                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     EO12866_PFOA-PFOS Designation 2050-AH09 Propose EA_20190920



ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL COSTS AND OTHER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING TO DESIGNATE PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID (PFOA) AND PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONIC ACID (PFOS) AS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES



                                       
                    Office of Land and Emergency Management
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW,
                             Washington, DC 20460
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                  August 2022





                     [This page intentionally left blank.]
















ACRONYMS AND TERMS
AFFF 		 -  	Aqueous Film Forming Foams
CERCLA 	 -  	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR 		 -  	Code of Federal Regulations
CWA 		 -  	Clean Water Act
DOT 		 -  	United States Department of Transportation
EPA 		 -  	United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA		 - 	Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
HAL 		 -  	Health Advisory Limit
 LEPC		 - 	Local Emergency Planning Committee 
NAICS 		 -  	North American Industry Classification System
NPL		 -  	National Priorities List
NRC 		 -  	National Response Center 
OIRA 		 -  	Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB 		 -  	United States Office of Management and Budget
PFAS 		 -  	Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PFOA 		 -  	Perfluorooctanoic Acid 
PFOS 		 -  	Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid
RCRA 		 -  	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA 		 -  	Regulatory Flexibility Act
RQ		 - 	Reportable Quantity
SBA 		 -  	United States Small Business Administration
SBREFA 	 -  	Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
 SERC		 -  	State Emergency Response Commission 
SISNOSE 	 -  	Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities
TEPC                 -             Tribal Emergency Planning Committee
TERC                 -            Tribal Emergency Response Commission
UMRA 		 -  	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
WWTPs 	 -  	Wastewater Treatment Plants

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS	2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	4
ES-1 Introduction	4
ES-2 Entities that have Historically used PFOA and PFOS	5
ES-3 Costs, Benefits, and Transfers	7
ES-4 Statutory and Executive Order Analyses	11
ES-5 List of EPA Requests for Comment	19
CHAPTER 1.  INTRODUCTION	20
1.1  Background	21
1.2  Need for Regulatory Action	23
1.3  Summary of the Proposed Rule	24
1.4  Scope of Analysis	25
1.5  Report Organization	25
CHAPTER 2.  ENTITIES THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY USED PFOA AND PFOS	27
2.1  Types of Entities Potentially Affected by the Proposed Regulations	29
2.1.1 Importers and Manufacturers of PFOA and PFOS	29
2.1.2 Users of PFOA and PFOS	30
2.1.3  Waste Management Facilities	31
2.2  Baseline Regulations affecting PFOA and PFOS and associated Facilities and Systems	31
CHAPTER 3.  COSTS, BENEFITS, AND TRANSFERS	38
3.1  Quantified Direct Costs	38
3.1.1 Notification Costs per Release	39
3.1.2  Number of Annual Notifications	40
3.1.3  Total Annual Notification Costs	41
3.1.4 Costs Associated with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)	41
3.2  Unquantified Direct Costs	42
3.3  Qualitative Description of Benefits	42
3.4  Qualitative Discussion of Indirect Costs, Benefits, and Transfers	43
3.4.1  Indirect Costs including Cost Savings	44
3.4.2  Indirect Benefits	45
3.4.3  Transfers	47
3.5 Uncertainties Regarding Indirect Impacts on Response Activities	48
3.5.1 Uncertainties Regarding the Number of Potential Sites Indirectly Affected	49
3.5.2 Uncertainties Regarding Cleanup Standards	50
3.5.3 Uncertainties Regarding Assessment and Cleanup Technologies and Associated Costs	50
3.5.4 Summary of the Process and Associated Costs for Determining Response Efforts	51
3.5.5 Summary of Critical Uncertainties Regarding Indirect Impacts on Response Activities	53
CHAPTER 4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSES RESPONSIVE TO STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS	55
4.1  Energy Impact Analysis	55
4.2   Regulatory Flexibility Analysis	56
4.2.1  Associated Cost of Proposed Rule	56
4.2.2  Revenues of Impacted Small Entities	57
4.2.3  Resulting Impact of Proposed Rule on Small Entities	60
4.3  Impacts on Minority and Low-Income Populations: Analysis	60
4.3.1  Introduction	60
4.3.2  Demographic Analysis	62
4.3.3  Analytic Limitations	66
4.3.4  Supplementary and Sensitivity Analyses	68
4.4  Impacts on Children's Health Analysis	70
4.5  Regulatory Planning and Review	70
4.6  Unfunded Mandates Analysis	71
4.7  Federalism Analysis	71
4.8  Tribal Government Analysis	72
4.9  Employment Impacts	72
SOURCES CITED	74





                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1 Introduction
Background
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) are synthetic chemicals that are resistant to heat, water, and oil. For decades, they have been used in hundreds of industrial applications and consumer products such as carpeting, apparel, upholstery, food paper wrapping, firefighting foam, and metal plating. In recent years the use of PFOA and PFOS in producing these materials has greatly declined. Although some uses of PFOS are still ongoing (see 40 CFR §721.9582), the usage of PFOA and PFOS in the United States is relatively low. Nonetheless, the chemical makeup and effects of PFOA and PFOS warrant action. PFOA and PFOS are part of a large group of human-made, fluorinated, organic chemicals called Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).
Need for Regulatory Action
Designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances furthers CERCLA's primary goal of protecting public health and welfare and the environment through a variety of means. It improves the quality of information available and will result in a more comprehensive understanding of the number and locations of PFOA and PFOS releases meeting or exceeding the reportable quantity (RQ). It will also signal to the market that there is value in the prevention of releases. An indirect effect of the designation is the improved ability to transfer response costs from the public to polluters, and the potential to accelerate privately financed cleanups. Based on data compiled from the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), EPA funded the remedial actions at 29 percent of ongoing NPL sites in 2019, compared to 47 percent funded by potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and 9 percent with mixed financing. Data on the financing for the remaining 15 percent was not reported in SEMS.[,] Categories of response costs that may potentially be transferred include costs related to (but not limited to) laboratory testing, remedy design, construction and operation of groundwater treatment systems, disposal of hazardous substances removed from the site, and groundwater monitoring following completion of clean-up.
Summary of Proposed Rule
Under Section 102(a) of CERCLA, the EPA is proposing to designate PFOA and PFOS, including their salts and structural isomers, as hazardous substances. The proposal to designate PFOA and PFOS including their structural isomers and salts, as hazardous substances results in the following CERCLA requirements: 
Report to the National Response Center (NRC) when releases occur in amounts equal to or greater than their reportable quantity of one pound or more in a 24-hour period, as required under CERCLA section 103; and
For such releases, notify the State Emergency Response Commissions (SERC) (or Tribal Emergency Response Commission (TERC)) and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) (or Tribal Emergency Planning Committee (TEPC)) of the release and prepare and submit a written follow-up notice, as required for CERCLA hazardous substances under EPCRA section 304; and
When federal agencies sell or transfer federally-owned property, CERCLA section 120(h) requires that they must provide notice when "any hazardous substance was stored for one year or more, known to have been released, or disposed of", and provide a covenant warranting that "all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any such substance remaining on the property has been taken before the date of such  transfer, and any additional remediation action found to be necessary after the date of such transfer shall be conducted by the United States." And
Substances designated as hazardous under CERCLA are required to be listed by DOT in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180) under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. (See Section 306(a) of CERCLA.).  
ES-2 Entities that have Historically used PFOA and PFOS
Types of Entities Potentially Affected by the Proposed Regulations
PFOA and PFOS were two of the most extensively produced PFAS in the United States but were largely phased out of domestic production voluntarily after 2002. However, the chemicals are still produced internationally and can be imported into the United States for industrial uses or in articles and consumer goods such as leather, apparel, textiles, paper and packaging, coatings, rubber, and plastics.
Building on the 2002 voluntary phase out, EPA has used the following mechanisms to restrict current uses of PFOS and PFOA:
 PFAS Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)  -  March/December 2002
 The PFOA Stewardship Program - 2010/2015
 PFAS Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) - 2013 
 PFAS Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)  -  2020
Under these regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms, current PFOS uses are limited to anti-erosion additives in fire-resistant aviation hydraulic fluid; fume/mist suppression in metal finishing and plating; etching and plating uses, including mist suppression, in electronics manufacturing; a photomicrolithography process in semiconductor production; coatings on imaging materials; and as a chemical intermediate to produce substances for some of the aforementioned uses. Fewer definite limitations are in place regarding PFOA uses. Therefore, although PFOA use has also been understood to decline significantly over the last two decades, the current usage and PFOA's specific uses are uncertain.
The three categories of entities potentially affected by the proposed regulation are: (1) producers and importers of PFOA and PFOS, (2) producers and users of PFOA- or PFOS-containing articles, and (3) waste management and treatment facilities. Across these three categories, there are at least 35 different sectors with known or suspected historical PFOA or PFOS production or use. 
Manufacture and import of both PFOS and PFOA has been phased out in the United States by the companies participating in the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. PFOA may be manufactured, imported, and used by companies not participating in the PFOA Stewardship Program and some uses of PFOS are ongoing (see 40 CFR §721.9582). Many sectors are potential users of manufactured products that contain PFOA or PFOS. PFOA or PFOS have historically been a component of firefighting foams, surfactants, etching agents, stain- and water-resistant applications, car waxes, architectural coatings, and antistatic control. 
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) may receive wastewater that contains PFOA or PFOS from a variety of sources, including industries that manufacture or use PFOA and PFOS, and PFOA- and PFOS- containing consumer and industrial products. PFOA and PFOS are the most widely detected PFAS compounds in wastewater and treatment units at conventional WWTPs. At present, WWTPs do not remove these compounds effectively. As a result, effluent discharged to receiving water bodies and WWTP sludge may contain PFOA and PFOS. WWTPs may dispose of sludge by incineration, which can destroy PFOA and PFOS, or WWTPs may send sludge to a landfill. Sludge also is commonly applied to land as a fertilizer or soil amendment.
Baseline Regulations affecting PFOA and PFOS and Associated Facilities and Systems
Although PFOA and PFOS are not currently designated as CERCLA hazardous substances, EPA has used existing authority to address PFAS (including PFOA and PFOS) releases under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), TSCA, RCRA, and CERCLA. The Agency has used CERCLA authority to gather existing information (e.g., sampling data and information on management and disposal practices) on PFAS (including PFOA and PFOS) at certain sites and facilities. Additionally, under federal facility agreements, which apply to pollutants and contaminants, federal agencies are required to address PFOA and PFOS releases at federal facility NPL sites. Beyond federal actions taken to address PFOA and PFOS, state governments continue to develop regulatory structures and analytic approaches to identify, characterize, and address PFOA and PFOS exposure. In all, at least 29 states either have or currently are setting standards, screening levels, and guidance values for PFOA and PFOS (and sometimes other PFAS compounds). EPA found little to no documentation of PFAS on the websites of the remaining state environmental departments and departments of health. Based on EPA's review, these state standards would not offset any of the direct costs and benefits expected from this proposed rulemaking as states are not currently requiring entities to report releases to federal entities.
ES-3 Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
Quantified Direct Costs
The explicit reporting requirements associated with designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances include the requirement under CERCLA section 103(a) to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of a release above the RQ and the requirements under EPCRA section 304 to notify State Emergency Response Commissions (SERC) (or TERC) and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) (or TEPC) of a release and to prepare and submit a written follow-up notice. Based on data in two Information Collection Request documents published by EPA, the total reporting cost for a facility submitting both telephone notifications and a written notification is estimated to be approximately $561.[,] Incremental detection and measurement costs are assumed to be zero or negligible, as affected facilities are likely to incur such costs in the baseline to comply with reporting requirements related to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). EPA assumes there will be no incremental costs to train staff on the assessment of spilled PFOA/PFOS quantities. If an entity is handling these chemicals and there is a PFOA/PFOS release at its site, we assume that it has the capability to assess spilled quantities and that its staff are sufficiently trained for this purpose. In addition, EPA assumes that incremental costs associated with rule familiarization will be de minimis. Facilities should already be familiar with baseline requirements associated with reporting releases of non-PFOA/PFOS hazardous substances to the NRC and to other state and local emergency entities as required under EPCRA. While this rule increases by two the number of substances whose release above the RQ triggers reporting to the NRC and other state and local emergency agencies, the rule does not require changes to existing requirements or procedures already in existence.  EPA requests comment on expected rule familiarization costs per affected entity. 
The precise number of reportable releases of PFOA and PFOS is not known. EPA requests comment on the number of PFOA and PFOS releases expected going forward. In FY 2020 the NRC received approximately 23,807 total notifications of releases of all types of hazardous substances. Of all non-oil releases reported, hazardous substances containing multiple forms of ammonia or ammonium compounds accounted for the largest number of releases in 2020, 660 in total. 
To estimate an upper bound of annual PFOA and PFOS release notifications, EPA adopts the number of reported releases of ammonia or ammonium compounds (i.e., the compounds with the highest number of reported releases) in 2020. To estimate a lower bound of annual PFOA and PFOS release notifications, EPA adopts a value of zero. This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) estimates total annual notification costs for this action by multiplying this wide range of estimated annual PFOA and PFOS notifications nationally by the estimated cost of notification per site. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes the range of total annual notification costs. As the exhibit shows, total annual notification costs are an estimated $0 to $370,000. EPA requests comment on the assumption that ammonia or ammonium releases provide a reasonable upper bound for PFOA and PFOS releases.
                                 Exhibit ES-1
                   Estimated Total Annual Notification Costs
                              (adjusted to 2020$)
           Estimated Annual Number of Notification in United States
                     Estimated Notification Costs (Total)
                                    0 - 660
                                 $0 - $370,000

