Batteries: Best Practices for Safe Use, Storage, and Disposal

Battery Primer:

Batteries and their uses have evolved to become an even bigger part of our daily life. They are particularly useful if not essential to our daily communication, productivity and even our commute.

Because of the increased use of electrically powered products including phones, tablets, laptops, and tools such as tracking, monitoring and diagnostic handheld devices, batteries are everywhere. This means that when the battery can no longer power our devices, we must recharge, remove, replace, and even dispose of, or hopefully, recycle them. We often can find these discarded “spent” batteries in our garages, workshops, office desks, and in kitchen drawers.

Safety first! Used, spent batteries represent both physical and environmental hazards when not handled, stored, or discarded properly. For this reason, we must take the time to learn what type of battery we are using and what steps we can take to ensure that our batteries are stored and recycled safely.

What is a battery? The common definition of a battery is a device that converts chemical energy contained within its active materials directly into electric energy by means of an electrochemical oxidation-reduction (redox) reaction. This type of reaction involves the transfer of electrons from one material to another via an electric circuit.

 A battery cell is the electrochemical unit used to generate or store electric energy. A battery is one or more of these cells connected in series, or parallel, or both, depending on the desired output voltage and capacity.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Tittle 40, part 273, defines a battery as “a device consisting of one or more electrically connected electrochemical cells which is designed to receive, store, and deliver electric energy. An electrochemical cell is a system consisting of an anode, cathode, and an electrolyte, plus such connections (electrical and mechanical) as may be needed to allow the cell to deliver or receive electrical energy. The term battery also includes an intact, unbroken battery from which the electrolyte has been removed.”

Battery Types

There are several different types of batteries that provide the storage and delivery of electrical energy for different applications. They are classified into two distinct categories: Primary and Secondary.

These different types of batteries can be further described by the chemistry present within the cell. All batteries, when discarded, must be handled, recycled and/or disposed of appropriately based on their condition (e.g., damaged or undamaged) and their chemistry.

Primary batteries are a single use battery that provide electrical current until the “charge” or stored energy is depleted. Typically, primary batteries have a long shelf life and provide a high energy storage capacity.

Primary battery chemistries include:

• Alkaline Batteries:
  • Zinc Manganese Dioxide (MnO₂), Zinc Carbon (CO₃Zn), and Zinc Chloride (ZnCl₂) chemistries are often found in your TV remote or standard flashlight. They contain a manganese dioxide cathode, a zinc anode, and use potassium hydroxide, ammonium chloride or zinc chloride electrolytes. A typical cell can produce 1.2-1.4 volts (V).
  • Silver Oxide (Ag₂O), (typically small circular batteries resembling a button). Silver oxide batteries are often used in small circuits like watches, calculators, or medical devices. They are constructed of a silver oxide cathode, a zinc anode and use a potassium hydroxide electrolyte. A typical cell can produce 1.5 V.
  • Zinc-air batteries (Zn/MnO₂), (typically small cell “air activated” batteries). Zinc-air batteries often have a cover or sticker attached that once removed will allow oxygen to activate the battery. These batteries provide high energy and are often inexpensive. They employ an oxygen cathode, a zinc anode and use a potassium hydroxide electrolyte. They are also manufactured in large formats for specific industrial applications. A typical cell can produce 1.6 V.
• Lithium metal batteries; (Often used to power digital cameras and medical devices. Large lithium metals batteries are commonly used in military applications and oil exploration). Lithium metal batteries are constructed of a manganese dioxide cathode and a lithium metal anode. There are various electrolytic salts used in lithium primary batteries including thionyl chloride (Li-SOCl₂), iron disulfide (Li-FeS₂), sulfur dioxide (Li-SO₂) and many others. These batteries have the highest energy density of any battery and therefore should always be handled with care and respect. A typical cell can produce almost 4 V (at a high discharge rate!).

Secondary batteries are rechargeable and may be “reenergized” many times before they begin to lose the ability hold an electrical charge. Secondary batteries often provide better output capabilities but may not store energy for as long as a primary battery.

Secondary battery chemistries include:

• Lithium-Ion batteries, Lithium-ion batteries are comprised of several different sub chemistries. They are constructed from a Lithium salt cathode, lithiated graphite anode and generally have a lithium hexafluorophosphate or “LiPF₆” electrolyte. These electrolytes contain organic solvents and may be flammable. The typical Li-ion cell can produce up to 3.7 volts. The cathode lithium salts can include:
  • lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO₂),
  • lithium manganese oxide (LiMn₂O₄),
  • lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (LiNiMnCoO₂),
  • lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO₄),
  • lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (LiNiCoAlO₂).
• Nickel Metal Hydride, or NiMh batteries are commonly used in small rechargeable handheld devices and were often found in early generation cell phones. Today MiMh batteries power many hybrid electric vehicles. NiMh batteries are constructed of a nickel oxide/hydroxide cathode, a metal hydride anode, and a potassium hydroxide electrolyte. The typical voltage is 1.2 volts.
• Nickel Cadmium batteries, NiCad batteries are constructed from a nickel oxide/hydroxide cathode, a cadmium anode and potassium hydroxide electrolyte. NiCad batteries, once common in rechargeable power tools and early cell phones, are manufactured in small numbers today and have been replaced with other battery chemistries. Most countries have banned the use of cadmium in consumer products due to its toxicity. A NiCad battery cell can produce 1.2V.
• Lead acid batteries. One of the most common and oldest battery technologies, lead acid batteries have been around commercially for well over one hundred years! Lead acid batteries are constructed of a lead dioxide cathode, a lead metal anode, and sulfuric acid electrolyte. Although the construction materials are toxic, lead acid batteries are one of the most recycled commodities on earth. These batteries can be found in all sizes from a small D cell all the way to large industrial batteries that weigh thousands of pounds.

