April 2023 - ALL4

Massachusetts & New York Cumulative Impact Rules

Cumulative impacts, in the context of environmental justice (EJ), refer to a proposed project’s direct environmental impact across all media (air, water, waste, etc.) in conjunction with other nearby sources and existing social stressors in the surrounding communities. This impact includes direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

A cumulative impact assessment requires a holistic evaluation that considers and characterizes an action’s impact on a population over time regarding the potential cause and exacerbation of adverse outcomes. From an EJ perspective, these assessments identify and address health inequalities in underserved communities.

The introduction of cumulative impact assessments at the state level follows the Biden administration’s signing of Executive Orders 13985 and 14008. These orders served to encourage the federal government to address health inequalities related to environmental factors that may be disproportionally impacting underserved communities. Following the signing of these orders, some state governing bodies have introduced legislation related to such assessments.

Massachusetts Cumulative Impact Analysis in Comprehensive Plan Approvals

In response to Chapter 8 of the Acts of 2021 Section 102C, The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) proposed to amend 310 CMR 7.00 Air Pollution Control. The Act requires the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act to require the submission of environmental impact reports for any project that had the potential to cause damage to the environment and was located near an EJ area. It also requires MassDEP to consider cumulative impacts on EJ populations from certain air permits and approvals.

The proposed amendment will establish section 310 CMR 7.02(14) Cumulative Impact Analysis (CIA), which will require a cumulative impact analysis to be completed “for Comprehensive Plan Approval (CPA) applications for facilities located in or near an environmental justice (EJ) population

Applicants are required to increase the outreach to and the involvement of EJ populations, assess existing conditions, and identify the cumulative impacts of a project. Existing conditions will be determined by evaluating whether a Project has the potential to exacerbate any of the existing 33 air quality/climate, health, and socioeconomic indicators and identifying nearby regulated facilities and sensitive receptors. Additionally, air dispersion modeling and assessment of criteria and air toxics must be conducted, as well as evaluating stationary and mobile sources from motor vehicles owned or leased by the facility. The project’s impacts must be summarized, and consideration of whether the impacts will affect existing health conditions and air quality in EJ populations must occur. Lastly, a project must address whether mitigation measures can be taken to reduce impacts from the project.

After submittal to the Mass DEP, the permit application and cumulative impact assessment will be available for public review and comments. Projects are prohibited from posing cumulative cancer risks that exceed “an excess lifetime cancer risk equal to ten in one million” or to exceed cumulative non-cancer risks of “a hazard index equal to one.”

New York’s “Cumulative Impacts” Law

Following the passing of Senate Bill S8830 and Assembly Bill A2103D, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Cumulative Impacts bill into law, stipulating, with the Legislature, that the law should be amended to narrow its scope significantly and strike a balance between supporting the development of critical infrastructure needed in the state, and ensuring EJ communities are not disproportionately impacted by the project. The law will amend the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to require a CIA for projects near disadvantaged communities. Under this law, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) cannot approve or renew a permit if it may, directly or indirectly, cause or contribute to a disproportionate, inequitable, or both disproportionate and inequitable pollution burden on a disadvantaged community.

Facilities will be required to prepare an existing burden report to identify baseline environmental monitoring data and facilitate tracking of what may impact health or the environment. The burden report must be prepared within two years of the application and must identify some of the following:

Ambient concentrations of both regulated and unregulated toxic air pollutants.
Traffic volume
Noise and odor
Exposure to lead paint
Exposure to contaminated drinking water

The law is set to go into effect in June of 2023, pending any amendments.

What happens now?

In response to the Biden administration’s push for agencies and permit applicants to conduct cumulative impact assessments ahead of its own cumulative impacts framework expected in the Summer of 2023, the states which are more actively implementing environmental justice will continue to propose new legislation in anticipation of the finalized federal guidance. The legislation, and the pace at which the legislation will be adopted, will vary between states.

ALL4 will be following the progress of legislation for any developments. If you have questions about how this may affect your facility, please reach out to your ALL4 Project Manager.

