Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium Ion Batteries

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a systematic tool used to assess the environmental impact of a product, process, or service throughout its entire life cycle. LCA looks at the entire life of a product or process, from extraction of raw materials to product disposal, and allows businesses to identify materials and processes within a product’s life cycle that pose the greatest environmental, occupational, and public toxicity impacts.

The impact of climate change is becoming of increasing concern to many countries. Companies and governments alike are trying to move away from fossil fuels and electrify the economy, which makes electricity storage very important, specifically with lithium-ion batteries. Lithium-ion batteries produce a rechargeable form of energy used in many electronic devices such as cell phones, laptops and solar back up storage. However, the recent surge in demand for lithium-ion batteries has been accompanied by growing concerns over the environmental impact of the materials found within these batteries, such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel.

How do Lithium-Ion Batteries Impact the Environment?

The life cycle of a lithium-ion battery begins with the extraction of raw materials from sites such as lithium and cobalt mines, where practices like open-pit mining and brine extraction mining are used. These mining practices cause hazardous materials to enter ground and surface water systems, where they have been demonstrated to cause drinking water contamination and ecosystem degradation. These practices have also been connected to the overconsumption of water, using nearly two million liters of water to extract a single ton of lithium.

Once the raw materials are obtained, they undergo processing to create the active components of the battery, such as cathodes, anodes, and electrolytes. These components are then assembled into cells, and multiple cells are combined to form a battery pack. Processing operations such as material refining and smelting are very energy intensive and result in air emissions from operating machinery at high temperatures. Once a lithium-ion battery completes all manufacturing and processing steps, it then is used in commercial products for its useful lifetime.

Once lithium-ion batteries are used in commercial products the electrical energy consumed during the usage and recharging cycles can contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, depending on how the electricity is sourced (renewable vs non-renewable sources). Recharging lithium-ion batteries with electricity generated from a coal power plant or another non-renewable energy source can only be made possible from combustion reactions that release greenhouse gases and other pollutants, such as carbon dioxide (CO₂). For example, a full charge for the battery found in a 2022 Tesla Model X warrants approximately 115 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electrical power, which can result in an estimated 98 pounds (44.45 kilograms) of CO₂ emissions from a coal-fired power plant. The wide variation in use and sizes of lithium-ion batteries makes it difficult to accurately quantify the environmental impacts.

How are Lithium-Ion Batteries Disposed of?

Upon reaching the end of its useful life, a lithium-ion battery is intended to be disposed of at designated recycling locations or household waste collection sites. When this occurs, the materials within lithium-ion batteries may be recovered and recycled for future use, or the entire consumer product may undergo refurbishing to render the product useful once again. There are currently three different methods for lithium-ion battery recycling which are hydrometallurgical recycling, pyrometallurgical recycling, and combination of both metallurgical techniques. Pyrometallurgy is where the cathode and anode materials are recovered through smelting. Hydrometallurgy is where the electrolyte solution is evaporated and condensed to recover the lithium salt electrolyte solution for reuse. A combination of both processes can increase recovery efficiency. Although these recycling activities can reclaim and recover significant amounts of material for reuse, they also generate large quantities of air emissions and contaminated water. Out of these methods, pyrometallurgical recycling has the highest overall environmental impact, especially in the eutrophication potential and abiotic resource depletion potential. Hydrometallurgy has a comparable environmental impact to the combined metallurgical techniques depending on the leaching agent used for hydrometallurgy. Overall hydrometallurgy does not use much energy which leads to a lower global warming potential while it does have harmful effects depending on the leaching agent used.

Unfortunately, it is estimated that only five percent of lithium-ion batteries are properly disposed of at designated recycling facilities, and that the remaining ninety-five percent are improperly thrown away or recycled in at-home waste or recycling bins, resulting in most of these batteries ending up in landfills, oftentimes starting chemical fires during transport. When this occurs, the contents of these batteries can leach into the soil and water table, endangering the health of the local ecosystem and any nearby residencies.

How Do Recycled Batteries Make a Difference?

Proper recycling of lithium-ion batteries conserves resources and reduces the environmental impact of resource extraction and minimizes the disposal of hazardous waste. Generally, lithium-ion batteries are considered highly recyclable, with a significant portion of their components being recoverable and reusable. For instance, nearly half of the copper in discarded lithium-ion batteries can be recovered through recycling processes and reused in the production of new batteries.

Likewise, advances in recycling methodology have allowed for increased yields of recovered materials from spent lithium-ion batteries. Techniques in electrolyte recovery and treatment, such as alkaline absorption, pyrolysis, and solvent extraction have bolstered recovery efficiencies to nearly 87% and have recovered lithium in the form of lithium carbonate (LiCO₂) at levels as pure as 92%. These levels of material recovery allow for recycling facilities to treat spent lithium-ion batteries like highly enriched ore.

Additionally, it has been found that cathodes made from recycled materials allow for better performance and a longer lifetime from a lithium-ion battery than virgin materials do. A study conducted by Worcester Polytechnic, Rice University and Argonne National Laboratory found that lithium-ion batteries that had been fitted with recycled LiNi_1/3Mn_1/3Co_1/3O₂ cathodes degraded at a much slower rate, providing 11,600 battery discharge-recharge cycles before degrading to a capacity retention of 70%. This represents a performance increase of 52.6% when compared to the control group of virgin LiNi_1/3Mn_1/3Co_1/3O₂ cathodes, which provided 7,600 discharge-recharge cycles before degrading to the same capacity retention.

How Can LCA Benefit My Facility?

Although LCA isn’t a practice that is mandated by any state environmental authorities or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), doing so can identify improvements within a product’s life cycle, and allow a business to meet desired environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics by making more environmentally conscious decisions when sourcing, processing, or disposing of hazardous waste. However, most lithium-ion batteries are likely to meet the definition of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Therefore, the U.S. EPA recommends that businesses consider managing lithium-ion batteries under the federal regulations for ‘universal waste’, as defined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 273.

If you are interested in conducting LCA on any processes or products generated at your facility, please contact Louise Shaffer at lshaffer@all4inc.com for more information. Likewise, if you have questions or concerns regarding the hazardous waste generated or being disposed of at your facility, please contact your ALL4 Project Manager or Daniel Hickey at dhickey@all4inc.com for assistance in meeting state and federal environmental compliance.

California Legislature Passes the Climate Accountability Package for SB-253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and SB-261, Greenhouse Gases: Climate-related Financial Risk

California legislature recently passed the Climate Accountability Package, a pair of bills introduced by California senators on January 30th, 2023, to improve transparency and standardize disclosures relating to greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risk. The Climate Accountability Package contains two bills, Senate Bill 253 (253), the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and Senate Bill 261 (SB-261), Greenhouse Gases: Climate-related Financial Risk, which will bring new reporting requirements to California businesses.

