Energy

In its current form, the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent proposal to add specific per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and PFAS categories to a database of toxic chemicals would place an unnecessary hardship on manufacturers, the NAM told the agency recently.
 
What’s going on: In October, the EPA published draft rules that would add 16 individual PFAS and 15 PFAS categories representing more than 100 individual PFAS to its Toxic Release Inventory, a list of potentially hazardous chemical release and waste management activities taking place in the U.S.

• Companies producing or manufacturing products with chemistries added to the TRI are required to complete and submit inventory forms each year for the chemicals they make and use over established limits.
• “The NAM believes this proposed rule will create unduly burdensome compliance requirements and increase costs for manufacturers and consumers as written,” NAM Vice President of Domestic Policy Chris Phalen said this month.

What should happen: The EPA should “adopt the following approaches to the proposed rulemaking”:

• Stay the proposal to give the public more time to comment on it.
• Revise the proposed PFAS and PFAS category additions to reflect “a meaningful baseline of scientific evidence” and ensure that “the scientific evidence justifying the listing[s] [is] supported by peer review and public comment.”
• List individually every PFAS added to the TRI and make each one identifiable.
• Narrow the group of PFAS listed as “chemicals of special concern” to reflect the scope of authority granted to the EPA by the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.

Why it’s important: “While the EPA estimates this proposed rule would result in up to 1,110 TRI reporting forms annually at an estimated cost of up to $6.6 million for its first year and up to $3.1 million for subsequent years, we anticipate the compliance costs to manufacturers will be significantly higher,” Phalen continued.

• If finalized as written, the rule will force manufacturers to hire additional workers and consultants, train employees on proper reporting processes, spend huge sums of money on testing and verifying results and much more.
• The result: “a costly drain on [manufacturers’] resources … [that] will lead to a rise in operational and production costs far above the EPA’s cost estimates for the proposed rule.”