Recent Revisions to U.S. EPA Reference Method 23

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a revised version of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A –Method 23. [88 Fed. Reg. 16732 (Mar. 20, 2023)]. Even the title changed: from “Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Stationary Sources” to a more endearing “Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Stationary Sources.”

Method 23 was originally published in 1993 (with small revisions since then, as necessary). U.S. EPA is revising the method because since 1993, procedures have evolved and the ability to measure the subject compounds has improved.

What are the big changes?

The biggest change is the expansion of the analyte list. The new method picks up Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) along with the Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzo Furans (PCDD/F). Before now, EPA did not publish methods for PCB or PAH. When it was necessary to measure these analytes, method choices included methods from other sources, including the California Air Resource Board (CARB). It is not a requirement of Method 23 that all three analyte sets be measured. The requirement for any particular analyte or analyte group can be accommodated within the methodology of Method 23.
EPA recognized that in a world of evolving methodology and technology, there is a need to add flexibility to the method. To that end, Method 23 is changed from a “prescriptive method” to a method allowing flexibility in methodology as long as the method performance criteria are met. EPA stated in this revision:

From the Summary of Revisions: “The primary focus of the final revisions to Method 23 is to change the method from a prescriptive method to a method which allows users to have flexibility in implementing the method (e.g., choice of gas chromatograph (GC) column, the procedures used for sample cleanup) while still meeting performance criteria that the EPA believes are necessary for demonstrating and documenting the quality of the measurements for the target compounds”. [88 Fed. Reg. 16,734 (Mar. 20, 2023)]

From the Revised Section 1.4: “This method is “performance-based” and includes acceptability criteria for assessing sampling and analytical procedures. Users may modify the method to overcome interferences or to substitute superior materials and equipment, provided that they meet all performance criteria in this method.” [88 Fed. Reg. 16,742 (Mar. 20, 2023)]

What does that bit about “performance-based” mean?

Basically, “performance-based” means that the measurement team (sampler and lab) do not need to follow a method-specified procedure. If a lab finds a better piece of equipment for concentrating samples, or an instrument manufacturer makes a better, more sensitive, more discerning instrument, they can use those new approaches. They just have to meet the performance specifications of Method 23, without worrying about equipment specifications or procedural specifications.

What are the geeky detailed changes?

Truly, there are too many for the scope of this blog. Here are a few that are worth noting:

The revised Method 23 takes advantage of some great strides in preparation of isotopically labeled compounds. For PCDD/F and PAH the method specifies the use of an isotopically-labeled analogue for each analyte. Previously, groups of analytes were assigned to a smaller set of analogues. This will improve quantification.
The method no longer specifies the use of dichloromethane in sample recovery. This eases some safety concerns for field teams, waste disposal issues for host facilities, and issues with sample shipment.
The method now requires collection of a field blank. This was always good practice but is now a requirement. The field blank is done during testing while the sampling program is being completed. Make sure that your samplers are aware of this change. There is no provision to correct emission results for blank results. The blank is used only to assess contamination.
The method added a specification for sample volume. This specification is for any application where the regulation/rule does not specify volume or duration.

Is the older data compromised?

These methodologies are enhancements of the previous version and other methods. Unlike some other methods, these revisions were not made in response to flaws or biases. The older data are still meaningful and interpretable (within the constraints of any given test program).

What should I be aware of as the new version makes its way through the sampling and laboratory community?

The revised version of Method 23 became effective on March 20, 2023. As with all methods, the transition from an older version happens over time. If you have a test program that is somewhere between the test protocol and the report submittal stage, we recommend you clarify which version of the method should be/was used.
Many jurisdictions require laboratory and/or sampling accreditation. The method number has not changed, and those accreditations may still be in place. Again, we recommend you work with your sampler, laboratory, and accrediting agency to discuss any potential speedbumps with your sampling program.

The revisions to Method 23 not only address some much-needed analytical improvements but they also provide ability for continuous improvements through the inclusion of “performance-based” specifications. If you have more questions about the revisions to Method 23 or any additional test program questions, please contact me at gyoungerman@all4inc.com.