California Global Warming Solutions Act

Because of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB-32), the State Air Resources Board (SARB) is required to adopt regulations on the reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions, monitor and enforce compliance with the act, and make available emissions of greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants of reporting entities on the state board’s website annually for facilities that report to the state board. The Climate Accountability Package falls within the purpose of AB-32 and the state’s goal to achieve technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Soon, more California-based businesses will need to report to the SARB.

SB-253: Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act

On September 14th, 2023, the California Legislature passed SB-253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, a bill that requires the disclosure of Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions by companies, public or private, doing business in California with $1 billion or more in gross annual revenue.

Here is what affected California businesses can expect from SB-253:

Timeline

• January 1st, 2025: The California SARB will develop and enact regulations for reporting entities’ public disclosure.
• 2026: Reporting entities will publicly disclose Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions annually (start date to be determined by SARB).
• 2027: Reporting entities will publicly disclose Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions annually (start date to be determined by SARB).
• July 1st, 2027: A national laboratory or equivalent academic institution will prepare a report on the public disclosure emissions made by reporting entities (institution contracting to be determined by SARB).

What SB-253 Will Mean for California Businesses

Reporting will be required for entities that meet both of the following criteria:

• Companies doing business in California
• Partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, or other business entities with total annual revenues in excess of $1 billion (applicability to be determined based on the reporting entity’s revenue for the prior fiscal year)

Businesses that match these criteria will be deemed ‘reporting entities’ and must publicly disclose emissions to the SARB and obtain an assurance engagement performed by an independent third party for reporting starting in 2026. Along with annual reporting, reporting entities must pay an annual fee set by the SARB when filing its disclosure. Fees collected will be deposited into the Climate Accountability and Emissions Disclosure Fund for usage by the SARB for the purposes of the bill. Due to the annual revenue criteria, businesses with total annual revenues of $1 billion are automatically subject to SB-261.

SB-261 Greenhouse Gases: Climate-related Financial Risk

On September 15th, 2023, the California Legislature passed SB-261, Greenhouse Gases: Climate-related Financial Risk. This bill requires disclosure of climate-change-associated financial risks by companies, public or private, doing business in California with $500 million or more in gross annual revenue. In addition to the financial risks climate change poses, businesses must also disclose how they plan to address them.

What SB-261 Will Mean for California Businesses

Disclosure will be required for entities that meet both of the following criteria:

• Companies doing business in California
• Partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, or other business entities with total annual revenues in excess of $500 million (applicability to be determined based on the business entity’s revenue for the prior fiscal year)

Businesses that match these criteria will be deemed ‘covered entities’ and must prepare a climate-related financial risk report and publicly disclose climate-related financial risk, including any measures used to reduce or address climate-related financial risk. Reports are due on or before January 1st, 2026, reporting biennially after that. In addition to biennial reporting, covered entities must pay an annual fee set by the SARB to administer and implement the bill. Fees collected will be deposited into the Climate-Related Financial Risk Disclosure Fund for usage by the SARB for the purposes of the bill.

Will SB-253 and SB-261 Be Signed into Law

With the Climate Accountability Package’s recent passing, Governor Newsom said he plans to sign SB-253 and SB-261 into law. SB-253 will take effect in 2026, requiring disclosure of Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions. By 2027, affected California businesses will be required to disclose Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. Reporting will take place annually after that. SB-261 will take effect on January 1st, 2026, requiring disclosure of a climate-related financial risk report. Reporting will take place biennially after that.

The Governor has until October 14th to sign or veto SB-253 and until October 15th to sign or veto SB-261.

ALL4 will continue to track the progress of SB-253 and SB-261 and their developments related to emissions and climate-related financial risk reporting for affected California businesses.

For questions on the passed legislation or how it will affect your business, for assistance in reporting Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions, or for verification of data, please get in touch with Connie Prostko-Bell at cprostko-bell@all4inc.com or Lauren Coca at lcoca@all4inc.com for more information.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules: Summary of Proposed Changes

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has been working on updates to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHGRR) contained in 40 CFR Part 98 and published the latest proposed rule revisions on August 1, 2023. These revisions supplement May 2023 and June 2022 GHGRR proposed rule revisions.

Regulatory Background

This latest rule update comes in addition to several other revisions in 2022 and 2023. In June of 2022, the U.S. EPA proposed a rule revision to improve the quality of data collection and update confidentiality determinations. This first set of rule revisions aimed at technical corrections and data collection but also added one industrial sector not previously included.

After a period of public comment, the U.S. EPA published an amended proposed rule in May of 2023, revising and expanding on the June 2022 proposal, addressing new data submitted for several sectors and adding five more new industrial sectors. One of these newly proposed subparts, Subpart B, would require facilities to develop a written Metered Energy Monitoring Plan (MEMP) for purchased electricity and thermal energy products, including needing to specify certain recordkeeping activities for electric meters, including conformance status to certain American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. Additionally, the data for the purchased electricity and thermal energy product must be reported in accordance with the requirements under §98.26 of the proposed rule. This May 2023 revision also proposed to update the global warming potentials (GWP) to be based on data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), published in 2014 in lieu of the current values which are based on AR4 (2007).

The latest (August 2023) proposed rule revisions are focused on extensive revisions to Subpart W to allow for fee calculation around methane emissions. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which was signed into law in August 2022, included the “Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction Incentive Program for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems.” This section of the IRA requires the U.S. EPA to revise the requirements of Subpart W to ensure that the reporting under Subpart W is based on empirical data and accurately reflects total methane emissions from the applicable facilities within two years after the date of enactment of the IRA. These proposed revisions to Subpart W include amendments to the calculation methodologies and reporting requirements to address potential gaps in the methane emissions reported per facility under that Subpart.

Who is Affected?

Approximately 35 GHGRR Subparts have been touched by proposed revisions since the June 2022 changes. To read a discussion of the initial 23 affected Subparts from the June 2022 revisions, please refer to ALL4’s Chris Ward’s blog on the June 2022 proposed revisions.