 Potential direct costs may also result from the DOT requirement to list and regulate CERCLA designated hazardous substances as hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (see CERCLA Section 306(a)). As described in Section 3.4, we estimate these incremental costs as zero. Because production of PFOA and PFOS are understood to have been largely phased out of production and use beginning in 2000, it is unlikely that regulated entities would ship PFOA or PFOS in quantities equal to or above the RQ. 
 Unquantified Direct Costs
The proposed rule creates costs associated with CERCLA section 120(h) requirements for federal agencies to provide notice of the release of hazardous substances and covenants regarding the remediation, if necessary, of such hazardous substances when selling or transferring federally-owned real property to any other person or entity. The number and magnitude of future federal property sales and transfers involving property with PFOA and/or PFOS releases is highly uncertain, therefore this analysis does not attempt to quantify such costs.
Qualitative Discussion of Direct Benefits
Qualitative benefits of this action include improved quality of information and a more comprehensive understanding of the number and location of sites with future releases of PFOA and PFOS which meet or exceed the RQ. Specifically, the reporting requirement will make available information about potential contamination that may be valuable for evaluating decisions about mitigating and reducing risk. Other direct benefits could include attention to better waste management and/or treatment practices for facilities handling PFOA or PFOS in an effort to avoid releases of these substances into the environment. Incentivizing the prevention of releases is expected to decrease potential threats to public health and welfare and the environment.
Qualitative Discussion of Indirect Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
 In addition to direct costs and benefits, the proposed rule may result in indirect costs and benefits associated with potential increases in the speed of response activity and the total number of response actions. Indirect benefits may include health benefits associated with near-term avoided risk and longer-term site response activities, and potentially improving litigation efficiency as a result of reducing public entities burden of proof requirements related to contamination. Indirect costs may result from the movement forward in time of assessment and cleanup costs.  
 An important outcome of the proposed rule is that with PFOA and PFOS designated as CERCLA hazardous substances, response costs are more likely to be borne by responsible parties. Cost transfers from the public to parties responsible for pollution are associated with the enhancement of EPA's existing authority under CERCLA 104(a) to recover costs incurred by the government for site-specific response actions. However, when the federal government is the responsible party for PFOA or PFOS pollution, the public continues to incur associated response costs although they are moved between federal budgets.
 Summary of Uncertainties Regarding Indirect Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
This proposed rule has potential indirect impacts that are important, but that pose significant challenges to quantification. Key information that would enable quantification is unavailable. Critical data that are missing include, among others (1) the number and types of sites that might need response activities along with information on the magnitude and extent of PFOA and PFOS contamination; (2) the cleanup standards that must be met by remedial activities; and (3) the technologies, and their associated costs, for assessing and remediating the various contaminated media at sites. EPA lacks information on the number of existing NPL sites that might face incremental costs to address PFOA or PFOS contamination, and on the number of new sites that might be identified as needing assessment or other response activities. Federal cleanup standards continue to evolve and site remediation to date has been focused on sites of specific concern to various states and localities, with varying cleanup objectives. Associated costs may therefore reflect fluctuating levels of concern or types of sources. It is important to note that PFOA or PFOS detections or use at a site does not imply that response action is necessary. Response actions, which include investigations of hazardous substance releases and determining if removal or remedial action is necessary, are contingent, discretionary, and site-specific, as described in Chapter 3.  
Technological options for assessing and responding to PFOA and PFOS contamination are evolving. Thus, empirical data on their costs are limited. For example, the incremental cost of addressing PFOA and/or PFOS relative to baseline costs of cleaning other contaminants on existing NPL sites is unknown. PFOA and PFOS present at a site with other hazardous substances may be addressed with treatment methods used for other hazardous substances, in which case addressing PFOA and PFOS risks would not result in additional response costs above the baseline. In addition, specific-site assessment and remediation activity may or may not be representative of potential future sites in need of assessment and cleanup, in scope or cost, indirectly affected by the proposed rule. This lack of information prevents quantitative assessment of indirect response costs, benefits, and potential transfers.
ES-4 Statutory and Executive Order Analyses
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR Part 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
To estimate the annual breakeven costs per facility (i.e., the facility-level cost that would indicate that the cost might be significant in this context), the analysis relies on three pieces of information for each industry: (1) average annual revenues per small entity, (2) average number of facilities per small entity, and (3) the target breakeven percentage of costs to revenues (either one percent or three percent).  
Exhibit ES-2 estimated breakeven costs per small entity (firm) and per facility, by industry. These results are presented using six-digit NAICS codes.
Although the number of small entities in any sector that would be required to report as a result of the action under consideration by EPA is uncertain, given the phase out of the use of PFOA and PFOS in the US, in general EPA would expect few if any small entities, including small government entities, to need to undertake a release report. Chapter 2 discusses the historical uses and subsequent efforts to phase out the use of PFOA and PFAS in the United States. EPA expects such reports to be on an as-needed basis and does not expect that reporting costs would be incurred on an annual basis. However, to be conservative, EPA compares the total per release cost of $561, to the average revenues for small entities in key sectors potentially affected by PFAS. The estimate of $561 does not come close to exceeding one percent of average small-entity revenues in any sector. In addition, the $561 per release cost represents an estimate of the average cost incurred by all entities in the affected universe from large industrial operations to car washes. It is likely an overestimate for small entities which tend to employ fewer staff and have less management overhead.  
For the sector with the lowest breakeven costs per facility (Car Washes  -  NAICS 811192), the smallest size class reported has a revenue average of $48,496. Even in this class, the per release cost of $561 represents less than three percent of revenues and just slightly more than one percent of revenues. Similarly, for five other industries, the $561 cost per release is slightly more than one percent of revenues for the smallest revenue class among small entities but less than three percent (range of 1.02 percent to 1.08 percent). The annual revenues for these entities range from $51,980 to $55,256. Collectively, these entities represent less than 9 percent of the small entities reflected in Exhibit 4-1. In addition, the $561 cost is likely to overestimate the typical costs realized by these entities on an annual basis, as entities this small are unlikely to have reportable releases each year.  EPA therefore expects that the impact on a substantial number of small entities would not be significant. However, the Agency requests comment on the annual number of releases expected per small entity, and any other information that could help EPA estimate small entity reporting costs. 
                                       