A Summary of Proposed Updates to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants

On April 5, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) signed proposed revisions to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (EGUs), also known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The current MATS established standards to limit emissions of mercury; acid gas hazardous air pollutants (HAP) such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride; non-mercury HAP metals such as nickel, lead, and chromium; and organic HAP such as formaldehyde and dioxin/furan from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

The proposed new pollution standards advance more stringent requirements to reduce mercury and other HAP emissions and represent the most significant update since the MATS were first issued in 2012. These more stringent standards are based on U.S. EPA’s determination that technologies and/or methods of operation are currently available to achieve additional HAP control from coal-fired EGUs at reasonable costs. The proposed standards affect EGUs with a capacity of more than 25 megawatts.

This proposal follows the February 2023 U.S. EPA announcement that reaffirmed the scientific, economic, and legal underpinnings of the standards, reversing a rule issued by the Trump administration that undermined the legal basis for the rule. The proposed rule is intended to reflect the significant improvements in pollution control technologies since the original MATS rule was passed and satisfy the U.S. EPA’s requirement to periodically review emissions standards.

The proposed updates to the MATS further limit the emission of non-mercury HAP metals from existing coal-fired power plants by significantly reducing (by 67 percent) the emission standard for filterable particulate matter (fPM) and eliminating the option to comply with the HAP metals standard. As part of this proposed change, U.S. EPA is eliminating the low-emitting EGU (LEE) compliance option for fPM/non-mercury metals. U.S. EPA is also proposing to tighten the emission limit for mercury for existing lignite-fired power plants by 70 percent, a level that is aligned with the mercury standard that other coal-fired power plants have been achieving under the current MATS. The proposal would also change emissions monitoring and compliance by requiring solid oil-fired and coal-fired EGUs to comply with the fPM standard using a particulate matter (PM) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) instead of parameter monitoring or quarterly stack testing. The new standards would take effect three years after the effective date of the final rule.

Finally, U.S. EPA is proposing to revise startup requirements in MATS to assure better emissions performance during startup. Subject facilities will no longer be able to choose paragraph (2) of the ‘startup’ definition in § 63.10042 and use the associated work practice standards as compliance. The new startup requirements are proposed to take effect 180 days from the effective date of the final rule.

U.S. EPA is requesting public comment on all aspects of this proposed rule, including the evaluation of the costs and efficacy of control option assumptions. U.S. EPA will accept public comment on the rule for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register and also plans to hold a virtual public hearing. Further details will be announced here.

The proposed revisions to the MATS will require subject facilities to potentially purchase new control devices and/or upgrade existing control devices. The proposed revisions would also require subject facilities to implement fPM monitoring systems (PM CEMS) with written monitoring plans. ALL4 can assist subject facilities with the review of which control devices would be most applicable to your site and help with the implementation of PM CEMS monitoring systems and written monitoring plans. If you have questions about how the proposed MATS revisions could affect your facility’s program, or what your next steps should be once the rule is finalized, please reach out to me at mliebert@all4inc.com. ALL4 is monitoring all updates published by the U.S. EPA on this topic, and we are here to answer your questions and assist your facility with any aspects of MATS compliance.

Drum Reconditioners: Are You Sending RCRA Empty Containers?

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is currently reviewing compliance with the definition of RCRA “empty”. U.S. EPA completed a damage case report to improve their understanding of how the drum reconditioner industry operates and to document incidents at these facilities that have negatively impacted human health and the environment. U.S. EPA estimates that 47.5% of the industry reported incidents resulting in damage to human health or the environment. Reported incidents include fires, drum explosions, hazardous waste spills, improper storage of drums, employee injuries, air, water, or soil contamination, and various combinations of these incidents.

Under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), hazardous waste generators are responsible for the waste they generate from the cradle (point of generation) to grave (final deposition). As a result, sending containers formerly used to store or handle hazardous materials that do not meet the definition of empty, and therefore, potentially containing hazardous waste, creates a significant liability for facilities.

What’s the Rule?