In the May 2023 proposed rule, several subparts were revised in addition to the original June 2022 proposed changes, including:

• Subpart A (General Provisions)
• Subpart C (Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources)
• Subpart G (Ammonia Manufacturing)
• Subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing)
• Subpart N (Glass Production)
• Subpart P (Hydrogen Production)
• Subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries)
• Subpart HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills)
• Subpart OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases)
• Subpart PP (Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide)
• Subpart UU (Injection of Carbon Dioxide)
• Subpart VV (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide With Enhanced Oil Recovery Using ISO 27916)

Four other subparts (not in the original June 2022 proposed rule revision) have amendments to Part 98 in the May 2023 proposed rule revision:

• Subpart F (Aluminum Production)
• Subpart AA (Pulp & Paper Manufacturing)
• Subpart QQ (Importers/Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs in Equipment or Foams)
• Subpart RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide)

Additionally, the May 2023 proposed amendments to add five new source categories to Part 98:

• Subpart B (Energy Consumption)
• Subpart WW (Coke Calciners)
• Subpart XX (Calcium Carbide Production)
• Subpart YY (Caprolactam, Glyoxal, and Glyoxylic Acid Production)
• Subpart ZZ (Ceramics Production)

Lastly, the following subparts were revised (again) in the August 2023 proposed rule:

• Subpart A (General Provisions)
• Subpart C (Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources)
• Subpart W (Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems)

Effective Date

There are several effective dates for the current proposed changes.

June 2022 Proposed Rule – The U.S. EPA originally intended for the proposed changes to become effective on January 1, 2023, for facilities to implement the changes beginning with reports for reporting year (RY) 2023 and submitted on April 1, 2024. Some limited cases with limited monitoring requirements would have allowed temporary use of best available monitoring methods (BAMM) for annual reports submitted for RY 2023. However, due to significant comments, the passage of the IRA, and additional revisions, that initial plan has been delayed and there are no current updates on a proposed date.

May 2023 Proposed Rule – The proposed changes would become effective on January 1, 2025, with changes implemented beginning with the annual GHG reports prepared for RY 2025 submitted on or before March 31, 2026. The one exception is in regard to the GWP amendments for current reporters, which would apply to annual GHG reports prepared for calendar year (CY) 2024 and submitted on or before March 31 2025.

August 2023 Proposed Rule – The U.S. EPA is proposing that all but one of the revisions would become effective on January 1, 2025, to be included for the 2025 reporting year submittal due on March 31, 2026. The exception would be the proposed reporting of quantities of fuel (natural gas, crude oil, and condensate produced) would also become effective on January 1, 2025, and reporters would include those provisions in the reports prepared for RY 2024 to be submitted by March 31, 2025.

Public Comment

The publication of the latest proposed rule in the Federal Register on August 1, 2023 marks the start of a 60-day comment period (ending October 2, 2023). Comments may be submitted through Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0234, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via mail to the appropriate U.S. EPA address.

Next Steps

ALL4 will continue to monitor the GHGRR proposed rule revisions and updates for a final rule. If your facility is subject to one of the affected subparts, ALL4 recommends reviewing the respective proposed rule for any industry-specific updates to the subpart you are subject to and any changes that affect data collection, calculations, or reporting. Also check the proposed changes to the GWPs and to Subpart B to see how the changes might affect your facility and energy data reporting. Finally, review your GHG Monitoring Plan to determine if any updates may be necessary.

If you would like to discuss your project or have any questions, please feel free to reach out to your ALL4 Project Manager or to Corey Prigent at cprigent@all4inc.com.

Unlocking Opportunities: Pennsylvania’s New Environmental Justice Policy Takes Effect on September 16, 2023

On September 16th, 2023, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) adopted an interim final Environmental Justice (EJ) policy (Interim Final EJ Policy) that introduces new requirements for projects classified as “trigger projects” when they apply for permits from the PA DEP. This policy represents a comprehensive directive designed to provide a structured approach for the PA DEP to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities while giving priority to EJ principles. The updated EJ Policy is organized into distinct sections, each contributing to a comprehensive framework for addressing equity concerns within regulatory operations. Below, we provide a breakdown of the key details of the updated Interim Final EJ Policy:

• Introduction and Background: This section provides contextual insights into the policy’s genesis and underscores its significance in fostering equitable environmental outcomes.
• Definitions for Clarity: Precise definitions establish a shared glossary ensuring consistent interpretation of EJ-related terminology and concepts throughout the policy.
• Environmental Justice Criteria and Mapping: This section delineates criteria for identifying disproportionately impacted communities and introduces spatial analysis techniques to facilitate targeted interventions in areas with heightened environmental concerns.
• Proactive Community Engagement: Articulating methodologies for proactive outreach to affected communities, this section aims to foster inclusive dialogue and ensure the participation of marginalized demographics in regulatory decision-making processes.
• Enhanced Public Participation Process: This segment outlines strategies for expanding public involvement in regulatory decisions, aligning with democratic principles, and promoting transparency.
• Inspections, Compliance, and Enforcement: Addressing the enforcement aspect, this section outlines strategies for robust and equitable enforcement measures to rectify environmental injustices.
• Community Development and Investments: Highlighting provisions for directing resources into disadvantaged areas, this section aims to address historical disparities and enhance community well-being.
• Integrating EJ into Climate Initiatives: Recognizing the intersection of climate and social equity, this section illustrates how environmental justice considerations will be seamlessly integrated into broader climate initiatives.
• Policy Updates for Ongoing Adaptation: Emphasizing the dynamic nature of the policy, this section underscores the commitment to adapt and evolve the policy in response to changing societal, environmental, and regulatory landscapes.

To aid the PA DEP in accurately identifying communities facing EJ issues, the department has also rolled out The Pennsylvania Environmental Justice Mapping and Screening Tool, known as PennEnviroScreen, which will be used to identify EJ populations based on pollution burden and population characteristics. The PennEnviroScreen tool employs a multi-faceted formula-based approach, integrating various indicators such as demographic data, socioeconomic factors, public health metrics, and environmental quality indices, that will calculate an EJ score based on demographic and pollution burden factors. The PennEnviroScreen tool also went live on September 16, 2023, and replaces the current PA DEP EJ tool that existed prior, and PA DEP anticipates using the tool to determine whether to engage in enhanced public outreach.