                                 Exhibit ES-2
     Breakeven Estimates for Annual Costs per Facility (adjusted to 2020$)
Industry
                          NAICS Code and Description
                     Annual Revenues per Small Entity
[a]
               Average Number of Facilities per Small Entity
[b]
        Breakeven Annual Cost per Entity: 1% Threshold
[c = (1% x a)]
        Breakeven Annual Cost per 
Entity: 3% Threshold
[d = (3% x a)]
      Breakeven Annual Cost per Facility: 1% Threshold
[e = (1% x a)/b]
      Breakeven Annual Cost per 
Facility: 3% Threshold
[f = (3% x a)/b]
Aviation operations
488119 - Other Airport Operations
                                                                     $2,537,912
                                                                           1.11
                                                                        $25,379
                                                                        $76,137
                                                                        $22,939
                                                                        $68,818
Carpet manufacturers
314110 - Carpet and Rug Mills
                                                                     $8,527,078
                                                                           1.05
                                                                        $85,271
                                                                       $255,812
                                                                       $81,335 
                                                                      $244,006 
Car washes
811192 - Car Washes
                                                                       $569,439
                                                                           1.07
                                                                        $5,694 
                                                                       $17,083 
                                                                        $5,313 
                                                                       $15,939 
Chrome electroplating, anodizing, and etching 
332813 - Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring
                                                                     $3,194,451
                                                                           1.04
                                                                        $31,945
                                                                        $95,834
                                                                        $30,704
                                                                        $92,111
Coatings, paints, and varnish
325510 - Paint and Coating Manufacturing
                                                                     $8,579,550
                                                                           1.08
                                                                       $85,796 
                                                                      $257,387 
                                                                        $79,697
                                                                       $239,090
Firefighting foam manufacturers
325998 - All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
                                                                     $9,615,850
                                                                           1.06
                                                                        $96,159
                                                                       $288,476
                                                                        $91,107
                                                                       $273,322
Landfills
562212 - Solid Waste Landfill
                                                                     $2,732,229
                                                                           1.02
                                                                        $27,322
                                                                        $81,967
                                                                        $26,744
                                                                        $80,231
Medical Devices
339112 - Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
                                                                    $10,924,915
                                                                           1.05
                                                                       $109,249
                                                                       $327,747
                                                                       $104,317
                                                                       $312,950
Municipal fire departments and firefighting training centers
922160 - Fire Protection
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
Paper mills
322121 - Paper (except Newsprint) Mills
                                                                   $109,190,104
                                                                           1.28
                                                                     $1,091,901
                                                                     $3,275,703
                                                                       $851,896
                                                                     $2,555,688

322130 - Paperboard Mills
                                                                    $53,571,512
                                                                           1.08
                                                                       $535,715
                                                                     $1,607,145
                                                                       $495,518
                                                                     $1,486,553
Petroleum refineries and terminals
324110 - Petroleum Refineries
                                                                   $919,097,728
                                                                           1.16
                                                                     $9,190,977
                                                                    $27,572,932
                                                                     $7,948,953
                                                                    $23,846,860

424710 - Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
                                                                    $54,054,028
                                                                           1.21
                                                                       $540,540
                                                                     $1,621,621
                                                                       $445,151
                                                                     $1,335,452
Pesticides and Insecticides 
325320 - Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
                                                                    $25,079,234
                                                                           1.06
                                                                       $250,792
                                                                       $752,377
                                                                       $236,296
                                                                       $708,887
Photographic film manufacturing
325992 - Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
                                                                     $3,410,199
                                                                           1.05
                                                                        $34,102
                                                                       $102,306
                                                                        $32,595
                                                                        $97,784
Polishes, waxes, cleaning products  
325612 - Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
                                                                     $9,060,815
                                                                           1.04
                                                                        $90,608
                                                                       $271,824
                                                                        $86,932
                                                                       $260,796
Polymer manufacturing
325211 - Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
                                                                    $33,570,756
                                                                           1.14
                                                                       $335,708
                                                                     $1,007,123
                                                                       $293,955
                                                                       $881,864
Printing facilities where inks are used in photolithography
323111 - Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)
                                                                     $2,256,953
                                                                           1.03
                                                                        $22,570
                                                                        $67,709
                                                                        $21,930
                                                                        $65,790

325910 - Printing Ink Manufacturing
                                                                     $7,404,767
                                                                           1.35
                                                                        $74,048
                                                                       $222,143
                                                                        $54,671
                                                                       $164,012
Textile mills (textiles and upholstery)
313210 - Broadwoven Fabric Mills
                                                                     $8,800,871
                                                                           1.04
                                                                        $88,009
                                                                       $264,026
                                                                        $84,396
                                                                       $253,189

313220 - Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery
                                                                     $4,053,810
                                                                           1.04
                                                                        $40,538
                                                                       $121,614
                                                                        $39,164
                                                                       $117,492

313230 - Nonwoven Fabric Mills
                                                                    $16,383,181
                                                                           1.08
                                                                       $163,832
                                                                       $491,495
                                                                       $151,160
                                                                       $453,479

313240 - Knit Fabric Mills
                                                                     $8,001,426
                                                                           1.01
                                                                        $80,014
                                                                       $240,043
                                                                        $79,434
                                                                       $238,303

313320 - Fabric Coating Mills
                                                                    $12,333,111
                                                                           1.06
                                                                       $123,331
                                                                       $369,993
                                                                       $116,573
                                                                       $349,720
WWTPs
221320 - Sewage Treatment Facilities
                                                                     $1,357,425
                                                                           1.06
                                                                        $13,574
                                                                        $40,723
                                                                        $12,786
                                                                        $38,357
Note: Revenue values obtained from United States Census Bureau's 2017 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB). Values converted from year 2017 dollars to year 2020 dollars using the GDP Deflator. 
Note: EPA did not consider the cost impacts on small government municipal drinking water utilities because they were not identified as potential major sources of PFOA and/or PFOS releases in any of the literature reviewed.

Impact on Minority and Low-Income Population 
This RIA includes a screening-level analysis of the demographics of the populations in proximity to potential sites that have historically used PFOA and/or PFOS and considers the possible impact of the proposed rule on populations and locations relevant to Executive Orders 12898 and 14008.
This demographic analysis examines populations in U.S. Census block groups that intersect with identified site boundaries or centroids and designated areas around them (i.e., buffers). 
This proposed regulation identifies groundwater and surface water as potential sources of exposure for the identified PFAS. Because the location of future releases of PFAS is uncertain, this analysis considers populations around facilities in sectors associated with widespread historical uses and releases of PFAS as proxies for facilities that may have future releases of the PFAS considered in the proposed rule. This analysis examines the following site types as proxies for facilities that are known to have commonly used PFAS:
 Operating Department of Defense (DOD) facilities
 Operating U.S. airports and airfields
 Large U.S. airports and airfields
 All other U.S. airports and airfields (i.e., medium and small)
 Plastics material and resin manufacturing firms identified as having produced PFOS and/or PFOA[,] 
 2020 PFOS and PFOA releases reported to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
       
EPA requests comment on the PFAS release levels from these facilities and the types of PFAS that they release.
Exhibit ES-3 summarizes several key demographics of the total populations near the universe of proxy sites identified and compares these demographics to U.S. national averages. The six key demographic categories examined are minority (reflecting an examination of both race and ethnicity; minority is defined as populations excluding non-Hispanic White), poverty level, linguistic isolation, education, age (specifically population less than five years old and greater than 64 years old), and age of housing. 
These findings, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the location of future releases, are indicative of potential impacts but do not provide a clear indication of the type of disparities related to potential exposure to PFAS. Consistent with the priorities outlined in Executive Orders 12898 and 14008, it is unclear whether the proposed regulation will have a significant impact on disadvantaged populations or communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns relative to other communities. While the locations of reporting releases are unknown, to the extent that these proxy locations are representative of likely reporting locations, this screening analysis suggests that the reporting required under the rule may provide better information to nearby populations potentially at risk of exposure, including communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns. To the extent that PFAS releases are consistent with the broader releases reported to TRI and typically involve disposal or manufacturing sites, demographic data around plastics material and resin manufacturer sites and historical releases may be a more reliable predictor of the type of community potentially affected by this proposed rulemaking. Specific site conditions and demographic patterns may become clear as reporting occurs following completion of a final rule.

Additional details on the application of the demographic data and the implications of the environmental justice analysis are presented in Chapter 4.  As described in Chapter 4, the analysis of demographic data found that populations living within one or three miles of plastics material and resin manufacturers, PFOS or PFOA releases reported in the TRI, Department of Defense facilities, and large airports exhibited one or more indicators of social vulnerability (e.g., poverty rate exceeding the national average).
                                 Exhibit ES-3
Proportions of Key Demographics in the Total Near Site Population and the Total U.S. Population
Demographic Category
Population within 1 or 3 miles of a Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturer and/or a Release Reported to TRI
                 Population within 1 or 3 miles of a DOD site
               Population within 1 or 3 miles of a Large Airport
  Population within 1 or 3 miles of all other Airport (i.e. Small and Medium)
                                U.S. Population

                                    1 mile
                                    3 miles
                                    1 mile
                                    3 miles
                                    1 mile
                                    3 miles
                                    1 mile
                                    3 miles

Race
                                                                               
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                              
Asian
                                     6.02%
                                     6.82%
                                     7.93%
                                     7.42%
                                     6.22%
                                     8.16%
                                     3.73%
                                     4.34%
                                     5.39%
Black/African American
                                    22.58%
                                    23.56%
                                    15.83%
                                    16.34%
                                    14.51%
                                    17.03%
                                     9.04%
                                    10.26%
                                    12.65%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
                                     0.06%
                                     0.08%
                                     1.07%
                                     0.55%
                                     0.36%
                                     0.33%
                                     0.19%
                                     0.19%
                                     0.18%
Native American
                                     0.44%
                                     0.36%
                                     0.78%
                                     0.75%
                                     0.71%
                                     0.74%
                                     0.91%
                                     0.84%
                                     0.83%
Other
                                     7.80%
                                     7.76%
                                    10.94%
                                    10.73%
                                    11.65%
                                    12.90%
                                     7.23%
                                     7.65%
                                     8.26%
Minority
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
Minority
                                    48.49%
                                    48.91%
                                    50.94%
                                    50.63%
                                    48.71%
                                    56.70%
                                    32.11%
                                    34.71%
                                    39.56%
Ethnicity