40 CFR 261.7(b) defines empty under the RCRA rules.

A container or an inner liner removed from a container that has held any hazardous waste, except a waste that is a compressed gas or that is identified as an acute hazardous waste listed is empty if:

All wastes have been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from that type of container, e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating, and
No more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of residue remain on the bottom of the container or inner liner, or
No more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container or inner liner if the container is less than or equal to 119 gallons in size; or no more than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in the container or inner liner if the container is greater than 119 gallons in size.

A container that has held a hazardous waste that is a compressed gas is empty when the pressure in the container approaches atmospheric.

A container or an inner liner removed from a container that has held an acute hazardous waste listed is empty if:

The container or inner liner has been triple rinsed using a solvent capable of removing the commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical intermediate. Note that rinsing of non-empty containers in certain states requires a permit.
The container or inner liner has been cleaned by another method that has been shown in the scientific literature, or by tests conducted by the generator, to achieve equivalent removal; or
In the case of a container, the inner liner that prevented contact of the commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical intermediate with the container, has been removed.

Considerations for Generators

Have you documented the container is empty?
Are empty containers properly labeled and managed within one year of the date generated?
Do you have corrective actions for containers not emptied properly?
Do you train staff on RCRA empty rules? Does the staff know the difference between hazardous, acutely hazardous and compressed gases?
For acutely hazardous waste listed, do you have a procedure for handling the rinseate?
How are you disposing of the rinseate and residuals from your containers? Are you properly characterizing?
If your drum refurbisher is handling the cleaning of the acute hazardous waste container, are you sending the containers as hazardous waste? Is the facility permitted to handle the waste?
Have you checked with your state to determine if additional state rules apply to empty containers?
Do you audit your refurbisher to ensure that hazardous materials are handled properly?

Considerations for Refurbishing Operations

A determination must be made for residues removed from RCRA empty drums as to whether the residue is hazardous.
Rinseate (the residual mixture of waste and cleaning solvent) from an empty container is considered a hazardous waste and must be contained and disposed of in compliance with RCRA if the rinsing agent includes a solvent (or other chemical) that would be a listed hazardous waste when discarded.
Do you have procedures in place to inspect containers to ensure they are RCRA empty before transport?
Do you request documentation on what the containers held prior to discarding?
Do you have proper wastewater and air permits?
Do you have a sampling plan to characterize rinseate?
Can you effectively pretreat your wastewater before discharging to the local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)? Or under your National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit?
Do you have plans in place for incompatible materials?
Do you have a training program in place for staff to identify RCRA empty containers, incompatible hazardous materials and listed wastes?

Improper handling of hazardous or toxic materials, including wastes, can lead to safety incidents, health concerns, environmental impacts, and legacy liabilities. If you have questions or want to discuss compliance strategies, reach out to Karen Thompson at Kthompson@all4inc.com or one of our wastewater, waste or health & safety practitioners.

ALL4 is a nationally recognized consulting company shaping environmental responsibility and creating distinction for employees, clients, and partners. Let us help you achieve your environmental, health and safety goals.

Data Quality Part 1: What Do We Mean by Data Quality?

When making a measurement, we are looking to answer a question. We want and need our measurement to be robust at the levels that address the underlying question. That concept seems simple and obvious, but it gets into the weeds very quickly. We (Gene and Aditya) are going to spend the next 6 articles trying to unpack this simple but twisty subject. We’re going to use some silly examples, some real-life stories, and try to make this topic a little clearer and a little more accessible.

For the purpose of this article series, we are talking about how to structure a “small” measurement event. (Small in terms of the number of measurements.) A large data set lends itself to all sorts of statistical data analysis (means and modes and medians and ranges), estimates of uncertainty and variability, and perhaps even trends and correlations. Small data sets, not so much, or not at all. For this situation, the data need to be “externally” qualified and supportable; that is, any assessments of data quality need to be done by the use of indicators other than the measurement itself. A good example of a small measurement event is a stack test. Stack tests are typically three runs, completed all in one day. There are only three results per pollutant. We don’t know the true value for our measurement, and we don’t have enough data to do an in-depth statistical analysis. Any indication of data quality must come from outside these three runs. Outside measurements might include analysis of a known standard, a spiked sample, blanks of various composition, multiple analysis, and/or serial dilutions. Procedurally, we must use tools with known and acceptable performance. These indicators become the components of a data quality discussion. The components we’re discussing here are how we define the measurement program to answer the underlying question. When performing a small test, it’s necessary to set up and define “data quality objectives” (DQOs). You’re probably asking yourself: Huh, what does that mean? To define DQOs, we need to select a set of external measurements, specifications, and/or characteristics that will assess measurement performance and improve the likelihood that we get data that can address our underlying question. And again: Huh, what does that mean?