Approximately 4 million residents of Pennsylvania reside within EJ areas, which are identified as census tracts where either 20 percent or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line or 30 percent or more identify as a non-white minority.¹  These communities frequently face challenges stemming from inadequate air quality, aged housing and infrastructure, and limited transportation options, all of which result from a history of disinvestment. The original EJ Policy from 2004 lacks specific regulations tailored for permitting polluting industries in many of these EJ areas which is why the PA DEP introduced a fresh draft policy aimed at addressing EJ concerns comprehensively. The Interim Final EJ Policy introduces the incorporation of EJ considerations into the PA DEP’s inspections and enforcement activities, while also allowing for updates to the definition of EJ itself. The revised policy also represents a significant stride forward, building upon the principles of the 2004 policy while incorporating more robust measures, advanced tools, and broader integration of EJ considerations throughout PA DEP’s regulatory activities. As stated by the PA DEP’s Acting Secretary Rich Negrin, the PA DEP “is committed to expanding proactive outreach to better understand communities’ concerns… (and) we’ll draw on this understanding as we develop and implement statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies and fund programs that ensure Environmental Justice communities are centered in climate change mitigation and adaptation statewide”.²

Efforts to involve the public in the Interim Final EJ Policy take a comprehensive approach, highlighting accessibility, transparency, and inclusivity. Methods include virtual hearings for remote EJ opinions, diverse outreach channels for policy distribution, and webinars clarifying policy details. These strategies showcase the PA DEP’s commitment to wide-ranging participation, enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of the updated Interim Final EJ Policy within regulations. The draft policy’s Proactive Community Engagement section emphasizes the vital role of including community voices in decision-making. The PA DEP prioritizes community concerns, aiming for strong engagement through meetings, consultations, and collaborative sessions. By directly engaging community stakeholders, the agency incorporates these perspectives into policy development, fostering a more responsive, inclusive, and effective regulatory system.

The PA DEP demonstrates a firm commitment to advancing EJ principles beyond permitting through the way it aids and provides resources to communities facing EJ challenges. The PA DEP’s dedication to equitable environmental outcomes is highlighted by its involvement with impacted communities. Here, the agency collaborates to comprehend and address EJ concerns comprehensively. By allocating resources to these communities, PA DEP seeks to reduce their disproportionate burdens and promote a fairer distribution of environmental benefits. This approach aligns with PA DEP’s broader vision of not only meeting immediate regulatory needs but also promoting lasting enhancements in the well-being of marginalized populations, reflecting a holistic commitment to EJ.

Past efforts to revise the EJ Policy in 2018 marked a significant stride in advancing equity in environmental governance. Building on stakeholder feedback from this prior revision, the ongoing endeavor to refine the policy embodies a dynamic approach to development. The current revision, informed by lessons learned and stakeholder input, aims to overcome past limitations and ensure a more thorough and effective integration of EJ considerations within regulations. With a focus on broader integration, the revision aims to encompass a wider range of factors contributing to environmental disparities. By aligning the policy with evolving insights and best practices in the EJ field, the revision strives to establish a precedent for a more equitable and inclusive environmental governance paradigm in the future.

If your company is obtaining a permit for a project in Pennsylvania, ALL4 is prepared to assist you with any EJ-related permitting concerns you may have. In addition to monitoring EJ developments that could impact permitting nationwide, ALL4 can also support businesses in ESG strategy, GHG accounting and verification, setting carbon reduction targets and goals, and climate initiatives. To learn more about how ALL4 can address your specific needs or to discuss any ESG-related inquiries, please reach out to James Giannantonio, Managing Consultant of ESG & Sustainability, at jgiannantonio@all4inc.com.

¹https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2023/04/07/pa-officials-seek-environmental-justice-concerns-to-shape-climate-planning/

² https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2023/04/07/pa-officials-seek-environmental-justice-concerns-to-shape-climate-planning/

UN Sustainable Development Goals – A Primer

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) proposed 17 goals based on various topics, with the aim of improving quality of life and the environment around the world. These 17 “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) were created to replace the outdated Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were issued in 2000 and ended in 2015. The SDGs, which are each represented by a brightly colored icon in the figure below, have an expanded focus on environmental sustainability while continuing to support and improve life for humans. Each goal has several indicators/targets to measure progress towards achieving the goal by 2030. There are a total of 169 indicators across the 17 goals. The goals are broad, ambitious, and existential. In this article, we will focus on just three: Goals 6, 7, and 12, to help set the context for how to approach UN SDG goals.

GOAL 6: Clean Water and Sanitation – “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.”

This SDG features eight targets aimed at increasing water-use efficiency and access to safe drinking water and hygiene, decreasing water pollution, protecting water-related ecosystems, and expanding international and local cooperation for fulfilling the goal. Specifically, target 6.3 focuses on improving water quality by minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals and materials, untreated wastewater, and improperly recycled materials into local water bodies. This is measured by the quality of bodies of water and wastewater flows. Companies can use this goal as a stencil to improve their wastewater management practices.

Clean water and sanitation may be something often taken for granted by many in the U.S., but it is an issue of major concern everywhere. Improper waste management can become a health hazard due to bacterial growth and the spread of other diseases. The waste can also seep into water supplies, contaminating them for consumption. Clean water is necessary for drinking, cooking, and other basic human needs, however, over 733 million people live in water-stressed areas and water quality is still unknown (due to a lack of monitoring) for at least 3 billion people, more than a third of the world population. This disparity is often felt most in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). For example, in places like Rome, Italy or Geneva, Switzerland, access to clean, filtered water is readily available from taps or water fountains in the streets. In countries like Sierra Leone, on the other hand, people must buy bottled water, which is not easily accessible, physically or financially, and people cannot trust tap water or other local water resources to drink, cook, or sometimes even for cleaning. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates a loss of 1.5% of GDP in developing countries from lack of access to improved water sources and basic sanitation.

Within the U.S., millions of people access water from lead pipes, which can degrade over time and affect local water supplies. This contamination can lead to serious illness and intellectual disabilities. Because of this concern, the Lead and Copper Rule (40 CFR Part 141 Subpart I) mitigates the use of these materials. Another pressing concern in the U.S. is the growing prevalence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which are a newly identified class of chemicals of concern known as “forever chemicals”, meaning that they do not decompose and may have negative health effects.

This goal will not be met by 2030 with current trends. The 2023 UN SDG Report predicts that in 2030, 1.6 billion people will still lack safe drinking water, 2.8 billion will lack safe sanitation, and 1.9 billion will lack basic hygiene facilities.

Water Quality and Permitting Services

GOAL 7: Sustainable and Modern Energy for All – “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.”

In the quest for a more sustainable future, this goal has aims to provide safe, clean, and affordable energy, primarily in the form of electricity, for all people around the world. It provides five different targets for improving access to electricity and modern, sustainable energy, and improving/increasing energy efficiency and sustainable energy use. Targets 7.2 and 7.3 encourage entities to fulfill this goal by looking into their processes and finding ways to improve energy efficiency or use more renewable sources.

Since the foundation of the SDGs in 2015, the percentage of the population with access to electricity has increased by 4% to a total of 91% in 2021, although it may not be as reliable as it is in the U.S. Globally, 675 million people still do not have access to electricity, particularly in LDCs and sub-Saharan Africa. Further than simply providing electricity, the push is to shift electricity production to more sustainable and efficient sources and processes, such as renewable energy. Global renewable energy production has increased by 25% between 2010-2019 but still accounts for only 19.1% of total energy consumption (2020). In 2022, the U.S. specifically was at a rate of 13.1% renewable energy use. Energy consumption from non-renewable sources increases pollution rates and quickly depletes natural resources. In addition to energy consumption, cooking systems in the less developed world can contribute significantly to pollution issues. Around the world, 2.4 billion people still use inefficient and polluting cooking systems.