 
 
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
 
Hispanic (any race)
                                    17.31%
                                    16.06%
                                    21.77%
                                    22.98%
                                    24.38%
                                    28.39%
                                    16.13%
                                    16.97%
                                    18.65%
Poverty Level
                                                                               
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                                                              
Households below the poverty level
                                    18.76%
                                    16.65%
                                    13.80%
                                    14.61%
                                    13.56%
                                    15.31%
                                    12.17%
                                    13.01%
                                    13.70%
Households with a ratio of income to poverty level of two and below
                                    39.95%
                                    36.70%
                                    34.37%
                                    34.58%
                                    62.68%
                                    62.34%
                                    30.73%
                                    31.82%
                                    32.34%
Other Demographics
                                                                               
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                                                              
Linguistically isolated households
                                     4.17%
                                     4.44%
                                     5.32%
                                     6.34%
                                     6.51%
                                     9.16%
                                     3.10%
                                     3.61%
                                     5.08%
Less than a High School Education
                                     9.55%
                                     8.97%
                                     7.58%
                                     8.59%
                                     8.82%
                                    10.76%
                                     8.11%
                                     8.13%
                                     8.44%
Under 5 years of age
                                     6.25%
                                     6.26%
                                     7.20%
                                     6.78%
                                     7.30%
                                     6.82%
                                     6.26%
                                     6.26%
                                     6.13%
Over 64 years of age
                                    12.98%
                                    13.73%
                                    12.08%
                                    13.21%
                                    11.04%
                                    12.55%
                                    15.55%
                                    15.23%
                                    15.29%
Structures Built Pre-1960
                                    53.59%
                                    48.48%
                                    25.71%
                                    29.73%
                                    28.13%
                                    34.50%
                                    21.64%
                                    24.78%
                                    28.01%
Total U.S. Population Captured in Proximity 
% of U.S. Population Captured in Proximity 
                                     0.15%
                                     1.42%
                                     2.55%
                                    10.08%
                                     0.12%
                                     2.83%
                                     2.57%
                                    23.87%
                                     100%

ES-5 List of EPA Requests for Comment
To improve the visibility of EPA's requests for comment, following is a summary of all EPA's requests for comment that appear throughout this EA. For each, the request is summarized and the section in which the request is made is identified. 
 EPA requests comment on the number of PFOA and PFOS releases expected going forward. (See Section ES-3)
 EPA requests comment on the assumption that ammonia or ammonium releases provide a reasonable upper bound for PFOA and PFOS releases. (See Section ES-3)
 EPA requests comment on the annual number of releases expected per small entity, and any other information that could help EPA estimate small entity reporting costs. (See Section ES-4)
 EPA requests comment on the PFAS release levels from these facilities and the types of PFAS that they release. (See Section ES-4)
 EPA requests comment on information about PFOA and PFOS production and the use by the eight companies that participated in the PFOA Stewardship Program that may be useful in understanding the extent and magnitude of localized environmental levels of the chemicals. (See Section 2.1.1)
 EPA requests comment on expected rule familiarization costs per affected entity. (See Section ES-3 and Section 3.1)
 EPA requests comment on the number of properties that were previously transferred out of federal control with a deed that includes a covenant to provide remedial action. (See Section 3.4)
 EPA requests comment on uncertainties regarding the unquantifiability of indirect cost, benefit, and transfer impacts as described below. (See Section 3.5)
 EPA requests information and comment that may allow EPA to estimate incremental indirect costs associated with this rule. (See Section 3.5)
 EPA requests comment on the R&D expenditures that may be necessary to ensure effective removal of PFOA and PFOS. (See Section 3.6.1)
 EPA requests comment on any R&D-related benefits that may result from the Proposed Rule. (See Section 3.6.2)
 EPA seeks information and comment that will allow EPA to estimate incremental costs associated with this rule. (See Section 3.7)
 EPA requests comment on the associated impacts to small governments, including small municipal drinking water utilities from the rule. (See Section 4.2.2)



CHAPTER 1.  INTRODUCTION
This document presents an analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Land and Emergency Management of the potentially affected facilities, social costs, and statutory and executive order impacts of a proposal to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) including their salts and structural isomers, as hazardous substances under CERCLA.
The proposed rule for designation as a hazardous substance, if finalized, would require reporting of releases above the RQ of PFOA, PFOS, and their salts and structural isomers. The designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, if finalized, would result in a default reportable quantity of one pound pursuant to CERCLA section 102. Section 103 of CERCLA and 40 CFR 302.6 require any person in charge of a vessel or facility with knowledge of a release of a hazardous substance equal to or greater than the reportable quantity within a 24-hour period to immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC). Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) also imposes reporting requirements (to state, tribal, and local officials) for releases of hazardous substances above the RQ. The costs estimated by this analysis for the proposed designation are limited to reporting. 
Other direct costs associated with CERCLA 120(h) requirements for future federal property sales or transfers are qualitatively described in this analysis. Potential indirect costs and cost transfers associated with response actions are also qualitatively described. Reporting does not trigger an obligation to conduct a response action. Response actions are site-specific decisions made after the hazardous substance release or threatened release and are contingent upon a series of statutory requirements and separate discretionary actions. The costs of transitioning to materials not containing PFOA or PFOS are not included because EPA does not have data on such costs and because transitions to other materials have already occurred for many uses in the baseline, due to voluntary programs, EPA's PFOA Stewardship Program, and Significant New Use Rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (see discussion in Chapter 2).  

There are direct and indirect benefits of this proposed rule. Designation as a hazardous substance incentivizes the prevention of releases by creating direct costs associated with reporting releases. Incentivizing the prevention of releases is expected to decrease potential threats to public health and welfare and the environment. Requiring that releases of PFOA and PFOS be reported will improve the quality of information and inform a more comprehensive understanding of the number and location of PFOA and PFOS releases meeting or exceeding the reportable quantity, potentially reducing risks to public health, and conferring benefits as described in detail in Chapter 3. Additional benefits from potential indirect impacts of the proposed designation on response activities are described below.
1.1  Background
PFOA and PFOS are synthetic chemicals that are resistant to heat, water, and oil. For decades, they have been used in hundreds of industrial applications and consumer products, including the following: 
 As an additive in AFFF extinguishing foams, however, these are being actively replaced by PFOS-free extinguishing foams. 
 Plating processes, such as a wetting agent/fume suppressant.
 Grease-, oil-, and water-resistant products, e.g. non-stick cookware, processing aids, paper/paperboard food packaging, food processing equipment, etc.
 Processing aids in fluoropolymer production.
 Processing aids in textile coating applications.
 Insecticides.
 Certain types of adhesives.
 Cleaning products, such as carpet cleaners, auto washes and electronics.
 Coating products, paints, varnishes and inks.
 Surfactants for oil extraction and mining.
 Photo lithography, photographic coatings and hydraulic fluids for aviation.[,]
 Explosives and pyrotechnics as binders and oxidizers. 
In recent years the use of PFOA and PFOS in producing these materials has greatly declined, in part due to voluntary phase out by industry. Although some uses of PFOS are still ongoing (see 40 CFR §721.9582), the usage of PFOA and PFOS chemicals in the United States is relatively low. PFOA and PFOS may be present in imported products and articles (except PFOA in carpet).
Scientists are still learning about the human health effects of PFOA and PFOS exposure. Studies have shown that exposure to these compounds may 
 affect growth, learning, and behavior of infants and older children,
 lower a woman's chance of getting pregnant,
 interfere with the body's natural hormones,
 increase cholesterol levels,
 affect the immune system, and
 increase the risk of cancer.
PFOA and PFOS are part of a large group of human-made, fluorinated, organic chemicals called PFAS. For many decades, PFOA and PFOS have been released into the environment contaminating environmental media and wildlife. PFAS generally, and PFOA and PFOS specifically, are sometimes referred to as "forever" chemicals because their carbon-fluorine bonds are strong, causing PFOA and PFOS to be extremely resistant to degradation in the environment. In addition to direct release of these chemicals, PFOA and PFOS can also be formed by chemical or biological degradation from a large group of related PFAS (i.e., precursor compounds).
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. (CERCLA or the Act) establishes broad Federal authority to respond to releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances from vessels and facilities. There are two ways that a substance may be defined as a "hazardous substance" under CERCLA. The first is automatic where the substance is identified as hazardous or toxic pursuant to other specified environmental statutes (e.g., chemicals listed as air toxics by Congress or EPA under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act). The second is where the substance is designated as hazardous pursuant to CERCLA Section 102.  The Administrator of the EPA is authorized under CERCLA section 102(a) to promulgate regulations designating as a hazardous substance any substance which, when released into the environment, may present substantial danger to public health or welfare or the environment. Designation as a CERCLA hazardous substance indicates a level of concern about a given substance sufficient to require a report to the National Response Center (NRC) in the event of a release in an amount equal to or greater than the reportable quantity (RQ) for that substance. Section 102(b) of the Act establishes RQs for releases of hazardous substances at one pound, except those substances for which RQs were established pursuant to section 311(b)(4) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) or where the default RQ is superseded by a regulation under CERCLA Section 102(a). 
1.2  Need for Regulatory Action
Designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances would further CERCLA's primary goal of protecting public health and welfare and the environment through a variety of means. The designations would improve the quality of information available and inform a more comprehensive understanding of the number and locations of PFOA and PFOS releases meeting or exceeding the reportable quantity (RQ). These designations would also signal to the market that there is value in the prevention of releases. Indirect effects of the designation include the potential ability to transfer costs associated with response actions from the public to polluters, and the potential to accelerate privately financed voluntary cleanups. As a reference point for the burden borne by EPA for remedial actions, data compiled from the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) indicates that EPA funded the remedial actions in 29 percent of active NPL sites in 2019, compared to 47 percent funded by potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and 9 percent with mixed financing. Data on the financing for the remaining 15 percent was not reported in SEMS.[,] Categories of response costs that may potentially be transferred include, but are not limited to, direct, indirect, payroll, contractor, travel, and laboratory costs. These costs may be related to items such as (but not limited to) remedy design, construction and operation of groundwater treatment systems, disposal of hazardous substances removed from the site, and groundwater monitoring following completion of clean-up.
Additionally, a PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designation would be consistent with and supportive of many actions by EPA, other federal agencies, states, tribes and various international bodies. Federal, state, and international governmental entities have already taken a wide variety of actions to address PFOA and PFOS contamination. For example:
 The DOD has been providing alternative drinking water to local residents near military bases with elevated levels of PFOA and PFOS in their drinking water from DoD activities. 
 California, Michigan, and Vermont have drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS. 
 The European Union, and individual countries, such as Australia, China, and Canada, have also taken measures to address PFOA and PFOS.     
1.3  Summary of the Proposed Rule
Under Section 102(a) of CERCLA, the EPA is proposing to designate PFOA and PFOS, including their salts and structural isomers, as hazardous substances. The proposal to designate PFOA and PFOS including their structural isomers and salts, as hazardous substances results in the following CERCLA requirements: 
 Report to the National Response Center (NRC) when releases occur in amounts equal to or greater than their reportable quantity of one pound or more in a 24-hour period, as required under CERCLA section 103; and
 For such releases, notify the State Emergency Response Commissions (SERC) (or Tribal Emergency Response Commission (TERC)) and Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) (or Tribal Emergency Planning Committee (TEPC)) of the release and prepare and submit a written follow-up notice, as required for CERCLA hazardous substances under EPCRA section 304; and
 When federal agencies sell or transfer federally-owned, real property, they must provide notice of the presence of hazardous substances and covenants regarding the remediation of such hazardous substances in certain circumstances as required by CERCLA section 120(h).
 An obligation on DOT to list and regulate CERCLA designated hazardous substances as hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (see CERCLA Section 306(a)).  
 EPCRA and CERCLA are separate, but interrelated, environmental laws that work together to provide emergency release notifications to federal, state, tribal, and local officials. Under CERCLA, notices given to the NRC inform the federal government of a release, allowing federal personnel to evaluate the need for a response in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan. Under EPCRA, notices given to TERC, LEPC, and TEPC inform state, tribal, and local authorities about a release, allowing them to respond to protect the community and environment. 

