Quiero saber acerca de...

14564

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

commerce or active. For PFAS
specifically, the TSCA Inventory lists over one thousand compounds, of which approximately half are known to be commercially active within the last decade. The TSCA Inventory by itself cannot be used to identify dischargers.
EPA also reviewed the Chemical Data Reporting CDR database, which compiles information collected under a TSCA Section 8a rule that requires chemical manufacturers including importers to provide EPA with production, import, and customer use information about chemicals in commerce. Manufacturers and importers must report to the CDR database if they meet certain annual volume thresholds, typically 25,000 pounds, but 2,500
pounds for chemicals subject to certain TSCA actions. EPA matched the chemicals in the 2016 CDR data the most recent year available 2 against EPAs Cross-Agency Research List 3 and identified 118 PFAS compounds in the CDR database. See DCN OCPSF00032
for 2016 nonCBI CDR Data for PFAS
Compounds and DCN OCPSF00003 for EPAs CompTox Cross Agency PFAS
List. Using this list of CDR PFAS
compounds, EPA summed the reported production volumes to calculate a total PFAS production and importation volume of approximately 608 million pounds for 2015. See DCN OCPSF00033
for Review of 2015 non-CBI CDR Data for PFAS Compounds. The CDR
database contains data identifying which facilities produced PFAS
compounds, but does not have any information on PFAS discharges. The six PFAS manufacturing facilities that reported 2019 DMR data also appear in the CDR data as domestic manufacturers of 76 separate PFAS compounds. An additional 55 facilities appear in the CDR dataset; however, EPA has no corresponding data on their potential PFAS discharges. The deadline for the CDR data for the 2020 reporting cycle is in January 2021. Additional PFASrelated data submitted by CDR sites can be assessed shortly thereafter.
EPA collected and reviewed 15
treatment technology technical articles from a range of sources including EPA
2 The information for the CDR is collected every four years from manufacturers including importers. The 2016 CDR data contains information reported in 2016 and covering 2012 to 2015. https www.epa.gov/chemical-datareporting/basic-information-about-chemical-datareportingwhat.
3 EPAs Cross-Agency Research PFAS list, from the CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, is a manually curated listing of mainly straight-chain and branched PFAS compiled from various internal, literature and public sources by EPA researchers and program office representative https
comptox.epa.gov/dashboard.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:42 Mar 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

publications, federal, state, and local government publications, PFAS
manufacturers, and non-governmental organizations NGOs. Through these articles, EPA identified eight potential technologies that can remove PFAS
from wastewater. These include granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis filtration, and ion exchange. A
full list of available technologies that EPA has identified to date is included in DCN OCPSF00096.
EPA began stakeholder outreach in July 2019 by meeting with stakeholders to collect, on a voluntary basis, additional information such as supplementary effluent data, information on PFAS compounds being produced/used and discharged, and any information about treatment technologies being used, along with their effectiveness and costs, to augment the available information EPA reviewed.
This information gathering effort was performed under the Multi-Industry Study noted above. The information provided by stakeholders is included in DCN OCPSF00042OCPSF00078.
EPA met with the FluoroCouncil of the American Chemistry Council,4 the primary trade association that represents PFAS manufacturers and formulators, and its members. See DCN
OCPSF00054 for meeting notes. They provided EPA with technical literature concerning PFAS terminology and classification, a list of short chain fluorotelomers studies, an economic assessment of the U.S. fluoropolymer industry, and the names of contacts at entities that they identified as the sole three PFAS manufacturing companies in the United States. These three manufacturers with a total of six facilities mirrored the six facilities for which EPA found DMR data and an additional facility for which EPA
received internal monitoring data.
EPA met with representatives of one company that operates multiple facilities that manufacture PFAS in West Virginia, New Jersey and North Carolina. They provided EPA with a copy of the presentation they gave during their meeting with the Agency, a copy of a New Jersey facilitys NPDES
permit, data for an internal outfall at that facility, a document addressing PFAS concerns at a North Carolina facility, and technical literature on fluoropolymers of low concern. See DCN OCPSF00061 for meeting notes and DCNs OCPSF00062 to OCPSF00064
for materials provided.
4 The FluoroCouncil of the American Chemistry Council has disbanded since EPA last spoke to them.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

EPA met with representatives of one company that operates multiple facilities that manufacture PFAS in Alabama, Illinois and Minnesota.
Representatives of this company provided EPA with a PFAS production history in addition to current PFAS
product categories, wastewater process flow diagrams, copies of their NPDES
permits, documentation for a direct injection analytical method, sampling data for both PFAS manufacturing facilities and a formulating facility, and related published literature. See DCN
OCPSF00042 for meeting notes and DCNs OCPSF00043 to OCPSF00052 for materials provided.
EPA met with representatives of another PFAS manufacturing facility in Alabama. See DCN OCPSF00065 for meeting notes.
EPA spoke to a representative of another company who stated that the company does not produce PFAS
compounds in the United States. EPA
learned that this company imports products from international manufacturing facilities and other manufacturers both inside and outside of the United States. Those materials are further processed at a domestic facility in Pennsylvania. See DCN OCPSF00060
for meeting notes. EPA is not aware of any PFAS discharge data from this facility, but EPA is requesting additional information regarding these and similar operations through this notice.
EPA made attempts to contact the other PFOA/PFOS Stewardship Program https www.epa.gov/assessing-andmanaging-chemicals-under-tsca/factsheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardshipprogram companies but did not receive any additional information. EPA
continues to coordinate with manufacturers to obtain additional information, including a list of PFAS
compounds they manufacture, documentation for the analytical methods they use to analyze PFAS in waste streams, and PFAS analytical data collected from source water, process water, and effluent at their facilities.
EPA spoke with representatives of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, & Energy MI EGLE.
Michigan EGLE provided EPA with sampling data for 30 direct discharging facilities and 633 indirect discharging facilities across 44 industrial categories, mostly for PFOA and PFOS. See DCN
OCPSF00067 for direct discharging data and DCN OCPSF00068 for indirect discharging data provided by MI EGLE.
Four of these facilities were likely PFAS formulators based on the concentrations of PFAS in discharges and the operations of the facilities. EPA
also reviewed an investigation report
E:FRFM17MRP1.SGM

17MRP1