Several energy alternatives are under exploration in addition to popular renewable sources such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. Bioenergy comes from using biomass (living and dead organisms) to generate energy. It can improve soil fertility, supporting carbon sequestration and land rehabilitation. This is possible due to the byproducts of bioenergy production such as biofertilizer from biogas and biochar (for use as fertilizer and as a carbon sink) from biomass gasification. Additionally, crops used for bioenergy may be planted in areas where food crops cannot be grown as they are low maintenance and may be better suited to a region than food crops. Bioenergy is already commonly used as a fuel source in the forest products industry to generate the required steam by burning wood waste in boilers or in pulp and paper mill recovery furnaces, in the form of black liquor.

GOAL 12: Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns

Goal 12’s eleven targets implore organizations at all levels to practice sustainable use of natural resources and safe waste disposal methods, to reduce waste, promote the spread of information on and development of sustainable lifestyles, and to increase sustainability reporting from companies. Targets 12.4 and 12.5 specifically encourage proper management of toxic waste and its releases into air, water, and soil, and the reduction of waste generation (including by use of recycling).

Consumption and production patterns around the world frequently lead to bad waste practices. When unsustainable, these patterns can directly cause climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Approximately 13.2% of the world’s food is lost after harvesting and before reaching the consumer, often due to aesthetic imperfections. Post harvesting and sales, another 17% of food is then wasted at the consumer level. This and several other types of waste end up in landfills which lead to further pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions post-production.

Certain types of waste also require special handling, making their safe disposal more difficult. Electronic waste (e-waste), for example, should not be grouped with other types of waste in landfills and instead should be disposed of in appropriate e-waste recycling locations. Only 22.8% of the world’s e-waste is safely managed. Europe and Northern America have an average collection rate of approximately 46.9%. E-waste that is not safely disposed of can lead to the release of toxic chemicals into the environment in addition to a waste of rare earth metals.

ALL4 recently wrapped up a project working with a company directly aligned with Goal 12. The company uses anaerobic digesters to change waste to energy. They primarily convert food waste from restaurants, supermarkets, and other similar sources to energy with the help of manure from local farms. These two “ingredients” are sent to a digester where methane is extracted from the decomposition process. The methane is then converted to renewable natural gas (RNG) which is used as a biofuel in a local energy grid.

Learn about ESG Services

CONCLUSION

Entities in both the public and private sectors are encouraged to publish sustainability reports and do their part to ensure the world is on track to achieving the SDGs. Since 2016, the number of companies monitored by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) publishing sustainability reports has tripled to 70% in 2022. Although these companies are monitored for and encouraged to report on all 17 SDGs, only 10% do so. The most regularly published information is about their water and energy usage, GHG emissions, occupational health and safety (OSHA) performance, and board diversity.

ALL4 can help you in all aspects of sustainability strategy development and management, including implementation, metrics tracking, reporting, and identifying UN SDGs that most closely align with your organization’s business goals and stakeholder concerns. We help with water quality compliance, water-use optimization, and create plans to ensure minimal waste output into local streams. We can also work with you to increase energy efficiency through plant operations and increase sustainable waste management (including zero waste audits and guidance), consumption, and production patterns. If there are any questions about the UN Sustainable Development Goals or any other environmental issue, please reach out to me at acreque@all4inc.com, Daryl Whitt at dwhitt@all4inc.com, or your ALL4 project manager for more information.

Lithium-Ion Battery Fires

Lithium-ion fires are a concerning and potentially hazardous phenomenon that can occur when the delicate balance within lithium-ion batteries is disrupted, leading to thermal runaway and combustion. These fires are characterized by their intense heat, rapid spread, and the release of toxic gases and smoke. The underlying cause of lithium-ion fires often lies in factors such as manufacturing defects, physical damage, overcharging, or overheating. When a battery’s internal components, including the anode, cathode, and electrolyte, interact in an unstable manner, it can trigger an exothermic chain reaction, causing the battery to heat up uncontrollably and ignite surrounding materials. Given the increasing and widespread use of lithium-ion batteries in various devices like smartphones, laptops, and electric vehicles, understanding the risks associated with lithium-ion fires and implementing stringent safety measures is of paramount importance to prevent accidents and protect both human safety and the environment.

What is thermal runaway?

As the temperature of the battery increases, more chemical reactions within the battery can occur, leading to more heat generation. Generally, heat generation is dictated by the materials inside the battery, while heat loss is determined by the battery can. The battery can is the outer packaging and protection of the battery, usually composed of a metal or alloy, such as aluminum or steel. The outer shell often features plastic materials for their lightweight and insulating properties. The battery can temperature changes with the ambient temperature and other surrounding conditions.

The anode is composed of graphite, which is separated by an electrolyte layer with lithium salts from the lithium oxide cathode. The lithium ions migrate to the anode when charging and to the cathode when discharging. A porous separator keeps the electrodes from touching. Anode and cathode decomposition reactions are exothermic and produce gas, and the released heat provides the necessary activation energy for subsequent reactions. The release of gas causes pressure inside the battery to rise. In extreme cases, this can result in the battery casing rupturing or the release of flammable electrolytes, potentially igniting a fire or explosion. At 152⁰F, the battery reaches the self-accelerating decomposition temperature (SADT), or the lowest temperature that the battery must be held for the heat of decomposition to exceed heat loss. The accelerating decomposition rate raises the battery to the temperature of no return. After the temperature of no return (typically 167⁰F), thermal runaway occurs, and fire or explosion are likely.

Preventative Measures

Due to the unpredictable nature of lithium-ion battery fires, it is critical to ensure utilize all available fire prevention methods. In addition to visual observation for signs of damage, temperature regulation and monitoring are useful to ensure there is no risk of overheating or fire. Such measures may include an infrared (IR) camera. Other preventative measures include:

• Quality assurance
• Avoid physical damage and extreme temperatures
• Use approved chargers
• Avoid overcharging and overdischarging
• Avoid mixing batteries
• Avoid unattended charging
• Transport safely
• Educate and train
• Store and handle properly

If a battery is hot or venting, it should be quarantined in a designated burn area, away from flammable or combustible materials. Hot batteries should not be packaged and should be observed for signs of fire.