1.4  Scope of Analysis
This analysis examines quantifiable and qualitative direct and indirect costs, benefits, and other impacts for this proposed rulemaking and estimation of compliance costs associated with the rulemaking. Primarily, this analysis estimates costs associated with reporting releases of hazardous substances. It also considers costs resulting from federal property sales and transfers requirements associated with the alignment of CERCLA designation with other federal regulations. This rule directly targets information collection and reporting, this RIA only qualitatively examines the benefits associated with improved quality of information including better understanding of potential release events and sites.
 The information about PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance releases that is collected as a result of this proposed action could inform separate decisions about responses to and remediation of releases. These subsequent actions, if any, are contingent on future site-specific decisions, and require separate actions by different Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies in different jurisdictions with different regulatory structures.  The Agency has concluded that the following barriers prevent developing a quantitative analysis of costs, benefits, and transfers associated with potential response actions: lack of adequate data availability about the extent of existing PFOA and PFOS use and contamination, evolving assessment technology and health science, and developing treatment and disposal technologies. A qualitative review of indirect cost, benefit, and potential cost transfer impacts is also included in Chapter 3.  
In Chapter 4, this RIA also considers impacts of the rule related to certain Executive Orders and statutes, including but not limited to, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, impacts on Tribal Governments, and Federalism impacts.
1.5  Report Organization
EPA designed and conducted this analysis to be consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, and OMB Circular A-4. Data, methods, and results of this analysis are presented in the following chapters:
Chapter 2: Entities That Have Historically Used PFOA and PFOS. This chapter provides profiles of the entities that may be affected by the proposed rulemaking and the extent to which state regulations may already require compliance with the proposed regulations.
Chapter 3: Assessment of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers. This chapter presents the estimated annual direct costs of compliance associated with the proposed rulemaking and describes the methodology used to develop these cost estimates. A qualitative description of direct benefits, as well as indirect costs, benefits, and potential transfers, is also included. 
Chapter 4: Statutory and Executive Order Analyses. This chapter summarizes analyses required by certain statutes or Executive Orders, including impacts related to energy systems, regulatory flexibility, minority and low-income populations, children's health, regulatory planning and review, unfunded mandates, federalism, and tribal governments.
       
CHAPTER 2.  ENTITIES THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY USED PFOA AND PFOS
PFOA and PFOS were two of the most extensively produced PFAS in the United States but were largely phased out voluntarily after 2002. However, the chemicals are still produced internationally and can be imported into the United States for industrial uses or in articles and consumer goods such as leather, apparel, textiles, paper and packaging, coatings, rubber, and plastics. 
Building on the 2002 voluntary phase out, EPA has used the following mechanisms to restrict current uses of PFOS and PFOA:
 PFAS Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)  -  March/December 2002
 The PFOA Stewardship Program  -  2010/2015
 PFAS Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) - 2013 
 PFAS Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)  -  2020
In March of 2002, a SNUR was published by EPA and focused on 13 chemicals involved in the voluntary phase out of PFOS by 3M that took place between 2000 and 2002. As such, new manufacturing or importing of PFOS and its derivatives became subject to EPA reporting and review unless it was characterized as a highly technical and limited use. In December of 2002, another SNUR was published by EPA which built upon the March 2002 SNUR. Under this new SNUR, new manufacturing or importing of 75 PFAS chemicals specifically included in the voluntary phase out of PFOS by 3M became subjected to EPA review. Exemptions remained for PFOS manufacturing or importing that was deemed as highly technical or limited. [,]
In 2005, EPA invited eight companies within the PFAS industry to join a stewardship program aimed at achieving two goals:
 By 2010, achieve a 95 percent reduction in PFOA, including precursor chemicals that can break down to PFOA, from the baseline levels produced in 2000.
 By 2015, eliminate these same chemicals from all emissions and products. 
The following eight companies participated in the program: 
 Arkema
 Asahi
 BASF Corporation (successor to Ciba)
 Clariant
 Daikin
 3M/Dyneon
 DuPont
 Solvay Solexis

As of 2015, all eight companies met the goals proposed by the stewardship program. 
In 2013, EPA issued a SNUR primarily designating PFAS chemical substances that have completed TSCA new chemical review process, but not yet commenced production or import as significant new use. Additionally, this SNUR required persons subject to the rule to notify EPA prior to commencing the import or use of PFOA for treating carpets. In 2020, EPA issued a final rule strengthening the regulation of PFAS (i.e., PFOA and its salts, long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate chemical substances) by requiring notice and EPA review before new use of long-chain PFAS. Additionally, products containing certain long-chain PFAS as a surface coating and carpet containing perfluoroalkyl sulfonate chemical substances can no longer be imported into the United States without EPA review. 
Under this array of regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms, current PFOS uses are limited to anti-erosion additives in fire-resistant aviation hydraulic fluid; fume/mist suppression in metal finishing and plating; etching and plating uses, including mist suppression, in electronics manufacturing; a photomicrolithography process in semiconductor production; coatings on imaging materials; and as a chemical intermediate to produce substances for some of the aforementioned uses. Fewer definite limitations are in place regarding PFOA uses. Therefore, although PFOA has also been understood to decline significantly over the last two decades, PFOA's current usage and its array of specific applications are uncertain.
Although some limitations on production and use of PFOA and PFOS have been put into place, it is important to note that environmental contamination and human exposure to these chemicals are anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future due to their environmental persistence, formation from precursor compounds, continued production primarily by international manufacturers, and their long history of production in the United States.
This chapter provides a description of the entities that may be affected by the proposed regulation and documents the extent to which state regulations may already require compliance with the proposed regulation.
2.1  Types of Entities Potentially Affected by the Proposed Regulations
The current uses of PFOS have been greatly reduced following the finalization of the various SNURs. As noted, the use and usage of PFOA has also been understood to decline significantly over the last two decades, but its current usage and array of specific uses are uncertain. 
Generally, the three categories of entities potentially affected by the proposed regulation are: (1) importers and manufacturers of PFOA and PFOS, (2) users of PFOA- or PFOS-containing articles, and (3) waste management facilities. Across these three categories, there are at least 35 different sectors with known or suspected PFOA or PFOS production, use, or waste management. 
2.1.1 Importers and Manufacturers of PFOA and PFOS
Manufacture and import of both PFOS and PFOA has been phased out in the United States by the eight global companies participating in the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. In 2015, these companies eliminated the production and content of PFOA and related chemicals in their products. A summary of the PFOA Stewardship Program including the goals, the participating companies, and related public documents is publicly available. Although PFOA and PFOS are not produced domestically or imported by the companies participating in the 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program, it is possible PFOA and PFOS may still be produced domestically or imported in very small quantities by other companies, i.e., those that did not participate in the PFOA Stewardship Program. EPA requests comment on information about PFOA and PFOS production and the use by the eight companies that participated in the PFOA Stewardship Program that may useful in understanding the extent and magnitude of localized environmental levels of the chemicals. Additionally, EPA has regulated PFOA and other long chain PFAS by requiring notice and EPA review before any phased-out use of long-chain PFAS could resume (see 40 CFR §721.9582). The Chemical Data Reporting rule requires manufacturers (including importers) to report PFOA and PFOS quantities if they meet or exceed 2,500 lbs at a single site. The last times PFOA and PFOS manufacture were reported to EPA as part of this collection effort were in 2013 and 2002, respectively. However, the 2020 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data shows that a small amount of PFOA and PFOS continue to be released into the environment.
2.1.2 Users of PFOA and PFOS
As explained in this chapter, PFOA and PFOS are no longer widely produced by U.S. manufacturers. Because many of these manufacturers also historically manufactured products containing PFOA and PFOS (i.e., firefighting foam, etching agents, car wax, etc.), this analysis assumes that the production of materials containing PFOA and PFOS has largely, but not necessarily completely, been eliminated from domestic manufacturing.  
Although domestic manufacturing of materials containing PFOA and PFOS has largely ceased, many sectors are potential users of manufactured products that contain PFOA or PFOS. PFOA or PFOS have historically been a component of firefighting foams, surfactants, etching agents, stain- and water-resistant applications, car waxes, architectural coatings, and antistatic control. Exhibit 2-1 below summarizes the users and associated products that, based on historical use, may contain PFOA and PFOS. 
                                  Exhibit 2-1
Summary of Users and Associated Products Historically Containing PFOA and PFOS
                                     User
                          Products with PFOA and PFOS
Fire departments and firefighting training areas 
Firefighting foam
Airports
Firefighting foam
Military installations
Firefighting foam
Petroleum refineries and terminals
Firefighting foam
Oil and mining production facilities
Surfactants
Chromium, copper, nickel, and tin electroplaters
Surfactants (to suppress chemical fumes and mist)
Pesticides and Insecticides
Surfactants and active substances
Medical Devices
Dispersant and stain- and water-resistant applications
Electronics and semiconductor industries etching
Etching agents
Paper mills
Paper for food contact applications and non-contact applications
Textile mills
Stain- and water-resistant applications
Furniture manufacturers
Stain- and water-resistant applications
Carwashes, car dealerships, and autobody shops
Car wax
Construction companies
Architectural coatings
Photographic film development
Antistatic control, surface tension control, friction control, and dirt repellency (particularly for faster speed films and sensitive diagnostic x-ray products)

