific requirements that applied to the units. I have also seen generators installed without the environmental team’s knowledge. If you are unsure, ask your maintenance department to verify.
ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IF YOUR FACILITY HAS ONE OR MORE EMERGENCY GENERATORS
Determine what type of engine drives your emergency generator.
Find out when the unit was manufactured, what type of fuel it uses, and the unit’s horsepower rating. This information is often on the nameplate of the unit.Determine if your emergency generator must be permitted.
Depending on your state and its operational activities, your generator may or may not require an air permit. This is a state-by-state determination since each state has its own rules for handling emergency generator permitting. Some states may have a general permit for emergency generators at facilities that would otherwise not have an air permit. Others may have regulations that apply beyond the federal requirements.Determine what requirements apply to your generator(s).
Based on the above information, the generator will be subject to parts of 40 CFR 60, Subpart JJJJ, 40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII, and/or 40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ. These regulations are referred to as the RICE MACT (Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine Maximum Achievable Control Technology).
WHAT ARE THE “NEW” OR “EXISTING” GENERATOR CATEGORIES?
The manufacturer date will determine if your emergency generator is considered “new” or “existing” with respect to the requirements. For example, a generator with a compression ignition (diesel) engine is considered new if it was manufactured after April 1, 2006.
“New” Emergency Generators
For most new units, owners achieve compliance by purchasing an engine that is certified by the EPA and by installing, configuring, operating, and maintaining the engine per the manufacturer’s instructions. To comply with regulations, it is necessary to maintain records of the certification and maintenance conducted.
If a facility that is already classified as a major source installs a generator with greater than 500 horsepower, EPA requires the facility to submit an initial notification to their agency. This is the only type of emergency generator that requires the notification submittal.
“Existing” Emergency Generators
Compliance for “existing” generators can be achieved by adhering to the following requirements and specific maintenance items on schedule:
Maintenance Items (Applies to all emergency generators except >500 HP at major sources)
Change oil and filter and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first
Alternately, the operator may use oil an analysis program instead of prescribed oil change frequency
Compression Ignition (diesel) – Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours or annually, whichever comes first
Spark Ignition (natural gas, gasoline, propane, etc.) – Inspect spark plugs every 1,000 hours or annually, whichever comes first
Compliance Requirements
Operate/maintain engine and control device per manufacturer’s instructions or owner-developed maintenance plan
Emergency engines must have a meter and record hours of operation
Retain all maintenance records
OPERATING HOURS
Each emergency generator (except >500 HP at major sources) must have a non-resettable hour meter installed. This is critical to accurately record the hours of operation. For each operating event, owners must record the hours and distinguish if the event was used for emergency response or in a non-emergency situation.
Each generator may be operated for up to a maximum of 100 hours per calendar year for maintenance checks, readiness testing, emergency demand response, and non-emergency usage.
A limit of 50 of those hours can be non-emergency situations.
If either threshold is exceeded, EPA will reclassify the generator as a “non-emergency” unit, causing it to be subject to a different set of regulations including possible performance testing.
MAINTAINING COMPLIANCE
The most difficult part of emergency generator compliance is determining into which category your unit falls. Once you have made that determination, maintaining compliance is rather straightforward. You can conduct the prescribed maintenance at the established frequencies and record the hours of operation distinguishing between types of use.
The key is to maintain sufficient records demonstrating compliance with each requirement. This will help ensure your facility is in compliance with the RICE MACT generator requirements and avoid violations and possible fines in the future.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Contact Cornerstone for help regarding emergency generator inspections and RICE MACT compliance.
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
EPA Identifies More Substitutes for Ozone-Depleters
In May, EPA published a final rule expanding the list of substitutes for ozone-depleting refrigerants, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and flame retardants. This rule becomes effective June 7, 2021 and specifically:
Lists R–448A, R–449A and R– 449B as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for use in retail food refrigeration—medium-temperature stand-alone units for new equipment
Lists R–452B, R–454A, R–454B, R–454C and R–457A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in residential and light commercial air conditioning (AC) and heat pumps for new equipment
Lists R–32 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps—equipment other than self-contained room air conditioners, for new equipment
Removes Powdered Aerosol E from the list of fire suppression substitutes subject to use conditions in total flooding applications.
What is EPA’s SNAP Program?
EPA is finalizing these new listings after its evaluation of human health and environmental information for these substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), established EPA’s SNAP program which requires the agency to reviews substitutes within a comparative risk framework in the following industrial sectors:
Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks
Aerosols
Cleaning Solvents
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
Foam Blowing Agents
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Sterilants
Tobacco Expansion
The SNAP program evolves the list as EPA makes decisions that are informed by its overall understanding of the environmental and human health impacts as well as its current knowledge about available substitutes. Section 612 also provides that EPA must prohibit the use of a substitute where EPA has determined that there are other available substitutes that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment. Read the full rule in the Federal Register