Storage and Packaging

Proper storage and packaging are critical to avoiding lithium-ion battery fires. The following guidelines should be followed to prevent battery damage and fires:

Don’t:

• Store near combustible or flammable materials
• Store materials in racks or shelves above batteries
• Store batteries near exits or in exit pathways
• Store in direct sunlight
• Store in areas susceptible to physical abuse (shock, vibration, temperature)

Do:

• Isolate terminals prior to storing
• Inspect batteries prior to storing and following any physical abuse
• Segregate waste/DDR batteries from commodity batteries
• Maintain spacing between pallets of stored batteries
• Anchor storage racks

Fire Mitigation and Firefighting Measures

Lithium-ion batteries pose a significant fire hazard due to their highly flammable hydrocarbon-based electrolyte solution and high energy density. Consequently, conditions such as a short circuit, physical damage, or improper design/assembly can lead to overheating and ignition. Lithium-ion batteries are classified as Class B fire risks, due to the presence of a flammable liquid (the electrolyte solution). Traditional fire containment methods include standard dry chemical or ABC extinguishers. These methods control lithium-ion battery fires by smothering the fire or reducing a fuel source, but often do not have the heat capacity needed to stop overheating and thermal runaway.

Reducing the temperature of an overheating lithium-ion battery is critical to both preventing and eliminating fires. Water is the most viable option, given its high heat capacity and latent heat of vaporization. The battery should be isolated and drenched in copious amounts of water to cool the burning battery as much as possible. It should be noted that water can react with the battery components (specifically LiPF₆) to form hydrogen fluoride, a toxic gas. Furthermore, hydrogen fluoride can be reduced by lithium, producing combustible hydrogen. However, this gas release is only significant or hazardous in extremely confined spaces. Thus, avoid small, enclosed spaces when dousing a hot or venting battery.

ALL4 assists clients in the battery industry and beyond with training on the safe handling of lithium-ion batteries, evaluating local fire codes to ensure the safe storage of lithium-ion batteries, and also creating standard operating procedures around the safe management of lithium-ion batteries at a facility. If you are interesting in learning more about the lithium-ion battery safety and compliance services we off or have any questions on the content of this article, feel free to contact Maya Fors at mfors@all4inc.com or at (502) 276-6771.

The End of U.S. EPA’s Reactivation Policy?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that the U.S. EPA’s “Reactivation Policy” violates the Clean Air Act (CAA).

What is U.S. EPA’s “Reactivation Policy”?

The “Reactivation Policy” (Policy) addresses whether existing major stationary sources that have been out of operation are considered “new” sources when evaluating the need to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit prior to restarting the existing major stationary source. Under the Policy, U.S. EPA established six criteria to determine if a major stationary source has been permanently shutdown, including:

1. Amount of time the facility has been out of operation,
2. Reason for the shutdown,
3. Statements by the owner or operator regarding intent,
4. Cost and time required to reactivate the facility,
5. Status of permits, and
6. Ongoing maintenance and inspections that have been conducted during shutdown.

After reviewing the above criteria, U.S. EPA classified an out of operation facility as either “idled” or “permanently shutdown”.  Facilities that were determined to be “idled” were not required to obtain a PSD permit prior to startup.  However, facilities that were determined to be “permanently shutdown” would be considered a new source upon startup, resulting in the likely need to obtain a PSD permit prior to startup.  The policy came under review due to the restart of a refinery in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The St. Croix Refinery and Reversal of the “Reactivation Policy”

In 2012, HOVENSA, LLC ceased operation of the St. Croix Refinery (Refinery).  The Refinery was purchased by Limetree Bay Terminals, LLC (Limetree) in 2016 with the intention of restarting the Refinery’s operations.  In 2018, Limetree sent a letter to U.S. EPA asking whether the Refinery would be considered “idled” or “permanently shutdown” under the Policy. At the time, U.S. EPA indicated that the Refinery was considered “idled” and that the agency would not require Limetree to obtain a PSD permit prior to restarting the Refinery.

Following several years of investments in the Refinery, Limetree restarted the Refinery in February 2021. However, due to excess emissions and flaring events, the Refinery was forced to cease operations again in April 2021 under emergency order by U.S. EPA. Limetree later filed for bankruptcy and the Refinery was up for sale again.

In December 2021, Port Hamilton Refining and Transportation, LLLP (PHRT) submitted a letter to U.S. EPA to confirm the U.S. EPA’s consideration of the Refinery as “idled” under the Policy. Prior to receiving a response from U.S. EPA, PHRT finalized the purchase of the Refinery.  In March 2022, PHRT received a response from U.S. EPA indicating that there were “strong indicators” that the Refinery would be reconsidered as “permanently shutdown” and that the Refinery would require a PSD permit prior to restart. In November 2022, U.S. EPA issued a revised final determination stating that U.S. EPA considered the Refinery to be “permanently shutdown” and had been “permanently shutdown” since the original cessation of operations by HOVENSA, LLC in 2012.

PHRT filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to review U.S. EPA’s November 2022 final determination. PHRT contended that the U.S. EPA had exceeded their authority under the CAA.  The petition was based on the fact that U.S. EPA had reached two different conclusions on the requirement to obtain a PSD permit in 2018 and 2022 and that the Refinery is neither new nor has undergone a “modification” as defined in the Federal New Source Review (NSR) program.

Upon completing a plain language review of the CAA and review of the Refinery’s history, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with PHRT’s case that the U.S. EPA had exceeded their authority under the CAA. In the final decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit states that the language of the CAA is unambiguous when defining a new construction or modification and if Congress had intended for the PSD program to apply to restarted facilities, the applicability would have been clearly defined in a similar manner as it was in 42 U.S.C. § 7491 (Visibility protection for Federal Class I areas).

Therefore, the court determined that U.S. EPA’s Policy exceeds the limits of the PSD program by classifying restarted facilities as new facilities.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the November 2022 final determination letter issued by U.S. EPA and determined that PHRT is not required to obtain a PSD permit prior to restarting the Refinery. For other facilities, this decision means that restarting a facility is not an action that requires a PSD applicability evaluation. However, the results of this ruling are currently only applicable within the Third Circuit (e.g., Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).  This landmark decision will likely have a much broader impact on the implementation (or lack thereof) of U.S. EPA’s Policy. However, U.S. EPA is considering an appeal, and restarting a previously idle major source in an environmental justice area is still likely to receive a higher level of scrutiny.

If you should have any questions regarding the reversal of U.S. EPA’s Reactivation Policy and how this decision may impact your facility directly, please contact me at sarner@all4inc.com or 678.293.9433.

Equity in Virginia Permitting: A Focus on Environmental Justice

The Commonwealth of Virginia (VA or Commonwealth) enacted the Virginia Environmental Justice (EJ) Act (Act) in 2020, making a VA policy to, “… promote environmental justice and ensure that it is carried out throughout the Commonwealth, with a focus on environmental justice and fence line communities.” Later in April 2021, VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) established the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ).

