PFAS: As we all know, the regulatory framework for proper management of PFAS material continues to evolve. WTS has been and continues to closely monitor this situation and in particular the impact it is having on by-product management of PFAS bearing materials. Although PFAS wastes have yet to be regulated directly by RCRA, there has been a lot of rulemaking and discussion around the same. Here’s what we know now:
- PFAS and PFOA were designated as CERCLA Hazardous Substances, each with a Reportable Quantity of 1 pound, in a final rule that took effect on July 8 of this year. This will have direct impacts on remediation of contaminated sites (under Superfund) as well as reporting and cleanup of accidental releases. Though PFAS production has been mostly phased out domestically, there is certainly a concern around legacy issues and past management practices for generators. The EPA released a companion “enforcement discretion” document indicating it would not focus enforcement on publicly owned or operated municipal solid waste landfills, instead targeting parties like manufacturers that have introduced significant levels of the regulated chemicals into the flow of commerce.
- In April of this year, USEPA released an updated interim guidance (updated from a 2020 version) on Destruction and Disposal (D&D) of PFAS and PFAS Containing Wastes. This is not a directive or regulation from the agency but merely a guidance. This is also not a guarantee from the agency that the methods referenced are the most appropriate or effective. Remember that management of PFAS wastes and byproducts is not currently federally regulated. The agency discussed the following methods as potential solutions for these materials. EPA encourages managers of PFAS and PFAS-containing materials to use D&D options that have a lower potential for releasing PFAS to the environment as described in Section 1 of the interim guidance. According to EPA, in general, the following technologies (in no particular order) have a lower potential for environmental releases of PFAS:
- Interim storage with controls: Storage is not a technology but may be a short-term option. EPA notes that storage may be more fitting for some PFAS materials than others.
- WTS Comment: WTS is not aware of any commercially viable, permitted options for storage only.
- UIC–Permitted Class I non-hazardous industrial or hazardous waste injection wells: According to EPA, the standards associated with the construction, operation, and monitoring of these Class I wells are designed to isolate liquid wastes deep below the land surface and ensure protection of underground sources of drinking water. This technology may not be appropriate or available everywhere.
- WTS Comment: Deepwell injection in general has never been a WTS preferred option for waste material. It should also be noted that for the most part this is a very regional application, predominantly along the gulf coast and in the southeast.
- Landfills-Permitted hazardous waste landfills: EPA states that when landfill disposal is selected for highly concentrated PFAS wastes, EPA recommends using a hazardous waste landfill. According to EPA at all landfill types, new information shows landfills release more PFAS to the environment than previously thought in 2020. Hazardous waste landfills have leachate emission protections that help control environmental releases of PFAS.
- WTS Comment: WTS has been working with and continues to work with its Hazardous Waste landfill partners to offer this technology to our clients. It is important to note that PFAS concentration remains a determining factor in landfill acceptance and approval. Additionally, not every hazardous waste landfill will accept PFAS wastes for disposal.
- Thermal treatment-Permitted hazardous waste combustors that operate under certain conditions: According to EPA, new research since 2020 indicates that thermal treatment units operating under certain conditions are more effective at destroying PFAS and minimizing releases or exposures. The EPA notes that certain hazardous waste combustors may operate under these conditions, but uncertainties remain. This technology could also include hazardous waste permitted Cement Kilns that burn waste materials as Alternative fuel.
- WTS Comment: WTS has successfully managed PFAS material into our commercial Hazardous Waste Incinerator partners on behalf of our clients. It should also be noted that over all incinerator capacity remains an issue and securing capacity for PFAS material can be both costly and non-timely. Although Cement Kilns can be and may prove to be a very effective technology, at this time they are mostly reluctant to accept identified PFAS wastes due to the uncertainty of current and future air emission concerns.
- Interim storage with controls: Storage is not a technology but may be a short-term option. EPA notes that storage may be more fitting for some PFAS materials than others.
- Another disposal issue that has arisen through the years and is even more pronounced as of late, is the reluctance of permitted non-hazardous facilities such as Subtitle D landfills, Waste to Energy plants and Wastewater treatment facilities to accept PFAS wastes currently, even though they may have accepted the same in the past, due to legacy concerns. This has resulted in diverting these non-hazardous wastes into Hazardous Waste facilities at an increased cost.
- WTS has also managed on site treatment projects for generators who are faced with large scale PFAS contamination issues at their locations. Typically, this involves an onsite treatment unit for liquid PFAS bearing wastes that post treatment are then sent off site for proper disposal. Click here for a case study of a WTS managed project along these lines:
TRI Reporting: Generators are also responsible for including PFAs compounds in their TRI reporting. USEPA added 7 compounds in January 2024 that require reporting. This goes along with the actions take in October of 2023 that classified all PFAS subject to TRI reporting as chemicals of special concern. This action also removed the use of a reporting exemption that allowed facilities to avoid reporting information on PFAS when those chemicals were used in small concentrations. For reporting purposes, the de minimis level for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (335-67-1) is 0.1%. All other PFAS additions have a de minimis level of 1%. Click here to see the following from USEPA.
e-Manifest:
EPA announced that on June 28, the third final rule was enacted for the e-Manifest program. This rule is titled Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-Related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments, and Technical Corrections. Highlights of the final rule include:
- Incorporates hazardous waste export manifests into the e-Manifest system, which includes designating the exporter as the entity responsible for submitting the manifest and paying the requisite user fee.
- Expands the required international shipment data elements on the manifest form.
- Revises the movement document requirements to more closely link the manifest data with the movement document data for manifest tracking purposes as well as to assist with integration of EPA’s Waste Import Export Tracking System into RCRAInfo.
- Integrates Exception Reports, Discrepancy Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports into e-Manifest.
- Requires small and large quantity generators to register for access to e-Manifest to obtain their final signed manifest copies from the system.
- Requires entities to correct manifest data errors.
- Makes conforming changes to polychlorinated biphenyl manifest regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and other technical corrections to remove obsolete requirements, correct typographical errors, establish definitions, and/or improve alignment with the e-Manifest program.
- These updates go into effect on December 1, 2025.
Of most significance here is the incorporation of Hazardous Waste exports into the e-Manifest program. Note that that designated exporter will be responsible for fee payment and manifest submission as opposed to TSDF’s. In addition, EPA is finalizing regulatory amendments to integrate existing Discrepancy Reports, Exception Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system which would allow entities to use the e-Manifest system to complete these reports electronically. The administrative burden for these changes and updates will mostly fall onto the TSDF community domestically.
Also of interest is the fact that EPA reports that EPA estimates that these entities currently use between 1,834,512 hazardous waste manifests (EPA Form 8700–22) and continuation sheets (EPA Form 8700–22A) annually to track RCRA hazardous wastes, TSCA polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes, and state-only regulated wastes from generation sites to destination facilities designated on a manifest for treatment, storage, or disposal. The affected entities include hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste transporters, owners or operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), As we all know wide scale adoption of the entire e-Manifest program continues to fall below expectations as less than 1% of all manifests are actually transmitted electronically for shipments.