All batteries regardless of the chemistry or type contain stored energy. When placed in a circuit, they can power many types of devices and processes. This also means that when handled, stored, or disposed of improperly they can create an unwanted circuit that may result in sparks or the dangerous evolution of heat. In the presence of combustible materials this can cause a fire!

Safe practices:

• Never attempt to re-charge a primary These are not designed to accept external sources of energy; some battery chemistries may react or even explode if excessive current is applied to the terminals.
• Never overcharge a battery. Always monitor for signs of swelling or overheating while charging.
• Never leave your battery powered device charging unattended for long periods of time.
• Always handle batteries with caution, avoiding crushing or puncturing the battery case or cells.
• Store batteries away from heat or open flame and never dispose of your batteries in a fire.
• When storing batteries always protect (insulate) the terminals. This will preserve unused batteries and will prevent an unintentional circuit. Insulation/isolation can be accomplished by taping the terminals with non-conductive adhesives, placing the batteries individually into a plastic bag or container, or orienting the batteries in a manner that prevents the terminals from coming into contact with other batteries or metals that could create an unintended circuit and generate sparks or heat that could cause a fire.
• Return used batteries to the purchase point or nearest household collection site.
• Never throw batteries into the trash or curbside recycle bin. This could result in a fire on the collection vehicle or where refuse is sorted and collected. Most municipalities prohibit curb side collection of batteries because of the fire risk associated with them.

Regulations:

The following federal regulations provide specific requirements for generators and transporters of spent batteries:

CFR Title 40-Protection of the Environment

• 273 Standards for Universal Waste Management
• 266.80 Subpart G – Spent Lean Acid Batteries Being Reclaimed.

CFR Title 49 Transportation

• 173.159 Batteries Wet
• 173.159a Exceptions for non-spillable batteries
• 173.185 Lithium cells and batteries

Some states have unique regulations and require collection and recycling at pre-qualified facilities. You should ask your local CUPA, Fire Department, or Heath Department to direct you to your local collection location before disposing of spent batteries.

ALL4 has a team of experts familiar with all aspects of battery safety, management, and recycling. ALL4 provides regulatory guidance, training, written procedures, compliance evaluations and more to help you with your regulatory needs. If you have questions about batteries, reach out to Paul Johnson at pjohnson@all4inc.com or 346.250.5780.

Final Revisions to SOCMI NESHAPs and NSPS and the NESHAPs for Group I and II Polymers and Resins

On April 9, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) released a pre-publication version of final revisions to several National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) applicable to facilities in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) and Group I and II Polymers and Resins (P&R I and II) Industries. These rules include 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart F, G, H, and I (the HON), Subparts U and W (P&R I and II), and 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts VVa, VVb, III, IIIa, NNN, NNNa, RRR, and RRRa.

Chris Ward, a Technical Manager here at ALL4, wrote a comprehensive 4 The Record article covering the changes to the rules that were proposed  in April 2023. For the most part, U.S. EPA finalized the provisions as proposed, and made only a few changes. This article provides a summary of the major changes from the proposal that U.S. EPA included in the final rules.

Storage Vessels

In the proposed rule, U.S. EPA indicated that they intended to remove the pressure vessel exemption from the HON and P&R I such that pressure vessels with an operating pressure of greater than 204.9 kilopascals (kPa) would no longer be exempt from the storage vessel control requirements. U.S. EPA is clarifying in the final rule that only pressure vessels that would otherwise be classified as a group 1 storage vessel would be subject to control and as proposed, U.S. EPA is finalizing changes to lower the group 1 storage vessel volume and maximum true vapor pressure control thresholds.

U.S. EPA has also finalized the provisions that require owners and operators to control emissions from the use of sweep air, purge air, or inert blankets at internal floating roof tanks. However, in a change from the original proposal, control is only required if the use of the purge, sweep, or blanket results in continuous emissions of one pound per hour (lb/yr) or more of total organic HAP.

Sources of Ethylene Oxide and Chloroprene

Two important changes to note are related to the requirements for emissions of ethylene oxide (HON) and chloroprene (P&R I). In the proposed HON rule, U.S. EPA included a restriction on the mass of ethylene oxide that could be routed to a flare in any given year. For P&R I, the Agency proposed that site-wide emissions of chloroprene from P&R I facilities could not exceed 3.8 tons per year. However, U.S. EPA did not finalize either requirement.

Fenceline Monitoring

U.S. EPA’s proposal to require fenceline monitoring of six target analytes at HON and P&R I facilities took center stage in the proposed rules and U.S. EPA is finalizing the fenceline monitoring provisions with a few key changes from proposal. Three major changes are described below.