2.1.3  Waste Management Facilities 
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) may receive wastewater that contains PFOA or PFOS from a variety of sources, including industries that manufacture or use PFOA and PFOS and PFOA- and PFOS-containing products. Examples include carwashes, runoff from firefighting training areas or oil fires, and households that use products containing PFOA and PFOS. Some companies may operate onsite wastewater treatment facilities, but typically they are not designed to remove PFOA and PFOS and their related compounds. 
PFOA and PFOS are the most widely detected PFAS compounds in wastewater, and treatment units at conventional WWTPs. At present, WWTPs do not remove these compounds effectively. As a result, effluent discharged to receiving water bodies and WWTP sludge may contain PFOA and PFOS. WWTPs may dispose of sludge by incineration, which can destroy PFOA and PFOS, or WWTPs may send sludge to a landfill. While studies have shown nearly complete decomposition of certain PFAS at temperatures representative of heat levels at sewage sludge incinerators (SSIs), research on the emissions of PFAS compounds and thermal by-products (e.g., products of incomplete combustion) from full-scale SSIs has not been published to date. Sludge also is commonly applied to land as a fertilizer or soil amendment. The use of biosolids on farmland can lead to the uptake of PFOA and PFOS in the food chain. Industrial and municipal landfills also are receptors of PFOA- and PFOS-containing materials. In addition to biosolids from WWTPs, landfills may receive manufacturing wastes and household wastes (including food wrappings; empty cans of polish, wax, and cleaners; dental floss, etc.) that contain PFOA and PFOS, or chemicals that degrade to PFOA and PFOS. The leachate from municipal landfills is typically collected and sent to WWTPs for treatment, which can continue the introduction of PFOA and PFOS to the environment.
2.2  Baseline Regulations affecting PFOA and PFOS and associated Facilities and Systems 
Although PFOA and PFOS are not currently designated as CERCLA hazardous substances, EPA has used existing authority and continues to address PFAS releases under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), TSCA, RCRA, and CERCLA. The Agency has used CERCLA authority to gather existing information on PFAS at certain sites and facilities (e.g., sampling data and information on management and disposal practices). CERCLA section 104 authority has been used by EPA and other federal agencies to respond to PFAS releases.  Additionally, under federal facility agreements, which apply to pollutants and contaminants, federal agencies are required to address PFOA and PFOS releases at federal facility NPL sites. 
Beyond EPA's baseline regulations and other federal actions taken to address PFOA and PFOS, state governments continue to develop regulatory structures and analytic approaches to identify, characterize, and address PFOA and PFOS exposure. For example, New Hampshire has undertaken sampling for PFAS at drinking water supplies, wastewater treatment plants, fire stations, landfills, and contaminated waste sites to better understand the scope of contamination in the state. California also is planning a phased sampling effort targeting airports, landfills, refineries, bulk terminals, fire training areas, manufacturers that use PFAS in products or processes, and nearby water supply wells. 
Currently, a number of states have established regulatory structures and programs to address PFAS contamination. For example:  
Vermont regulates PFOA and PFOS as hazardous wastes when present in a liquid at a concentration greater than 20 parts per thousand, but allows certain exemptions, including for sludge from wastewater treatment facilities or leachate from landfills when managed under an approved plan. 
New York finalized regulations in 2017 that specify storage and registration requirements for Class B firefighting foams containing at least one percent by volume of one or more of four PFAS (including PFOA and PFOS). The regulations prohibit the release of one pound or more of each into the environment during use. If a release exceeds the one-pound threshold, it is considered a hazardous waste spill and must be reported, and cleanup may be required under the state's Superfund or Brownfields programs.
Washington prohibited the use of PFAS-containing Class B firefighting foam for training in 2018. By 2020, the manufacture and sale of these foams will be prohibited within the state, with the exceptions of the military, FAA-certified airports, petroleum refineries and terminals, and certain chemical plants.
In addition, nearly half of all states have developed standards and guidance threshold values for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and groundwater. Details on these standards and guidance values are summarized in Exhibit 2-2 below. According to the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, a state-led public-private coalition formed to produce technical resources that help regulators and other stakeholders understand PFAS issues. Several states have either adopted EPA's 2016 lifetime health advisory limits (HALs) for drinking water of 0.07 ug/L for PFOA and PFOS or have chosen to use the concentrations as advisory, non-regulated levels to guide the interpretation of PFOA and PFOS detections. Other states have developed health-based values based on separate analyses of the scientific data, several of which are lower than EPA HALs:
Vermont's lifetime combined HAL for five PFAS compounds, including PFOA and PFOS, is 0.02 ug/L. 
New Jersey has an MCL of 0.014 ug/L for PFOA and 0.013 ug/L for PFOS.
Michigan's MCLs for PFOA and PFOS, promulgated in August 2020, are 0.008 ug/L and 0.016 ug/L respectively. 
New values continue to be planned, developed, and updated across these states and others. 
The state standards and guidance values are primarily for groundwater and surface water used for drinking water; however, about eleven states have developed screening levels or remedial action goals for PFOA and PFOS in soil, as detailed in Exhibit 2-3. Values vary by several orders of magnitude. For example, soil screening levels for protection of groundwater for PFOA range from 0.0015 mg/kg in Texas to 16 mg/kg in Delaware; screening levels for PFOS range from 0.00024 mg/kg in Michigan to 6 mg/kg in Delaware.
In all, at least 29 states either have or currently are setting standards, screening levels, and guidance values for PFOA and PFOS (and sometimes other PFAS compounds). EPA found little to no documentation of PFAS on the websites of the remaining state environmental departments and departments of health. Based on EPA's review, these state standards focus on specific state reporting data systems, and do not include requirements for reporting to the National Response Center. They would not, therefore, offset any of the costs and benefits expected from this proposed rulemaking as states are not currently requiring entities to report releases to federal entities.  For further discussion of state standards and regulations pertaining to PFOA and PFOS, please refer to the preamble to the Proposed Rule.
                                 Exhibit 2-2 
State Standards and Guidance values for PFOA and PFOS in Groundwater, Drinking Water, and Surface Water/Effluent (Wastewater)
                                   Location
                                 Agency / Dept
                               Year Last Updated
                              Standard / Guidance
                                     Type
                               Promulgated Rule
                                  PFOA (ppb)
                                  PFOS (ppb)
Alaska (AK)
DEC
                                     2016
Groundwater cleanup level
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.400
                                     0.400
Alaska (AK)
DEC
                                     2018
Action level
Drinking Water/Groundwater/Surface water and/or effluent
                                      No
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
California (CA)
SWRCB
                                     2021
Notification level
Drinking Water
                                      No
                                     0.005
                                     0.007
California (CA)
SWRCB
                                     2021
Response Level (California only)
Drinking Water
                                      Yes
                                     0.010
                                     0.040
Colorado (CO)
DPHE
                                     2018
Site-specific groundwater quality standard
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Colorado (CO)
WQCC
                                     2020
Translation levels 
Groundwater/Surface water and/or effluent
                                      Yes
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Connecticut (CT)
DPH
                                     2016
Private well action level
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      No
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Connecticut (CT)
DEEP
                                     2018
Additional polluting substance groundwater protection criteria
Groundwater
                                      No
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Delaware (DE)
DNREC
                                     2016
Reporting level
Groundwater
                                      No
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Delaware (DE)
DNREC
                                     2016
Screening Level
Groundwater
                                      No
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Florida (FL)
FDEP
                                     2019
Provisional groundwater target cleanup level
Groundwater
                                     Other
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Florida (FL)
FDEP
                                     2019
Surface Water Screening Level
Surface water and/or effluent
                                     Other
                                     0.500
                                     0.010
Hawaii (HI)
DOH
                                     2020
Environmental action level
Protected Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.040
                                     0.040
Hawaii (HI)
HDOH
                                     2021
Environmental action level
Groundwater
                                     Other
                                     0.040
                                     0.040
Illinois (IL)
EPA
                                     2021
Health-based guidance level
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.002
                                     0.014
Indiana (IN)
DEM
                                     2019
Screening level (tap)
Protected Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                       
                                       