VA DEQ released a draft document titled “Guidance Memo No. 23-XXXX – Environmental Justice in the Permitting Process” (Guidance Memo) for informal comment period, which ended May 1, 2023. The Guidance Memo outlines how VA DEQ will ensure meaningful involvement and fair treatment in environmental permitting, considering the challenges posed by the Act’s requirements and the identification of a large portion of the Commonwealth as EJ Communities. The Guidance Memo aims to enhance transparency, economic development, and environmental protection, and it should be integrated into ongoing efforts to facilitate permit tracking and access to information for permit applicants, the public, and stakeholders.

Environmental Justice Communities in Virginia

All permit actions, including general permits and permits by rule, will be assessed to determine if they are situated within an EJ Community, and this information will be recorded in the VA DEQ database for tracking compliance and inventory purposes. Virginia EJ Communities are mapped (available online here) as census block groups (CBGs) where either 30% or more of the people have a low annual household income (based on the local area’s median income), where the population of people of color is higher than in the whole region, or where the community has special historical or cultural significance. In total, 53% of the total geographic area of Virginia, containing 59% of the population of the state is identified as in EJ communities.

Permits of Concern

The first step in determining if a permitting action is a “permit of concern” is evaluating if the proposed action is located within an EJ Community. Due to the extensive coverage of EJ Communities across the Commonwealth and the high volume of permit actions processed annually, if a proposed action is not located in an EJ Community, the information will be recorded, and no further evaluation will be conducted.

If the proposed action is in an EJ Community, permits of concern for air, water, and land are then identified based on the following criteria:

1. Air Permits of Concern: Construction of a new major source or major modification to an existing major source or to existing types of fossil fuel-fired facilities.
2. Water Permits of Concern: New or increased water withdrawals from the ground or surface, or affecting Virginia Water Protection wetlands; new or increased major municipal or expanded industrial discharges.
3. Land Permits of Concern: New or expanded solid waste landfills, hazardous waste facilities, or materials recovery/transfer facilities.

If a community is concerned about a proposed action that is not identified as a permit of concern by the above criteria, VA DEQ will consider meaningful involvement and fair treatment on a case-by-case basis.

Permits of concern in EJ Communities will undergo additional evaluations to better assess the impact of the proposed action on the already disproportionately affected communities. For air permits of concern, air modelling will be conducted to ensure compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Guidance Memo sets up Impact Thresholds for criteria pollutants and standards for disproportionate share of any negative environmental consequences.

For water permits of concern, a water quality statewide impairment evaluation was conducted. The DEQ Water Quality Assessment program identified the number of impaired waterbodies in every National Hydrography Dataset Hydrologic Unit Code 12 (NHD HUC12). The statewide evaluation intersected the number of impairments in watersheds to EJ Communities determined by the CBG and compared this number to non-EJ Community CBGs. A map of this intersection analysis is located online here. The results of this analysis showed that EJ Community CBGs fall within watersheds with five or more impairments compared to approximately 3.8 impairments for non-EJ Community CBGs.

For land permits of concern, an intersection analysis for EJ Community CBGs located within a 5-mile radius of active Municipal Solid Waste Permits and of active coal combustion residual (CCR) Solid Waste Permits was performed. The results showed a higher proportion of these permits in EJ Community CBGs, confirming that the EJ Communities in these locations may experience a potential disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences.

These evaluations allow VA DEQ to identify areas with a potential disproportionate share of any negative environmental consequence. Due to this, for any proposed permit of concern located in these defined areas, VA DEQ will address equitable consideration, which is consideration based on a moral, not legal, obligation.

Defining Meaningful Involvement and Fair Treatment

Meaningful involvement, in the context of the Guidance Memo, refers to providing opportunities for marginalized community residents to participate and have their concerns and perspectives considered in the decision-making process for practices that may affect their health and wellbeing.

OEJ Coordinators, in collaboration with VA DEQ regional and division directors, program managers, permit staff, and the Communications Office, will engage with community contacts to assess their interest and concerns regarding proposed permits of concern. Within the Guidance Memo is a process toolkit OEJ Coordinators will follow to achieve meaningful involvement. The toolkit shows the outreach opportunities OEJ Coordinators will make for each step in the permitting process. Outreach will be done through networking, informational meetings, social media, and ongoing communication with community contacts.

Fair treatment, in the context of the Guidance Memo, refers to equitable consideration so that no group suffers more from harmful environmental effects caused by industries, government actions, or businesses. VA DEQ will address fair treatment within its authority for any proposed permit of concern located in an EJ Community with a potential disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences. The goal is to actively engage with permit applicants, encouraging them to take additional measures and involve the community to minimize or mitigate potential impacts.

VA DEQ will document their engagement with applicants, the evaluation of potential disproportionate impacts, and meaningful involvement efforts in the permit record.

Additional information can be found at VADEQ’s Environmental Justice program on their website at  http://.deq.virginia.gov/our-programs/environmental-justice. If you would like to discuss the implications of Virginia’s Guidance Memo, please contact Abigail Frank at afrank@all4inc.com or (771) 208-2665.

Cabin Air Safety Act Proposed Rule

Air travel is a crucial part of our modern lives, allowing us to connect with loved ones, explore new destinations, and conduct business across the globe. However, there are concerns surrounding the quality of cabin air and its potential impact on the health and safety of both flight crews and passengers. To address these concerns, lawmakers have proposed the Cabin Air Safety Act of 2023, a groundbreaking legislation aimed at protecting individuals from toxic fumes in aircraft cabins. The link to review this act is here. In this blog post, we will explore the key aspects of the proposed rule and its significance in enhancing air travel safety.

Understanding the issue

Modern aircraft rely on a complex ventilation system to provide breathable air in the cabin during flights. However, in certain instances, this system can become compromised, leading to the introduction of potentially harmful contaminants. The most common issue arises from the engine bleed air. Bleed air is extracted from the engines and distributed to other systems throughout the aircraft through a series of ducts. Sometimes this air can be contaminated by engine oil or other chemicals. Breathing in these toxic fumes over an extended period can result in short-term and long-term health effects, including respiratory problems, neurological issues, and organ damage.