First, the Agency is clarifying that the fenceline monitoring requirements apply if the “affected source” (instead of the “site”) uses, produces, stores, or emits one or more of the target analytes. The use of the term “site” in the proposed rule created confusion as to whether use, production, storage, or emissions of one of the analytes outside of the HON or P&R I affected source would trigger monitoring requirements. It’s important to note, however, that U.S. EPA makes it clear in the preamble to the proposed rule that if a facility determines an exceedance of the action level is under their control, they are obligated to address the emissions, regardless of whether they originate from the HON or P&R I affected source.

Next, with the exception of P&R I sources producing neoprene and emitting chloroprene, U.S. EPA is allowing sources more time than proposed to begin data collection. Most sources now have two years instead of one to begin data collection, and three years to comply with the root cause and corrective action requirements. P&R I sources producing neoprene must begin monitoring for chloroprene within 90 or 150 days of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register (U.S. EPA states 90 days in the preamble, but also states 150 days elsewhere in the preamble and in the regulatory text included in the prepublication version).

Finally, U.S. EPA added provisions for reduced sampling frequency in the proposed rule for all compounds except ethylene oxide and chloroprene. If an individual sampling site is consistently 10 times below the action level, the sampling frequency can be reduced from either 14 days or 5 days to monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually.

NSPS Standards

U.S. EPA is finalizing the new and revised NSPS as proposed with a few changes from proposal. First, U.S. EPA is finalizing Subpart IIIa, NNNa, and RRRa as proposed without the total resource effectiveness (TRE) concept for determining which vent streams must be controlled, but in the final rules, U.S. EPA added a mass-based control threshold criterion to Subparts IIIa and NNNa. Second, U.S. EPA is incorporating changes to correct errors in the definition of “capital expenditure” in Subpart VVa, as noted by commenters.

What’s Next?

We are currently awaiting publication of the final rules in the Federal Register which will begin the compliance timeline clock. Existing sources generally have three years to comply with the non-risk related changes to the NESHAP, but sources must begin compliance with the fenceline monitoring data collection and ethylene oxide control requirements in two years. P&R I sources of chloroprene must comply with the fenceline monitoring requirement and chloroprene control requirements within 150 days (see note above about U.S. EPA’s mention of 90 days in the preamble). New sources (those for which construction or reconstruction began after April 25, 2023) must be in compliance with the new NESHAP requirements 60 days after publication or upon startup, whichever is later. Sources that began construction, reconstruction, or modification of an affected source after proposal of the new NSPS regulations must be in compliance with those provisions within 60 days after publication of the final rules or upon startup, whichever is later.

We suggest facilities start reviewing the regulatory changes now to understand the differences from what was proposed and to begin planning for any capital investments and process improvements necessary to come into compliance with the new requirements. It’s a good idea to reach out to your industry associations and your ALL4 project manager if you need assistance understanding the new rule requirements. ALL4 can work with your facility to identify applicable regulatory changes, develop options for process and control changes, scope required monitoring system upgrades, and design and implement a fenceline monitoring program.

ALL4 is hosting three upcoming in-person workshops for regulated industry professionals that will provide an opportunity to learn more about recent chemical industry rule changes (including updates to the Risk Management Program rules and the recently revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM_2.5). These workshops will be a combination of presentations and group discussions and will be held in Cherry Hill, NJ, on May 2, Columbus, OH, on May 7, and Houston, TX, on May 9. Check out the registration link for more information on the workshops.

Update on Protocol Gas Certification for use in Source Measurements

On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) issued a memorandum addressing “Accepted Use of Protocol Gases that are Recognized for Regulatory Use.” The memo was authored by staff members from both the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling and was addressed to Regional Directors in the Offices of Air and Radiation and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

“Protocol Gases” are specialty gas mixtures used for calibration of air measurement systems. U.S. EPA developed a series of specifications for gases to be used in calibration or other quality activities associated with emissions and ambient gas measurements.

Bottom Line: For source applications and monitoring, mixtures of sulfur dioxide in air and nitrogen dioxide in nitrogen can be used as Protocol Gases. In short, for these applications, there are no issues with using these gases, and they can be acquired and used as they have historically been acquired and used.

Longer Version: In February 2022, U.S. EPA released a memo noting that gases prepared with sulfur dioxide in air, or nitrogen dioxide in nitrogen did not have enough long-term stability for use demonstrating compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under 40 CFR Parts 50 and 58. According to that memo, these gases could not be certified as “protocol gases.” As a result, specialty gas providers were not documenting these gases as meeting the appropriate specifications and end users were in a bit of a quandary. The requirements to perform testing or to monitor emissions had not changed. Yet, the calibration gases that had been used were unavailable; or more correctly, the vendors could not certify the gases as meeting U.S. EPA’s specifications.

Unfortunately for everyone involved, the language of the 2022 memorandum did not discern between ambient measurements and source measurements. While there is truly a technical issue with gases prepared at levels appropriate for ambient measurements, there is no stability issue for gases prepared at levels appropriate for source emissions. The new memorandum (March 2024) clarifies that the “protocol gases” can be prepared and used for source measurement and monitoring under 40 CFR Parts 59, 60, 61, 63, and 65.

An Eye to the Future: The March 2024 memo goes on to recognize that the Protocol Gas Program needs to be updated. U.S. EPA intends to take the necessary time to review and update regulations, and to provide appropriate clarity and transparency to the guidance documents. They have set up a Protocol Gas mailbox (protocol-gas-program@epa.gov) to respond to any questions or comments while they work through the updates.