How about an example: Let’s say I want to build a deck in the yard behind my house. We’ll use several specific activities about this deckbuilding to demonstrate different approaches to measuring and determining length or distance.

First, I need to know how long an extension cord I need to get to the furthest point on the deck so I can use my saw and my sander. I can pace off the distance to the nearest plug, it’s 8 steps, my stride is about 5 feet, I need a 50‑foot extension cord.

Next, I want to buy the decking material. So, I need to know the size of the deck. I drop a rock at the extreme corners, and I grab a tape measure, and I roughly measure the size of the deck. It’s going to be 22’ x15’. I only measure to the nearest foot because I’m just specifying my material buy list. And I’m going to buy extra because I know I’m going to make a mistake or find a bad board, so I don’t need an “exact” number.

Now, I’ve got the material and I need to start cutting. I have a flooring pattern in mind, so I now need to measure (and cut) to the nearest 1/8” (or thereabouts). Same tape measure, more careful use. Mark and cut.

Finally for this discussion, I want the gaps between the boards to be pretty close to consistent. For this, I could use a caliper, or maybe a thickness gauge.

I measured length, distance, and width using three different tools and 4 different procedures. Do the measurements guarantee a perfect deck? Maybe. It depends on the quality of the measurements, which in turn depends on the tools and procedures used to make them. And how did this address data quality or DQOs? Each of my measurements (extension cord length, buying material, etc.) had a different underlying question (does the cord reach, did I buy enough material, etc.). Since the questions were different, the data quality requirement for each is different as well. So we used different tools and different procedures (approximate by eye, use a tape measure roughly, etc.).

Next time: The Components of Data Quality. Until then, feel free to contact either of us:

Gene Youngerman, gyoungerman@all4inc.com, 512.649.2571
Aditya Shivkumar, ashivkumar@all4inc.com, 281‑201-1239

Links to other blogs from our Data Quality Series:

California – Are you Prepared for New Hazardous Waste Generator Rules?

If you are in California, you may not have noticed changes in federal hazardous waste regulations because the California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) has not yet adopted the provisions of the 2016 Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule (GIR). However, this year DTSC decided to stop wasting time (pun intended).

In 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency adopted the GIR. The GIR resulted in over sixty changes in provisions to the hazardous waste regulations. The purpose of the GIR was fivefold:

Strengthen environmental protections.
Provide greater flexibility to generators.
Provide a better understanding of the regulations.
Reorganize hazardous waste regulations.
Make corrections to existing regulations.

On March 24, 2023, DTSC released proposed changes to California’s hazardous waste regulations to adopt the GIR provisions. The intent of this rulemaking package is to update state regulations that are less stringent than federal regulations to be at least as stringent as federal regulations. Public comments on the proposed changes close May 8, 2023. DTSC’s proposed regulations are expected to take effect in 2023 but the GIR provisions are not in effect in California until DTSC adopts them. If the provisions proposed on March 24th are adopted, DTSC anticipates that 94,000 businesses will be impacted, including both large quantity generators (LQG) and small quantity generators (SQG).

What are DTSC’s proposed changes?

The following table summarizes key new requirements that have been proposed and which types of generators may be impacted.

The new requirements will be more stringent than existing state regulations and are mandatory under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Additionally, DTSC is proposing to reorganize the California hazardous waste generator regulations to align with the organization of the federal regulations. For example, existing regulations in 22 CCR 66262.34 related to satellite accumulation areas would be relocated to 22 CCR 66262.15.

