EPA targets metal finishers, electroplaters under the Clean Water Act

In an effort to better protect water sources, the EPA is collecting information from companies involved in chromium finishing. serkan deniz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sending out some interesting mail.

A questionnaire is being mailed to close to 2,000 metal finishing and electroplating facilities that use perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of more than 12,000 fluorinated chemicals that are commonly used in thousands of industrial and consumer products primarily because of their oil and water repellency.

The EPA has various regulatory actions directed at users of PFAS, but the Information Collection Request (ICR) currently in the mail goes only to those companies who do chromium plating, chromium anodizing, chromic acid etching, and chromate conversion coating. It is the start of a regulatory effort under the Clean Water Act and addresses possible sewer discharges.

The National Association for Surface Finishing wrote to the EPA last January, when the draft questionnaire was first published, saying: “Some of the elements of the draft ICR are expansive and unnecessarily burdensome and need to be clarified and streamlined.” The final questionnaire was published in late April.

All active metal finishing and electroplating facilities that conduct one or more of the specified chromium-finishing operations will be required to complete the questionnaire regardless of size, geography, ownership, production, and whether the facility discharges wastewater directly to surface waters, indirectly to surface waters, or does not discharge wastewater at all. These kinds of “information gathering” efforts are typical for agencies that are preparing to either regulate for the first time or tighten existing regulations.

The EPA has not established national technology-based numeric standards for PFAS in wastewater discharges for any industrial point source categories and few states have developed water quality standards for PFAS. Therefore, few industrial facilities have PFAS monitoring requirements, effluent limitations, or pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges. Based on information and data collected during the multi-industry PFAS study, the EPA determined PFAS-containing chemical fume suppressants are used by some metal finishing and electroplating facilities to control hexavalent chromium emissions, a known human carcinogen and inhalation hazard.

Not only is the EPA targeting metal finishers with regard to PFAS discharges into wastewater, the agency also is considering a new rule—not an information request—that would regulate a variety of chemicals in the PFAS family that are discharged into drinking water. This time the EPA would deploy the regulatory reach of the Safe Drinking Water Act. A public hearing was held on May 4.

The proposed rule would establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for six PFAS known to be found in drinking water. Under the new rule, public water systems would be required to monitor for these chemicals, alert the public regarding PFAS levels, and take measures to decrease them if they surpass the approved standards. EPA anticipates that the proposed rule will be finalized by the end of 2023.

These new drinking water discharge restrictions would affect a broad range of industrial companies, accounting for the fact that a number of trade groups, including the National Association for Surface Finishing, sent a letter to the EPA on April 3 asking for more time to produce comments on the very involved questions asked by the agency. The letter pointed out that comments were asked for 59 specific questions and that required going over more than 3,000 pages of “very technical and complex information on the scientific basis, costs, and impacts for implementing these standards.”

But wait, there’s more! Also in April, the agency published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting public input and data to assist in the potential development of future regulations of PFAS under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as “Superfund.” Designating some or all of these chemicals as CERCLA hazardous substances would trigger new release reporting requirements and give EPA expanded authority to require investigation and remediation of releases of these chemicals in the environment.