ALL4 will continue to monitor this situation and provide updates as appropriate. If you have any questions or concerns on this topic, please feel free to reach out at:

Gene Youngerman: eyoungerman@all4inc.com, 512.649.2571.

CISWI and OSWI Federal Plans Proposed Consent Decree

On April 5, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published a notice of a proposed consent decree regarding U.S. EPA’s failure to issue final Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the emissions guidelines for existing facilities under the commercial and industrial solid waste incinerator (CISWI) standards at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DDDD and the other solid waste incinerators (OSWI) standards at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart FFFF. These FIPs would cover subject facilities in states that did not submit state-specific plan for either source category or that submitted a state-specific plan that was not approved by U.S. EPA.

Background

A CISWI unit is defined in the emissions guidelines as an operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility that combusts solid waste (as defined in 40 CFR Part 241). Similarly, an OSWI unit is defined as either a very small municipal waste combustion unit (i.e., any municipal waste combustion unit that has the capacity to combust less than 35 tons per day of municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel) or an institutional waste incineration unit (i.e., a combustion unit that combusts solid waste that is generated and combusted at any institutional facility using controlled flame combustion in an enclosed, distinct operating unit without energy recovery with the exception of heat recovery).

U.S. EPA originally published major revisions to the CISWI emissions guidelines in 2011 and has subsequently made additional revisions as recently as April 2019. A proposed FIP for the CISWI emissions guidelines was issued in 2017, but a final plan was not promulgated by U.S. EPA.  The OSWI FIP is even further behind, with the emissions guidelines being promulgated in December 2005 and no proposed FIP. The most recent rulemaking action related to the OSWI standards is an April 17, 2024 rule that removed the Title V permit requirement for certain air curtain incinerators.

What does the proposed consent decree require?

Under the proposed consent decree, U.S. EPA would be required to sign a final CISWI FIP no later than September 16, 2024. U.S. EPA would also be required to sign a proposed OSWI FIP no later than June 30, 2026 with a follow-up finalization of the Federal Plan no later than June 30, 2027.  Written comments on the proposed consent decree are due to U.S. EPA by May 5, 2024.

What does this mean?

This proposed consent decree will only affect facilities located in states that do not already have a U.S. EPA-approved state plan (approximately 10 states will be subject to CISWI FIP requirements).  This signifies a tangible step towards promulgating final federal requirements for both existing CISWI and OSWI in states not currently implementing these rules and for companies with these units, warrants review and comment of the FIP requirements as they are published.

ALL4 will keep you updated on the status of the proposed rules, changes, and how they will affect your environmental compliance.  In the meantime, if you have any specific questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me at scunningham@all4inc.com.

U.S. EPA Proposes Revisions to the Secondary NAAQS

On April 11, 2024 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) issued its proposed revisions to the secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The relatively minor proposed changes, published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2024, only affect the secondary standards for sulfur dioxide (SO₂), retaining the secondary standards for nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) and particulate matter (PM). Primary NAAQS protect public health, while secondary NAAQS protect public welfare, protecting damage to crops, vegetation, and animals, as well as decreased visibility.

What is in the proposal?

In the proposal, U.S. EPA is recommending the replacement of the current secondary NAAQS for SO₂, which is set at 500 parts per billion (ppb) averaged over a 3-hour daily maximum, with a new secondary standard based on an annual average in the range of 10-15 ppb [26-39 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m³)] averaged over 3 years. Further, U.S. EPA in the proposal suggests that compliance with the current primary 1-hour SO₂ NAAQS, set at 75 ppb (196 mg/m³) should also satisfy the proposed annual secondary standard. Therefore, no additional emissions reductions would be required to address the secondary NAAQS beyond those already required to meet the 1-hour SO₂ primary NAAQS. U.S. EPA is also not proposing any revisions to the national monitoring network, believing that the current network, which still typically records annual concentrations of SO₂ as was required when the primary annual SO₂ NAAQS, which was revoked in 2010, was in effect.

Additionally, U.S. EPA has proposed to retain the current secondary annual NAAQS for NO₂ at 53 ppb while taking comments on revising the level to a range of 35-40 ppb averaged over 3 years, and to retain the existing secondary annual PM_2.5 NAAQS at 15 mg/m³ while taking comments on revising the standard to 12 mg/m³.

The agency will take comments on the proposal for 60 days, meaning the comment period ends on June 14, 2024. In the Fact Sheet for the proposal, U.S. EPA outlines alternate values and potential forms of the standard on which they request comment. U.S. EPA is required by consent decree to finalize the rule by December 10, 2024

What are the impacts of the proposed rule?

The proposed rule as written would appear to disappoint environmentalists who sought to use the reconsideration of secondary NAAQS to circumvent the timing of the review of the corresponding primary NAAQS for these pollutants and install more restrictive standards. Some groups were pushing for secondary NAAQS that were more stringent than the primary NAAQS, something that has never occurred and would potentially complicate implementation of the revised NAAQS.

The proposal is also less stringent than what was recommended by U.S. EPA staff, and considerably weaker than what was suggested by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Not only had CASAC suggested significantly lower levels, but also potentially a new approach where the limits would be based on deposition in waterbodies.