How can you participate?

Submit your written comments to DTSC via email to regs@dtsc.ca.gov or submit hard-copy comments to the following address:

Office of Legislation and Regulatory Review
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806

This rulemaking is the first of two planned rulemaking packages. Be on the lookout for a second proposed rulemaking package from DTSC with less stringent GIR requirements that may create more flexibility for hazardous waste generators in California.

Do you want to learn more about how these proposed changes might impact compliance at your site? Reach out to Meredith Garrett at mgarrett@all4inc.com or 909.477.7132. ALL4 will keep you up to date on the GIR proposed rules and can partner with you to keep your hazardous waste program in compliance.

Sources

Draft Rulemaking Out of California for Zero-Emission Forklifts

State of California Executive Order N-79-20 sets goals to transition to 100% zero-emissions off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 where feasible. To address that initiative, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has now released the draft Zero-Emission Forklifts (ZEF) Regulation. CARB defines ZEF as forklifts using fuel-cell-electric, battery-electric, or other zero-emission technology as the only source of power for operational propulsion and work. The ZEF Regulation intends to phase out certain forklifts discussed below, using model year, to create a state-wide forklift fleet of ZEF. CARB states the purpose of the ZEF Regulation is to help accelerate the reduction of nitrogen oxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, volatile organic compound, and greenhouse gas emissions in California.

Who will this affect?

The ZEF Regulation applies to forklift and engine manufacturers, owners, leasers, renters, sellers, or dealers in California considering any forklift powered by a large-spark ignition engine with a rated capacity of 12,000 pounds or less. Forklifts exempt from the current draft regulation include Rough Terrain, Combat and Tactical Support Equipment, Pallet Jack Forklifts, forklifts with telescoping booms, and forklifts owned and operated by a facility subject to the Mobile Cargo Handlings Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards Regulations (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 2479). According to CARB, the ZEF Regulation would impact approximately 95,000 forklifts across the state.

The ZEF Regulation will affect more than the forklift industry. Increased use of electric forklifts will increase electricity demand from the grid, pulling in the energy and utility industries. Increased electric forklift charging could trigger different Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, hazardous waste management regulations, fire code regulations, and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) regulations.

What are the Requirements?

Specific requirements vary depending on the type of forklift used, model year, business type (operators, dealers, renters, and manufacturers), and fleet size. All affected entities will be required to:

Keep a forklift inventory.
Ensure that manufacturer labels are intact and readable at all times.
Purchase, sell, lease, and/or operate ZEF only beginning January 1, 2026.
Phase-out all diesel-fueled or alternative-diesel-fueled off-road compression-ignition engines (or other affected forklifts) according to the ZEF Regulation schedule.
Report inventories on an annual basis after the initial report due October 31, 2025.

Non-compliance will result in a civil or criminal penalty determined on a per forklift, per day basis.

What is the Regulatory Timeline?

Currently, CARB is looking for feedback and suggestions from stakeholders via meetings and emails. In April 2023, CARB will submit a Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment to the Department of Finance. In September 2023, the proposed ZEF Regulation goes to CARB for final review.

If approved, there are reporting requirements due as early as October 31, 2025. Starting January 1, 2026, affected forklifts may not be possessed, operated, manufactured, sold, leased, or rented.

If you are a forklift owner, manufacturer, leaser, renter, or dealer, what should you do now?

Sign up for email updates about the rule from CARB at: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/CARB/subscriber/new?topic_id=zeforklifts
Review CARB’s saved materials from past workgroups and workshops. They are all available here and provide details from CARB staff.
Provide stakeholder feedback and suggestions to CARB via zeroforklifts@arb.ca.gov.
Plan and prepare for this rule to be issued. Depending on a facility’s fleet size and model year, capital costs, new regulations, and new operating procedures may need to be addressed as soon as possible.

If you have questions, need assistance planning for the Zero-Emissions Forklift Regulation, or want help commenting on the draft rule, please contact Madison Jones, Consulting Engineer, at mjones@all4inc.com or (678) 293-9435.

New PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

On March 14, 2023, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed a new National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for six perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The proposed regulation will require public water systems to monitor for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, commonly known as GenX Chemicals), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS). Additionally, public water systems will need to notify the public of the PFAS levels and reduce the levels of PFAS in drinking water if they exceed the proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL).

What are the new limits?

U.S. EPA is proposing to regulate PFOA and PFOS at an MCL of 4 parts per trillion with a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero. The proposed MCL limit for any mixture containing one or more of PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA is 1.0 Hazard Index (HI). Where the HI is the tool used to evaluate health risks from exposure to chemical mixtures. There are multiple methods of analysis available, including U.S. EPA Methods 533 and 537.1, that can reliably measure the six PFAS at or below the proposed MCLs. U.S. EPA has identified available technologies to treat PFAS, including granular activated carbon (GAC), anion exchange (AIX), nanofiltration (NF), and reverse osmosis (RO) as best available technologies (BAT).

What is the timeline?

Currently, U.S. EPA is requesting comments on the proposed rule as well as on the preliminary determinations to regulate PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS, GenX Chemicals, and the mixtures of these four PFAS. The final rule is anticipated to be promulgated in December of 2023. At this time, initial monitoring will need to be completed in the first three years after promulgation. The initial monitoring results are intended to establish the baseline PFAS MCL levels by drinking water systems. Thus, making the PFAS NPDWR rule effective date December 2026.

What are the requirements?

The initial monitoring requirements for public waters system serving greater than 10,000 people from ground water systems and all surface water systems will be four quarterly samples within a 12-month period. Ground water systems serving less than 10,000 people will have an initial monitoring of two semi-annual samples within a 12-month period. For those with recent PFAS drinking water data, may elect to use the data if it was collected for the fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5), state-level drinking water occurrence monitoring, or other appropriate data collection program. U.S. EPA is requesting comments on establishing the proposed rule trigger at one third of the MCL and at an alternative trigger of half of the proposed MCL. U.S. EPA is proposing for public water systems issue a notification to the public when there is an exceedance under Tier 2, which would require notice as soon as possible, but within 30 days of the violation.

If you would like more information and get involved, what can you do?

Submit your comments, questions, or suggestions through EPA docket (ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0114) before May 30, 2023.
Register for the proposed PFAS NPDWR Public Hearing on May 4, 2023.
For information on how to calculate the Hazard Index please refer to the Fact Sheet.

As U.S. EPA continues moves to finalize the PFAS NPDWR, ALL4 will provide updates to regulatory developments. If the PFAS drinking water limits may affect you, ALL4 can partner with you to develop strategies for initial and long-term compliance. If you would like to know more about the PFAS NPDWR, or how ALL4 can assist you, please reach out to Yatziri Enriquez-Lopez at yenriquez@all4inc.com.

EPA Acting on Coal Fired Power Plants

Introduction

On March 7th the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pre-published a direct final and a proposed rule which will affect coal fired electric power generation facilities. This direct final rule was made under authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and was made to extend the date to submit a notice of planned participation (NOPP) to cease coal operations. The proposed rule was made under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and was made to update Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs), as a part of Plan 15 which requires EPA to biennially update ELGs, see more info on Plan 15.

Direct final Rule – Ceasing Coal Combustion NOPP Extension

The direct rule “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category–Initial Notification Date Extension” would extend the deadline to submit a NOPP to cease operation of coal combustion in electric power generating facilities, typically under NAICS Codes 22111 and 221112. Facilities opting to cease coal firing operations, have seen less stringent total suspended solids limits and standards for discharges of pollutants found in flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater and bottom ash (BA) transport water. These more lenient limits and standards could mean less steps facilities must take to stay in compliance with ELGs. Specifically, the usage of surface impoundment technology as opposed to more complex technologies such as chemical precipitation. The deadline to submit a NOPP is 90 days after final publication of the rule.

