EPA Proposes Reporting Rule for PFAS Compounds
New rule proposed by EPA would subject articles containing PFAS to reporting requirements.
On June 28, 2021, EPA proposed a new reporting and recordkeeping rule for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pursuant to Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act. The proposed rule applies to manufacturers and importers of PFAS chemicals, including small manufactures and manufacturers who produce PFAS as a byproduct. In addition, the proposal would subject articles containing PFAS to reporting requirements.
If finalized, the rule would require certain persons that manufactured or imported PFAS in any year since January 1, 2011, to report information for each substance and mixture related to chemical identity and molecular structure; categories of use; volumes manufactured and processed; byproducts resulting from the manufacture, processing, use and disposal; environmental and health effects, worker exposure, and method of disposal. Affected entities will have one year from the effective date of the final rule to submit their required disclosures to EPA. In addition to reporting, the proposed rule would require records documenting any information reported to EPA to be retained for a period of five years.
The proposed rule includes several issues of concern that will need to be addressed in comments, including: the fact that ALL PFAS are included, there is no minimum reporting threshold, the scope of the definition of manufacturers and importers, further clarification on which articles containing PFAS would trigger reporting, duplicative reporting requirements, and the reporting period includes a retrospective review of ten years (which is highly unusual and very burdensome).
EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule until August 27, 2021. NASF is working with several industry trade groups in Washington to develop comments and will also submit comments on behalf of NASF to address issues of specific concern to the surface finishing industry. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Jeff Hannapel with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com.
This update is courtesy of the National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF). For more information or to become a member, visit nasf.org.
Related Content
-
An Interview With Bryan Leiker, Metal Finishers Association of California
Bryan Leiker, executive director for the Metal Finishers Association of California (MFACA), offers an update on actions to counter a proposed ban on hexavalent chromium plating and anodizing operations in the state.
-
Finishing Another Year — Looking Back at the Trends of 2023
Products Finishing reflects on a year of reporting on the surface finishing industry and looks ahead to what may be in store for 2024.
-
Trivalent Chrome Overview
As the finishing industry begins to move away from the use of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium, what factors should finishers consider as they make new investments? Mark Schario, chief technology officer for Columbia Chemical offers a helpful overview of this complicated topic.