U.S. EPA’s staff recommendations were:

• SO₂: 5-15 ppb annual average
• NO₂: 35-40 ppb (down from the current 53 ppb), averaged over 3 years
• PM₅: 12 mg/m³

Meanwhile, CASAC’s recommendations if U.S. EPA were to continue with ambient air limits and not standards based on deposition were:

• SO₂: Annual in the range of 10-15 ppb
• NO₂: 10-20 ppb
• PM₅: 6-10 mg/m³ and 24-hour in the range of 20-35 mg/m³.

What Do these Proposed Revisions Mean?

Ultimately the proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, will have limited impact on industry and require no action. However, there are a number of alternatives that U.S. EPA is requesting comment on that could result in more restrictive standards should the proposed rule be revised based on those comments.

If you have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed revisions or need help developing comments on the proposal, feel free to contact your ALL4 Project Manager or Rich Hamel. We’ll continue to monitor developments in this and report as news develops. You can also sign up for one of our complementary PM_2.5 workshops to learn more about the latest NAAQS happenings and how they may affect your facility.

Finalized Amendments to NESHAP for Commercial Sterilization Facilities

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has finalized revisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart O – Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities (Subpart O) following its residual risk and technology review (RTR). Amendments were initially proposed on April 13, 2023. The final rule was signed on March 1, 2024 and published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2024. This article provides a summary of the significant changes to Subpart O as described in the final rule.

Title V Permitting Obligation

Subpart O applies to both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. In the April 13, 2023 Federal Register notice, U.S. EPA proposed that facilities subject to Subpart O be required to obtain a Title V operating permit, regardless of whether they are a major source or area source of HAPs. U.S. EPA did not finalize this requirement, citing the lack of other Federal requirements that apply to commercial sterilization facilities and the robust requirements of finalized Subpart O. Area sources of HAP emissions remain exempt from the obligation to obtain a Title V operating permit under Subpart O.

Revision of Emissions Standards for Affected Sources

The amended rule contains new ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions reduction standards for sterilization chamber vents (SCVs) and aeration room vents (ARVs). Previously, facilities using less than 10 tons per year (tpy) of EtO were not required to control EtO emissions from ARVs, and facilities using less than 1 tpy of EtO were not required to control EtO emissions from SCVs. Under the amended rule, all sterilization facilities are subject to EtO emissions reduction standards for SCVs and ARVs. Emissions standards for SCVs and existing ARVs have changed slightly from the proposed rule, with standards being more stringent in the final rule for facilities using greater than 30 tpy of EtO.

Previously under Subpart O, facilities using greater than 10 tpy of EtO had the option of complying with a maximum outlet concentration standard of 1 part per million (ppm) of EtO from ARVs. This option has been removed in the final rule, and all emissions standards for ARVs are on an emissions reduction basis. An affected source with a low inlet EtO concentration at the inlet to its control device might struggle to meet an emissions reduction standard individually. However, the final rule contains provisions allowing for calculation of compliance with standards for combined streams or a site-wide emissions limitation.

The amended rule also adds emissions standards for chamber exhaust vents (CEVs). The proposed hourly mass emissions rate standard for CEVs at facilities using greater than 10 tpy of EtO was not incorporated into the final rule. All CEV emissions standards are on an emissions reduction basis.

U.S. EPA has defined Group 1 room air emissions and Group 2 room air emissions as two additional affected sources under Subpart O. Group 1 room air emissions consist of emissions from indoor EtO storage, EtO dispensing, vacuum pump operations, and pre-aeration handling of sterilized material. Group 2 room air emissions are defined as emissions from post-aeration handling of sterilized material. Both Group 1 and Group 2 room air emissions are subject to emissions standards under the final rule. The proposed hourly mass emissions rate standards for room air emissions were not incorporated into the final rule, in favor of emissions reduction standards or limits on sterilization chamber EtO concentration before the chamber can be opened.

Removal of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Exemptions

U.S. EPA has removed exemptions from certain provisions of Subpart O during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). The removal of the SSM exemptions is consistent with U.S. EPA’s broader stance that standards under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act are required to apply continuously. U.S. EPA has not established alternate standards for periods of SSM in the final rule.

Addition of Continuous Emissions Monitoring System Requirements

The final rule adds a requirement for facilities subject to Subpart O to demonstrate continuous compliance with applicable emissions reduction standards using an EtO continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS). While U.S. EPA initially proposed that facilities could demonstrate compliance using either an annual compliance demonstration and operating limits or EtO CEMS, the EtO CEMS requirement under the final rule applies to all commercial sterilization facilities except those using less than 100 pounds per year (lb/yr) of EtO. For additional information on the requirements for EtO CEMS, please look out for an upcoming ALL4 article by Matt Carideo.

Alternative Compliance Demonstration Requirements for Very Small Commercial Sterilization Facilities

Facilities using less than 100 lb/yr of EtO may demonstrate compliance with applicable Subpart O emissions standards by establishing operating limits for control devices based on performance testing and subsequent parametric monitoring, in lieu of the use of EtO CEMS. The amended rule adds provisions for establishing operating limits for gas/solid reactors and demonstrating compliance via pressure drop monitoring and weekly media analysis. For acid-water scrubbers, scrubbing liquor pH monitoring has been added as a compliance option. Manufacturer-recommended temperatures are no longer acceptable for establishing operating limits for thermal or catalytic oxidizers – facilities must establish minimum oxidation temperatures through performance testing.