Iowa (IA)
DNR
                                     2016
Statewide standards
Protected Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Iowa (IA)
DNR
                                     2016
Statewide standards
Non-protected Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                      50
                                       1
Maine (ME)
DEP
                                     2018
Remedial action guideline
Groundwater
                                      No
                                     0.400
                                     0.400
Maine (ME)
DEP
                                     2020
Screening levels
Drinking Water
                                     Other
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Massachusetts (MA)
DEP
                                   2018/2019
Drinking water values
Drinking Water
                                     Other
                                     0.020
                                     0.020
Massachusetts (MA)
DEP
                                     2019
Groundwater-1
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.020
                                     0.020
Massachusetts (MA)
DEP
                                     2019
Groundwater-3
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                    40,000
                                      500
Massachusetts (MA)
DEP
                                     2020
Maximum contaminant level
Drinking Water
                                      Yes
                                     0.020
                                     0.020
Michigan (MI)
EGLE
                                     2015
Human noncancer value for surface drinking water
Surface water and/or effluent
                                      Yes
                                     0.420
                                     0.011
Michigan (MI)
DHHS
                                     2019
Screening levels
Drinking Water
                                      No
                                     0.009
                                     0.008
Michigan (MI)
EGLE
                                     2021
Maximum contaminant level/Generic Cleanup Criteria 
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.008
                                     0.016
Minnesota (MN)
MDH
                                     2018
HRL- subchronic
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.035
                                       
Minnesota (MN)
MDH
                                     2018
HRL - chronic
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.035
                                     0.300
Minnesota (MN)
MDH
                                     2019
Health-based value - subchronic
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      No
                                       
                                     0.015
Minnesota (MN)
MDH
                                     2019
Health-based value - chronic
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      No
                                       
                                     0.015
Minnesota (MN)
MDH
                                     2007
Health-based value
surface water and/or effluent-Lake
                                      No
                                       
                                     0.012
Minnesota (MN)
MDH
                                     2007
Health-based value
Surface water and/or effluent-River
                                      No
                                       
                                     0.006
Montana (MT)
DEQ
                                     2019
Water quality standard
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Nevada (NV) 
DEP
                                     2015
Basic comparison level
Drinking Water
                                      No
                                     0.667
                                     0.667
New Hampshire (NH)
DES
                                     2019
Ambient groundwater quality standard
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.012
                                     0.015
New Hampshire (NH)
DES
                                     2020
Maximum contaminant level
Drinking Water
                                      Yes
                                     0.012
                                     0.015
New Jersey (NJ)
DEP
                                     2020
Groundwater water quality standard
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.014
                                     0.013
New Jersey (NJ)
DEP
                                     2020
Maximum contaminant level
Drinking Water
                                      Yes
                                     0.014
                                     0.013
New Mexico (NM)
NMED
                                     2019
Screening Level
Drinking Water
                                      No
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
New York (NY)
DEQ
                                     2006
Interim maximum allowable standard
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                       2
                                       
New York (NY)
DOH
                                     2020
Maximum contaminant level
Drinking Water
                                      Yes
                                     0.010
                                     0.010
North Carolina (NC)
DEQ
                                     2006
Interim maximum allowable standard
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                       2
                                       
North Carolina (NC)
DHHS
                                     2017
Health goal
Drinking Water
                                      No
                                       
                                       
Ohio (OH)
ODH
                                     2019
Action level
Drinking Water
                                     Other
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Oregon (OR)
DEQ
                                     2011
Initiation level 
Surface water and/or effluent
                                      Yes
                                      24
                                      300
Pennsylvania (PA)
DEP
                                     2016
Medium-specific concentration
Groundwater
                                      No
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Rhode Island
DEM
                                     2017
Groundwater quality standard
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.070
                                     0.070
Texas (TX)
CEQ
                                     2021
Tier 1 PCL
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.290
                                     0.560
Vermont (VT)
DEC/DOH
                                     2020
Maximum contaminant level
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.020
                                     0.020
Vermont (VT)
DEC/DOH
                                     2018
Lifetime health advisory
Drinking Water/Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.020
                                     0.020
Vermont (VT)
DEC
                                     2019
Groundwater enforcement standard
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.020
                                     0.020
Vermont (VT)
DEC
                                     2019
Preventive action level
Groundwater
                                      Yes
                                     0.002
                                     0.002


                                 Exhibit 2-3 
       Residential Soil Standards and Guidance Values for PFOA and PFOS 
State
Agency
Year Listed
                              Standard/Guidance 
                              PFOA Level (mg/kg)
                              PFOS Level (mg/kg)
Alaska
DEC
                                     2017
Cleanup Level
                                      1.3
                                      1.3
Connecticut
DEEP
                                     2018
Additional Polluting Substance GA Pollutant Mobility Criteria
                                     1.35
                                     1.35
Delaware
DNREC
                                     2021
Screening Level
                                     0.13
                                     0.13
Delaware
DNREC
                                     2021
Reporting Level 
                                      1.3
                                      1.3
Florida
FDEP
                                     2019
Provisional Soil Cleanup Target Level
                                      1.3
                                      1.3
Hawaii
HDOH
                                     2021
Environmental Action Level
                                    0.0012
                                    0.0075
Indiana
IDEM
                                     2019
Screening Level
                                      --
                                      --
Iowa
DNR
                                     2016
Statewide Standard
                                      35
                                      1.8
Maine
DEP
                                     2018
Remedial Action Goal
                                      1.7
                                      1.7
Massachusetts
DEP
                                     2019
S-1 (Soil Level 1)
                                      0.3
                                      0.3
Minnesota
PCA
                                     2019
Soil Reference Value
                                     0.24
                                     0.041
Nebraska
DEE
                                     2018
Remediation Goal
                                     0.32
                                      3.2
Nevada
DEP
                                     2017
Basic Comparison Levels
                                     1.56
                                     1.56
New Hampshire
DES - EHP
                                     2019
Direct Contact Risk-Based concentration
                                      0.2
                                      0.1
New Hampshire
DES - EHP
                                     2019
Direct Contact Risk-Based concentration
                                      1.3
                                      0.6
New Mexico
NMED
                                     2019
Preliminary Screening Level
                                     1.56
                                     1.56
New York
DEC
                                     2020
Guidance Value
                                    0.00066
                                    0.00088
North Carolina
DEQ
                                     2018
Preliminary Soil Remediation Goal
                                      --
                                      --
Pennsylvania
PADEP
                                     2021
Medium-Specific Concentration
                                      4.4
                                      4.4
Texas
CEQ
                                     2019
Protective Concentration Level
                                      0.6
                                      1.5
Texas
CEQ
                                     2019
Protective Concentration Level
                                      0.5
                                      1.5
Vermont
DEC
                                     2019
Regional Screening Level
                                     1.22
                                     1.22
Wisconsin
DNR
                                     2018
Regional Cleanup Level
                                     1.26
                                     1.26



CHAPTER 3.  COSTS, BENEFITS, AND TRANSFERS
Final designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under Section 102(a) of CERCLA would require any person in charge of a vessel or facility that identifies a release of one pound or more of PFOA or PFOS within a 24-hour period to report the release to the NRC. Facilities will also be required to report the release to their SERC (or TERC) and LEPC (or TEPC) under EPCRA section 304. Facilities are also required to submit a follow-up written report to these entities under EPCRA section 304. Hazardous substance designation under section 102(a) of CERCLA does not lead automatically to any response actions. Response actions, which include investigations of releases of hazardous substances and determining if removal or remedial action is necessary, are contingent, discretionary, and site-specific. EPA prioritizes the highest-risk sites under CERCLA (and that listing process is open to public comment); the process for selecting remedies includes public notice and comment; and cost considerations, among other important factors such as protectiveness, are part of CERCLA's site-specific cleanup approach. Furthermore, the designation of a hazardous substance under CERCLA section 102(a) in some cases does not create new costs, but rather often allows costs to be transferred from taxpayers to parties responsible for pollution under CERCLA. Even in those circumstances, where the government is authorized to transfer costs, a private party's ability to pay response costs is taken into consideration under the statute and in EPA's implementation of the statute.   
As such, this chapter presents the estimated annual direct costs associated with notification activity and describes the methodology used to develop these cost estimates. Due to uncertainty surrounding the number of annual releases, this analysis provides estimates under lower bound and upper bound assumptions. The chapter also includes a qualitative discussion of additional potential costs resulting from federal property sale and transfer requirements associated with the alignment of CERCLA designation with other federal regulations. Indirect costs related to potential increases in response activities and increases in the speed of response activities are qualitatively described. In addition to direct and indirect costs presented, the chapter provides qualitative discussion of direct and indirect benefits, and concludes with a qualitative review of potential transfers and redistributive impacts.
3.1  Quantified Direct Costs
This section presents the estimated annual direct costs associated with notification activity and describes the methodology used to develop these cost estimates. Due to uncertainties regarding the number of annual releases, this analysis provides estimates under lower bound and upper bound assumptions. Additionally, EPA estimates costs associated with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).
3.1.1 Notification Costs per Release
The explicit reporting requirements associated with designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances include the requirement under CERCLA section 103(a) to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of a release and the requirements under EPCRA section 304 to notify the SERC (or TERC) and LEPC (or TEPC) of a release and to prepare and submit a follow-up written report.  
The costs associated with notifications under CERCLA and EPCRA are documented in EPA's Information Collection Requests and Supporting Statements for those regulations, which are No. 1049, OMB No. 2050-0046 and No. 1395, OMB No. 2050-0092 respectively. Exhibit 3-1 summarizes these per release costs; based on data in two Information Collection Request documents published by EPA, the total reporting cost for a facility submitting both telephone notifications and a written notification would be approximately $561. [,] Incremental detection and measurement costs are assumed to be zero or negligible, as affected facilities are likely to incur such costs in the baseline to comply with reporting requirements related to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). EPA assumes there will be no incremental costs to train staff on the assessment of spilled PFOA/PFOS quantities. If an entity is handling these chemicals and there is a PFOA/PFOS release at its site, we assume that it has the capability to assess spilled quantities and that its staff are sufficiently trained for this purpose. In addition, EPA assumes there will be no incremental costs associated with rule familiarization. Facilities should already be familiar with baseline requirements associated with reporting releases of non-PFOA/PFOS hazardous substances to the NRC and to other state and local emergency entities as required under EPCRA.    EPA requests comment on expected rule familiarization costs per affected entity. 
                                  Exhibit 3-1
Reporting Costs Per Release Under CERCLA and EPCRA Requirements (adjusted to 2020$) 
                                       