Proposed Rule – Stricter Effluent Guideline Limitations

The proposed rule “Supplemental Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category” would revise ELGs for Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 423) to be more stringent. These updated limits would focus on FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and combustion residual leachate (CRL). These new limits and standards would update the current standards set in “ 2020 Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule.” These new standards would update the technology requirements to treat effluent water. Some of these updates include requiring membrane filtration for FGD wastewater. Facilities opting to cease coal combustion by 2028 will only be required to utilize surface impoundments for FGD and BA water. Combustion residual leachate will require chemical precipitation for all facilities. These updated guidelines add increased incentive to cease coal production due to the possible increased cost and maintenance to treat discharge water. Facilities choosing to continue coal combustion will be subject to the updated regulations following the timeline below:

A comment period lasting 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register
Finalization of the proposed rule addressing comments for a length of time left to EPA discretion
The final rule is then published in the Federal Register and will become effective after 60 days after final publication

What Does This Mean?

U.S. EPA has taken action as noted in Preliminary Plan 15 to reduce the water-based pollutant discharge from coal firing power plants. With this, U.S. EPA has given an “opt out” program where facilities signing up to cease coal combustion will be subject to more lenient treatment guidelines.

If your facility is subject to these guidelines or want to explore your options there is no time like the present to reach out to an ALL4 specialist, Evan Mia can be reached at emia@all4inc.com. ALL4 is monitoring all updates published by the U.S. EPA on this topic, and we are here to assist you with compliance strategies as your company makes long-term decisions at coal combustion units.

2024 U.S. EPA Budget: How Could It Affect You?

The Biden-Harris Administration released its President’s Budget for fiscal year 2024 (Budget) on March 9^th. The Budget includes a request for over $12 billion to be allocated to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or the Agency) for discretionary spending in 2024. $12 billion includes investments in a variety of efforts and is a slight increase over the $11.9 billion 2023 request.

A core goal of the Budget is to increase U.S. EPA’s staffing capacity to over 17,000 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), an increase of nearly 2,000 FTEs over the 2023 level. If U.S. EPA reaches a capacity of 17,000 FTEs, it would be the highest level since 2012, and could lead to increased enforcements and compliance action rates.

Nearly $5 billion of the Budget is being allocated to address the climate crisis. Efforts focus on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and include investments in aiding the private sector with GHG emissions calculations. This focus on GHG emissions reductions could have impacts on reporting processes and establishment of new, science-based goals.

A common theme throughout the U.S. EPA’s portion of the Budget is advancing efforts in environmental justice, which U.S. EPA defines as As part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s Justice40 Initiative, at least 40-percent of benefits from climate and clean energy research funded by the Federal government must reach disadvantaged or overburdened communities. The Budget contributes to these efforts by allocating $1.8 billion across various programs to advance environmental justice nationwide, and specifically includes funds to conduct inspections in these communities. Intentionally allocated resources could lead to increased scrutiny focused on facilities located in rural areas.

Additional allocations included in the U.S.EPA’s portion of the Budget include:

$130 million to bolster monitoring on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) programs;
$165 million for compliance monitoring efforts;
$246 million for civil enforcement efforts; and
$170 million to address Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pollution.

The fiscal year 2023 budget requested $11.9 billion for U.S. EPA use, but the 2023 enacted budget was $10.1 billion. U.S. EPA Administrator Michael Regan appeared before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Committee) on March 22^nd in a hearing to justify the Agency’s 2024 request. Top members of the Committee expressed concern over the amount requested by U.S. EPA, stating the Agency would have more resources than it could effectively manage and questioning the priorities of the Agency’s current work practices. One senator noted that U.S. EPA has access to funds through the Inflation Reduction Act that could be used to increase its FTE capacity and inquired as to why additional resources are being requested.

The fiscal year 2024 President’s Budget will face an uphill battle getting through the House and Senate. However, despite reductions that may come before the Budget reaches its enacted level, a new year and newly allocated resources will lead to refocused efforts by U.S. EPA.

ALL4 will be following the progress of the 2024 Budget for any developments. If you have questions about how the requested Budget could affect your facility, please reach out to me at mblair@all4inc.com. ALL4 is here to answer your questions, help you evaluate how regulatory changes impact your operations, and assist your facility with all aspects of environmental compliance.