Addition of Permanent Total Enclosure Requirements

Under the final rule, U.S. EPA has established requirements for certain operations to be conducted within a permanent total enclosure (PTE). Group 1 room air emissions at all facilities and Group 2 room air emissions at facilities using greater than 4 tpy of EtO must operate in a PTE that meets the criteria of Method 204 of Appendix M to 40 CFR Part 51 and that is routed to a control device.

Next Steps for Facilities Subject to Subpart O

Commercial sterilization facilities constructed on or before April 13, 2023 must comply with the amended Subpart O within two to three years following publication in the Federal Register, depending on facility size and major source status. While this is longer than the 18-month compliance period that U.S. EPA initially proposed, it is important for facilities to consider these questions as soon as possible to allow for any changes needed to control and monitoring equipment:

• Are my control devices capable of achieving the applicable emissions reduction standards?
• Do I have EtO CEMS or parametric monitoring that meets the requirements of the revised rule?
• Do I have a PTE for my room air emissions that meets the requirements of Method 204?

If your facility needs assistance in answering these questions or proceeding with permitting that will likely be required for installing controls and the PTE, please contact me at jmartin@all4inc.com or Lindsey Kroos at lkroos@all4inc.com.

Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Battery Management Act

New Jersey passed the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Management Act (EHVM Act) on January 8, 2024. This extended producer responsibility (EPR) law imposes restrictions on propulsion battery collection and disposal starting on January 8, 2027. The legislation requires that propulsion battery manufacturers fund, develop, and implement a Battery Management Plan approved by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for the management and collection of used propulsion batteries. Propulsion batteries are defined under the law as “an electrical energy device, consisting of one or more individual battery modules or battery cells, which are used to supply power to propel an electric or hybrid road vehicle.” Propulsion batteries include, but are not limited to, lithium ion and nickel metal hydride batteries, removed from vehicles or still inside vehicles.

Who is subject to the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Management Act?

Propulsion battery producers are to develop a Battery Management Plan, under which they are responsible for the collection and management of used batteries. Moreover, the EHVM Act grants specific authorization to certain individuals and entities to handle used propulsion batteries under the purview of a Battery Management Plan. These authorized parties include:

• Vehicle repair facilities
• Vehicle dismantlers
• Authorized propulsion battery recyclers
• Scrap yards
• Dealerships
• Showrooms
• Used car lots

What is required under the EVHM Act?

The primary focus of the EHVM Act is to establish the requirements for a Battery Management Plan. Under the EHVM Act, a Battery Management Plan shall include:

• Provision for producers to be responsible for the collection and management of the producer’s used propulsion batteries that are offered to the producer for take-back by the current battery owner.
• A complete vehicle take-back program, battery take-back program, or any other such program approved by NJDEP.
• Methods to accept and transport used propulsion batteries and electric/hybrid vehicles (EV) to the producer (or the designated entity, based on the Battery Management Plan), including the roles of vehicle recyclers, collection services, and battery recyclers.
• Processes and methods used to remanufacture, repurpose, or recycle end-of-life (EOL) propulsion batteries.
• Strategy for informing EV owners, vehicle repair facilities, and vehicle dismantlers in New Jersey about the requirement to properly manage propulsion batteries and the environmental impact of not doing so.
• The means for implementing and financing the Battery Management Plan.

The EVHM Act also requires appropriate labeling of propulsion batteries in accordance with the requirements of NJDEP. Should the battery be remanufactured or repurposed, it must be relabeled pursuant to the standard of NJDEP prior to sale, importation, or distribution.

Who is responsible for End-of-Life management under the EVHM Act?

The EVHM Act targets EV manufacturers, mandating their accountability for EOL EV management. Specifically, they are tasked with ensuring proper disposal and management procedures.

However, in cases where a secondary producer remanufactures a propulsion battery originally produced by another entity, the original producer is not automatically liable for EOL management unless a contractual agreement assigns such responsibility.

Disposal restrictions apply to any person disposing of a propulsion battery, and acceptance restrictions apply to solid waste collectors and facilities. Commending January 2027, no person shall dispose of a propulsion battery as solid waste unless authorized by NJDEP to do so. Solid waste collectors and facilities shall not knowingly accept propulsion batteries for disposal unless authorized by NJDEP to do so.

What should you prepare for as a battery producer?

Effective date (January 8, 2024): New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law the EVHM Act with immediate effect.

Within 6 months of effective date (July 8, 2024): NJDEP will perform a needs assessment to determine the availability of authorized recyclers and related infrastructure needed to implement the EVHM Act.

January 8, 2025: EV and propulsion battery producers are required to register with NJDEP.

Within 18 months of effective date (July 8, 2025): NJDEP will publish the needs assessment to their website.

January 8, 2026: EV and propulsion battery producers are required to submit an inventory of batteries for sale or distributed in New Jersey.

January 8, 2027: Regulations within the EVHM Act commence, including labeling and disposal restrictions.

180 days after adoption of the EVHM Act (July 7, 2027): Propulsion battery producers are required to submit a Battery Management Plan, including collection, distribution, and EOL management elements.

One year after Battery Management Plan submission: NJDEP shall approve (in part) or disapprove Battery Management Plans.

If approved: Plan must be implemented within 90 days of receipt of approval.

If partially approved: Approved portions of the plan must be implemented within 90 days of receipt of approval. Revisions to non-approved portions must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of non-approval.