The proposed rule: cabin air safety act

Recognizing the urgency of the matter, lawmakers have introduced the Cabin Air Safety Act as a proactive measure to address the risks associated with toxic cabin air. The proposed rule seeks to establish comprehensive regulations to protect the health and well-being of flight crews and passengers alike. Here are some key elements of the proposed legislation:

1. Mandatory Reporting and Investigation: The Cabin Air Safety Act requires airlines to report any incidents involving toxic fumes within the aircraft cabin to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is required to develop a standardized form and system for reporting incidents involving smoke or fumes. The FAA would then be responsible for investigating these incidents to identify potential sources of contamination and take appropriate measures to prevent future occurrences.
2. Improved Air Monitoring Systems: Air carriers are to install and operate onboard detectors and other air quality monitoring equipment situated in the air supply system to enable pilots and maintenance technicians to locate the sources of air supply contamination, including carbon monoxide. The legislation aims to enhance the monitoring systems on aircraft to provide real-time detection and alerts in the event of cabin air contamination. This proactive approach will enable immediate action to be taken to safeguard the health of those on board.
3. Training and Education: The Cabin Air Safety Act emphasizes the importance of educating flight crews and passengers about the risks associated with toxic fumes and the necessary precautions to take. By providing comprehensive training programs, airlines can empower their staff to respond effectively in case of an incident and create awareness among passengers.
4. Research and Development: The proposed rule allocates resources for further research into cabin air quality, toxic fumes, and their potential health effects. By advancing our understanding of these issues, policymakers can make informed decisions regarding regulations and preventive measures.

Significance of cabin air safety act

The Cabin Air Safety Act represents a significant step forward in prioritizing the well-being of flight crews and passengers. By establishing mandatory reporting, investigation, and improved monitoring systems, the proposed rule aims to create a safer cabin environment and reduce the risk of exposure to toxic fumes. Additionally, the emphasis on training and education ensures that all individuals involved in air travel have the necessary knowledge and tools to respond effectively in case of an incident.

Furthermore, the allocation of resources for research and development will contribute to a better understanding of cabin air quality and the identification of effective preventive measures. This knowledge will inform future regulations and guidelines, leading to continuous improvements in air travel safety.

Significance of good air quality

This blog focused on the air quality of a plane’s cabin however, we can relate this information to indoor air quality as well. Maintaining good indoor air quality is crucial for the health and well-being of occupants. Poor air quality can lead to various health issues such as allergies, respiratory problems, asthma, headaches, fatigue, and even more severe conditions in the long term. Good indoor air quality promotes a healthier indoor environment, reduces the risk of illnesses, and improves overall comfort. Much like the air systems in the cabin of a plane, we can use monitoring systems to collect data to measure the overall quality of the indoor air. A good time to request sampling is when there are signs of untreated water intrusion. Or when some employees mention they only have allergies at work.  ALL4 Inc has a wide array of services that can help improve indoor air quality.  ALL4 Inc has the resources and ability to conduct monitoring and sampling, interpret the results, and make suggestions for improvement based on those results.  ALL4 can also provide training and provide procedure development from one of our many subject matter experts on the Environmental Health and Safety team.

Conclusion

The Cabin Air Safety Act represents a significant milestone in the ongoing efforts to protect flight crews and passengers from the potential health risks associated with toxic cabin air. By proposing comprehensive regulations, the legislation seeks to establish a safer environment on board aircraft, improve reporting and investigation procedures, enhance monitoring systems, and prioritize education and training. This proposed rule is a testament to the commitment of policymakers and the aviation industry to ensure the well-being of all individuals involved in air travel. As we move forward, it is crucial to support these initiatives and work together to make air travel even safer and more secure for everyone. The act has only been introduced. Consider reaching out to your elected officials and requesting they support the Cabin Air Safety Act of 2023.

If you have questions or concerns about the hazards of toxic fumes in relation to cabin air and you’d like to discuss them, feel free to contact your ALL4 Project Manager or Daniel Rice at Drice@all4inc.com.

Michigan Court Rejects State PFAS Regulations – Update

Updated September 2023: A short 9 months after the State of Michigan Court of Claims’ decision, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) failed to meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 (APA), Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 24.201 et seq., when promulgating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) drinking water standards. The lower court’s stay on its own decision allowed for appellate review, which provided an alternate perspective from the higher court, rather than additional context or nuance. The initial ruling was clear that under Section 5 of the Safe Drinking Water Act [MCL 324.20120a(5)], the groundwater cleanup criterion automatically defaulted to the state drinking water standards when established.

While the rulings may seem decisive and clear, in an otherwise murky topic, the question at hand was not whether EGLE had legal standing to promulgate the standards; rather, how it did so. The bottom line in both rulings is that these drinking water standards were struck down by an administrative technicality – not by their standalone merit or necessity.

Industry and the public should anticipate that EGLE has learned its lesson during this minor setback for the Department’s larger regulatory aspirations around PFAS, which it is sure not to repeat in the near future.

Original post from January 2023: In November of 2022, the State of Michigan Court of Claims ruled in favor of the 3M Company (3M), agreeing that the State issued a deficient regulatory impact statement when enacting drinking water standards for seven perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The court stated that the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) failed to consider the cost of regulating these PFAS when publishing the standards. As a result, the decision effectively nullified the rules. However, the court stayed its decision, which delays the ruling until the court’s final judgment is entered. The staying of this decision makes way for what is sure to be a lengthy appeals process.

The regulatory landscape is constantly changing around PFAS and the technology to address them is rapidly evolving. This motivated EGLE, at the direction of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, to implement the rules quickly. The drinking water rules would require quarterly sampling and routine monitoring of PFAS, which EGLE estimates could affect 2,700 public water supplies. While 3M doesn’t operate any drinking water systems in Michigan, the company was impacted by the de jure nature of the drinking water standards – effectively extending these drinking water standards to groundwater as well. EGLE recognized this and clarified that it would address groundwater standards, including the costs to businesses, separately under a Part 201 rulemaking process.

While EGLE deferred making a determination of the cost to businesses and industry, the additional expense imposed as a result of the new rules could be significant. For example, a New Hampshire estimate used by EGLE stated that PFAS testing comes in at an estimated rate of $600 per sample, which includes both sample collection and subsequent laboratory analysis. In addition, the financial burden of the rules includes installation and maintenance of treatment technologies, some of which is already being assumed by various municipalities around the state. According to the court, estimates of the benefits of the rules fell short, as EGLE did not produce any meaningful summary of cost savings to the public as a result of the rules, rather it deferred to there being a ‘likely’ benefit from the reduction in PFAS exposure to the general population. It did, however, estimate that approximately 75% of the Michigan population who receive publicly supplied drinking water would realize health benefits. Public support for the rules was high following a public comment period of a month and a half.

In conclusion, the court determined that the regulatory-impact statement for the rules is deficient but noted that despite the temporary stay of these rules, the federal government’s recent actions to set maximum contaminant levels for PFAS may result in 3M’s challenge becoming inconsequential.

ALL4 will continue to monitor the PFAS landscape in Michigan and at the federal level. Please contact Cody Fridley or Kayla Turney at CFridley@all4inc.com and KTurney@all4inc.com, respectively if you have any questions or would like to discuss.