If disapproved: Producer has 30 days to submit a revised Battery Management Plan.

What are future potential regulatory actions?

The EVHM Act, unique to New Jersey, serves as a pioneering model for other states to emulate in addressing the challenges and opportunities surrounding propulsion batteries.

States with pending legislation for stewardship or EPR management include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Given the increasing focus on sustainability and the proliferation of electric vehicles nationwide, propulsion battery and EV producers should remain vigilant in monitoring and adhering to the evolving battery legislation in their respective states.

How can ALL4 assist?                                

If you have questions regarding battery management, or you have other battery management needs, our battery team at ALL4 can assist. If you have any questions about this article, feel free to contact me at mfors@all4inc.com or at (502) 276-6771.

Sink or Swim, the Clean Water Act Hazardous Substance Worst Case Discharge Planning Regulations are live!

On March 28, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register the final Clean Water Act (CWA) Hazardous Substances Facility Response Plans (FRP) regulation under 40 CFR 118.

What does it mean?

A non-transportation related, onshore facility with a maximum quantity of any CWA hazardous chemical above 1,000 times the reportable quantity (RQ), as identified under 40 CFR §117.3 and located within one-half (0.5) mile of navigable waters or conveyances to navigable waters must demonstrate that the facility will or will not be subject to the rule. This is significant decrease from 10,000 times the RQ originally proposed in the draft rule, there is no container size exemption, and mixtures containing CWA hazardous chemicals need to be included.

Worst case discharge demonstrations entail:

• Review of past RQ releases to water,
• Modeling the planning distance to public water systems,
• Modeling the planning distance to fish, wildlife, and sensitive environments (FWSE), and
• Modeling the planning distance discharges to public receptors.

Facilities will need to model the planning distance for each CWA hazardous chemical meeting the 1,000 x RQ. Any model used to determine the planning distance must include considerations for adverse weather from climate change and from potential fire or explosions.

Additionally, each EPA Regional Administrator is authorized to the require facilities prepare and submit a FRP regardless of the criteria noted above.

A facility required to develop and submit an FRP comprised of multiple requirements including:

• Identification of Qualified Individuals (QI),
• Identification of key response resources,
• Routine employee training and response drills,
• Risk identification, characterization, control, and communication,
• Communication plans with Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and
• Release detection including hazardous air releases resulting from discharges.

What do I need to do?

Facilities will need to determine the applicability to their facility based on specific criteria within the rule and, if required, submit a FRP by June 1, 2027. This may seem like a far off date, but inventorying all your CWA hazardous chemicals, modeling worst case discharges, developing the FRP, forecasting for future facility expansions, and implementing capital projects takes time and planning. The clock is ticking, are you going to sink or swim?

If you have questions about how the CWA Worst Case Discharge rule could affect your facility compliance, or what your next steps should be, please reach out to me at mdabrowski@all4inc.com. ALL4 continues to monitor 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 facility response plan compliance.

OSHA Walkaround Rule Change

Will the OSHA workplace inspection process change?
It does appear that changes are on the horizon. On August 30, 2023, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Worker Walkaround Representative Designation Process”. This NPRM related to the Representatives of Employers and Employees regulation located at 29 CFR 1903.8(c). The final rule has been published in the Federal Register and becomes effective May 31, 2024. The rule aims to clarify that employees could authorize either an employee or a third-party representative to accompany OSHA compliance officers during inspections, provided the third party was deemed reasonably necessary for an effective inspection.

Background

In 2017, a court decision determined that OSHA’s practice of allowing third parties to serve as employee walkaround representatives was a valid interpretation of the Act but conflicted with the regulation as it stood at that time. Consequently, OSHA revised this regulation to restore its longstanding practice of permitting third parties to act as employee walkaround representatives. Per OSHA comments, this rule aims to enhance OSHA inspections and promote the safety and health of employees. The changes also expanded the scope of third-party representatives beyond industrial hygienists or safety engineers to include individuals with relevant skills, knowledge, or experience. Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Doug Parker emphasized that enhancing worker participation in inspections was crucial for workplace safety. OSHA sought public comments on the proposed revisions and on the criteria for determining third-party participation in inspections. These revisions will not alter existing regulations granting OSHA compliance officers the authority to determine authorized representatives and to manage participation during inspections and it does not impact any compliance obligations for employers.

The proposed rule underwent an extended comment period, which ended in November 2023. Comments were received from both Republican and Democrat leaders of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. OSHA had been challenged in the past with having the authority to act as it related to employee representation during workplace inspections. In 2016, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) filed a lawsuit challenging OSHA’s interpretation outlined in the Sallman letter, which allowed non-employee representatives during inspections. The district court ruled that OSHA’s interpretation was not consistent with existing regulations but did not conflict with the Act. Following this decision, OSHA rescinded the Sallman letter and revised the Field Operations Manual. The agency’s move with the latest NPRM was meant to clarify employee representation during inspections.

During the comment period, a group of 67 organizations, including the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health and Sur Legal Collaborative, expressed support for the proposal. They emphasized the importance of giving workers the right to select representatives to ensure their safety and health, particularly for immigrant and non-English-speaking workers who may have feared retaliation from abusive employers if they had participated in the walkaround process. This change may complicate future OSHA inspections by allowing third parties, potentially unrelated to the workplace, to participate in the inspection process. This introduces uncertainty regarding a Compliance Safety and Health Officer’s (CSHO) decision to permit one third party while excluding another. It also raises concerns about whether OSHA would permit third parties to participate in private interviews with employees and have access to management interviews. This increased access to information could lead to more complaints being raised in the workplace.

What actions does my organization need to take?

For now, employers should review their protocols for dealing with OSHA inspections and consider how to handle situations where a third party accompanies a CSHO. They may also want to develop a process to assess the legitimacy of a third party’s participation. Ultimately, each employer should always be prepared for an agency visit, whether it is OSHA or another regulatory agency. Having in place the proper protocols, procedures, and training for all employees, no matter their role or responsibilities, enhances the safety and security of the entire organization. Regardless of the changes, it is important that organizations always strive to do their best for the health and safety of employees, and an inspection should not be the driving force for continued improvement.

ALL4 can assist organizations with conducting internal audits, providing training, and by reviewing current policies and procedures. The health and safety professionals at ALL4 have extensive expertise spanning various workplace safety and health concerns. Serving a diverse array of industries, including specialty manufacturing, automotive, food and beverage, pharmaceuticals, energy, pulp and paper, and federal defense agencies, ALL4 tailors its services to meet the unique needs of each client. The ALL4 team is dedicated to developing site-specific strategies that prioritize accident and injury reduction and risk management. For more information or assistance with this and other regulatory compliance needs, contact Brian Godfrey, Managing Consultant, at bgodfrey@all4inc.com or Karen Thompson, Senior Technical Manager, at kthompson@all4inc.com.

PFAS Now in Ambient Air and a Vapor Intrusion Risk?

Vapor Intrusion (VI) is the process in which contaminants in subsurface soil or water migrate upwards into the ambient air. This poses a risk to indoor air quality in buildings which have been constructed over contaminated sites. The most common VI contaminants are radon, petroleum components such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), or cleaning product chemicals such as trichloroethylene (TCE).

The emergence of new information around per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances’ (PFAS) negative health effects and widespread presence in water has brought PFAS into the VI spotlight as a new potential contaminant to watch.  PFAS is a group of chemicals commonly seen in products such as non-stick pans and chemical cleaners due to its non-stick and de-greasing properties.

While PFAS are typically highly soluble and non-volatile, and therefore were not traditionally evaluated as a VI risk, certain PFAS groups such as fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) have recently been shown to be a VI concern due to their high vapor pressure. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has begun research into PFAS as a potential VI risk and has indicated in a November 2023 Site Study the following finding:

“The presence of PFAS in soil, soil gas, and groundwater at the NJ site indicates the potential for but does not confirm VI as an exposure pathway. Concurrent indoor air measurements would be needed to confirm a complete VI pathway. Given the known health risks associated with PFAS exposure and the presence of volatile PFAS in the environment, PFAS VI assessment is warranted at facilities where high PFAS concentrations are present or suspected in shallow soils and groundwater.”

What Does This Mean?

While the U.S. EPA study is purely exploratory, U.S. EPA still seems to err on the side of caution and says PFAS VI analysis is “warranted”. Given this as well as U.S EPA’s crack down of PFAS in other media (proposed water maximum contaminant levels, Toxic Release Inventory reporting requirements, etc.), it can be expected that U.S. EPA and other state regulatory agencies will conduct additional research on the risk of PFAS as a VI contaminant and explore adding a screening threshold, which establishes numerical limits for when additional investigation or mitigation may be necessary.

What Are the Potential Difficulties?

While the addition of a new contaminant considered a VI risk is not unprecedented, PFAS poses a unique set of challenges. For example, sub-slab sampling, which identifies the concentration of chemicals immediately below the building, is subject to sampling difficulties due to limitations of current sampling procedures and methods. For one, there is minimal U.S. EPA guidance on PFAS sampling methods for ambient air. This, combined with the potential contamination from sampling equipment that contain PFAS (Polytetrafluoroethylene [PTFE or Teflon], Low Density Polyethylene [LDPE], aluminum foil, sticky notes, waterproof pens, passive diffusion bags, and more), makes PFAS air sampling a tedious effort that has potential for uncertainty, scrutiny, and false positives.

Additionally, the unique chemical properties of PFAS means that most, if not all, commercially available vapor barriers have yet to be tested for chemical resistance to these types of chemicals. While diffusion testing is still to be done, there is no assurance that currently available membranes will be able to protect against upward diffusion of PFAS into the building space. This potential lack of chemical resistant barriers could pose a material sourcing issue both now and in the near future until a robust body of chemical resistance testing has been completed.

If you can overcome both previous considerations, you still have one more potential to hurdle, indoor air sampling. Indoor air sampling is used as a confirmation of system efficacy by confirming the concentrations of contaminants in the indoor air are below screening levels. Given the abundance of PFAS in construction materials (textile coatings, cleaning products, metal coatings, paints, wood lacquers, caulks, adhesives, etc.), there is an ample amount of background PFAS which could lead to false positives.

What can I do?

As U.S EPA refines their related VI related guidance, there is plenty to do to stay ahead of the curve. Keeping an eye out for ALL4 articles related to PFAS air sampling or VI will keep you up to date on any new developments. ALL4 is always available to help with your VI risk assessment and mitigation design needs. If you have any questions or want to discuss VI strategies or designs or at your site, please contact Evan Mia at emia@all4inc.com.