                                Unit Labor Cost
                               Unit O&M Cost
                                Total Unit Cost
Telephone Notification to NRC under CERCLA section 103(a)
                                                                        $59.40 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                        $59.40 
Telephone and written reporting to SERCs (or TERCs) and LEPCs (or TEPCs) under EPCRA Section 304
                                                                       $495.78 
                                                                         $5.45 
                                                                       $501.23 
Total
                                                                       $555.18 
                                                                         $5.45 
                                                                       $560.63 

3.1.2  Number of Annual Notifications
The expected number of reportable releases of PFOA and PFOS is not known. To estimate the number, EPA reviewed recent numbers of past release reports to the NRC of other hazardous substances. In FY 2020 the NRC received approximately 23,807 total notifications of releases of all types of hazardous substances. Of all non-oil releases reported, hazardous substances containing multiple forms of ammonia or ammonium compounds accounted for the largest number of releases in 2020; there were 660 in total. To develop an upper bound estimate for future PFOA and PFOS reportable releases, this analysis assumes that PFOA and PFOS release reports will be comparable to ammonia and ammonium release reports; that is, an upper bound assumption of 660 PFOA and PFOS notifications per year. 
As a lower bound, this analysis assumes zero annual notifications of PFOA and PFOS releases. This assumption is based on EPA's 2014 Economic Analysis of the Significant New Use Rule for Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate Chemical Substances and Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonate Chemical Substances, which suggests that PFOS and PFOA were unlikely to be manufactured, imported, or processed in the U.S. after December 31, 2015. 
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data on PFOS and PFOA "releases" became available in 2021. The current extent that any releases reported to TRI would qualify under this proposed rulemaking is unknown; TRI releases can in some cases include activities that are compliant with other regulations (e.g., pumping into an underground injection well consistent with RCRA) and would not require reporting under CERCLA. In 2020, TRI data included TRI-defined releases of PFOA or PFOS reported by nine facilities totaling 2,181 lbs. (Exhibit 3-2). Of the nine reports, seven were at disposal facilities and two were at manufacturing facilities.[,] 3M's Cottage Grove Facility reported TRI-defined releases of 90 lbs. of PFOA and 77 lbs. of PFOS. 

                                  Exhibit 3-2
List of PFOA and PFOS Releases that took Place in 2020 and Reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in 2021
Facility Name
Type of Facility
Year of Release
Release of Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (lbs)
Release of Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) (lbs)
Total Releases (lbs)
3M Cottage Grove Center
Manufacturing
                                     2020
                                                                          90.11
                                                                           76.5
                                                                         166.61
Clean Harbors El Dorado LLC
Disposal
                                     2020
                                                                          475.1
                                                                              0
                                                                          475.1
Heritage Thermal Services
Disposal
                                     2020
                                                                           0.02
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.02
Vickery Environmental Inc
Disposal
                                     2020
                                                                         643.76
                                                                              0
                                                                         643.76
BASF Corp - Freeport Site
Manufacturing
                                     2020
                                                                           0.14
                                                                            5.1
                                                                           5.24
Clean Harbors Deer Park LLC
Disposal
                                     2020
                                                                            0.1
                                                                              0
                                                                            0.1
TM Deer Park Services LP
Disposal
                                     2020
                                                                            128
                                                                              0
                                                                            128
Wayne Disposal Inc
Disposal
                                     2020
                                                                              0
                                                                         475.88
                                                                         475.88
Clean Water Environmental LLC
Disposal
                                     2020
                                                                              0
                                                                          286.7
                                                                          286.7

3.1.3  Total Annual Notification Costs
This RIA estimates total annual notification costs by multiplying the estimated annual number of PFOA and PFOS notifications nationally by the estimated cost of notification per site. Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the range of total annual notification costs. As the exhibit shows, annual notification costs are an estimated $0 to $370,000.
                                  Exhibit 3-3
         Estimated Total Annual Notification Costs (adjusted to 2020$)
           Estimated Annual Number of Notification in United States
                     Estimated Notification Costs (Total)
                                   0  -  660
                                 $0 - $370,000

3.1.4 Costs Associated with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)
 Potential direct costs may result from the DOT requirement to list and regulate CERCLA designated hazardous substances as hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (see CERCLA Section 306(a)). EPA estimates these incremental costs as zero or negligible. It is unlikely that regulated entities would ship PFOA or PFOS in quantities equal to or above the RQ because use and production of these chemicals are understood to have been largely phased out of production and use beginning in 2000 thus the incremental shipping costs are not expected to be significant. Rather, it is expected that residual quantities shipped would be commingled with other hazardous materials that are already handled and shipped as hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.  
3.2  Unquantified Direct Costs 
 The proposed rule will create additional costs associated with CERCLA section 120(h) requirements for federal agencies to provide notice of the release of hazardous substances when selling or transferring federally-owned real property. In addition to providing notice at the time of sale, in previous sales transactions federal agencies have been required, in certain circumstances, provide a covenant warranting that "all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any [hazardous substances] remaining on the property has been taken before the date of such transfer, and any additional remedial action found to be necessary after the date of such transfer shall be conducted by the United States." The number and magnitude of future federal property sales and transfers involving property contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS is highly uncertain. Due to this uncertainty, this analysis does not attempt to quantify these costs. EPA requests comment on the number of properties that were previously transferred out of federal control with a deed that includes a covenant to provide remedial action.
3.3  Qualitative Description of Benefits
Qualitative benefits of this action include improved quality of information and a more comprehensive understanding of the number and location of sites with future releases of PFOA and PFOS which meet or exceed the RQ. This information on releases of PFOA and PFOS will enable more efficient decisions in the marketplace for nearby properties. Individuals who are more risk averse may prefer to locate farther away from sites with reported PFOA or PFOS releases relative to people who are less risk averse.
Increased data disclosure regarding individual companies' releases may also reduce uncertainty in capital markets. The value of this reduced uncertainty may be reflected in the market capitalization or cost of capital of affected firms. These changes represent a benefit to society because they allow financial capital to be allocated more efficiently than under baseline conditions, thereby expanding the productive capacity of the economy. For example, a study by Campbell et al. analyzes the relationship between environmental liability uncertainty, specifically Superfund liabilities, and a firm's market valuation (market value of common stock). Focusing on the chemical, paper, and machinery industries, Campbell et al. found that significant uncertainty in a firm's Superfund liabilities could reduce its market value by more than $4 per share per site in the sample, though this result varied significantly across industries. 
Other direct benefits associated with the proposed rule's reporting requirements could include better waste management practices for facilities handling PFOA or PFOS in an effort to avoid releases of these substances into the environment. Incentivizing the prevention of releases is expected to decrease potential threats to public health and welfare and the environment. Several studies have shown that increased transparency regarding environmental releases is associated with reductions in releases. Focusing on toxics releases that became subject to disclosure following passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act in 1986, Konar and Cohen found that firms with the largest decline in stock price following disclosures of their environmental releases through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reduced their releases more than their industry peers. Similarly, and also focused on TRI, a subsequent study by Konar and Cohen found that disclosure requirements led to the most significant reductions in releases among firms that were most visible to the public. Examining repeated public disclosures of releases by firms in the chemical industry between 1990 and 1994, Khanna et al. concluded that repeated provision of release data led to reductions in stock price, which then had a significant negative impact on subsequent toxic releases from these sites.
Requiring that releases of PFOA and PFOS be reported may improve the speed and design of any subsequent cleanups (both privately and publicly funded), thereby potentially reducing risks and conferring benefits earlier. For example, the reporting of a release could potentially raise community awareness of a release and accelerate a privately-financed voluntary cleanup. This could more quickly reduce risks faced by nearby exposed individuals.
These actions are discretionary and dependent on various factors that are challenging to predict, but, depending on local site conditions and technology options, may include averting actions or requirements for remediation. 
3.4  Qualitative Discussion of Indirect Costs, Benefits, and Transfers 
 The proposed designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances may lead to benefits and costs from potential indirect impacts on assessment and response activities. Transfers of costs from the public to responsible parties may also occur contingent upon statutory requirements being met, and discretionary actions by EPA. Consistent with the guidance of Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Circular A-4, further economic considerations are included to provide the public with insights related to indirect costs, benefits, and potential transfers of liability.
3.4.1  Indirect Costs including Cost Savings  
To the extent that the Proposed Rule shifts the response burden from EPA to potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in the private sector, response and clean-up may be less costly than under baseline conditions. When CERCLA was passed, one of the reasons for establishing a hybrid system in which PRPs themselves implement many cleanups was to harness the efficiency and expertise of the private sector.  If the private sector is able to complete cleanups for sites contaminated with PFOS or PFOA more efficiently than the public sector, the costs of site clean-up may decline relative to baseline.
In addition to the potential for notification requirements of releases of PFOA and PFOS to NRC to improve the speed of response actions (both privately and publicly funded), EPA's improved authority to transfer response costs to PRPs may also enable more efficient response to PFOA and PFOS than under baseline authority to respond to PFOA and PFOS as pollutants and contaminants. Earlier response activity is generally considered to be more cost efficient, in that containing and removing more concentrated contamination is more cost efficient than addressing contamination that over time has spread to a greater area.  For instance, it may be more cost effective to respond to one highly contaminated property before contamination spreads than multiple properties with lower contamination levels that resulted from migration of an earlier contamination event.  PFOA and PFOS are both known to be mobile and persistent chemicals in the environment and contaminated soil has been shown to result in groundwater plumes that grow in size over time. More prompt cleanup is also likely to reduce response costs associated with providing alternate drinking water supplies because fewer households will be in need.  
At least partially offsetting these cost savings, earlier response activity (all else equal) will increase the costs of clean-up in present value terms. Whether the net impact of earlier response is an increase or decrease in costs is uncertain and will depend on the relative magnitude of these competing effects. 
The rule may also result in increased research and development (R&D) expenditures to ensure the effective removal of PFOA and PFOS. The need for these R&D expenditures is unclear, however. For example, it is uncertain how those wastewater treatment plants needing to treat high levels of PFOA and PFOS would remove them from wastewater treatment sludge. Depending on whether incineration (an existing technology) is effective for the removal of PFOA and PFOS from wastewater treatment sludge without creating harmful products of incomplete combustion, additional R&D expenditures may or may not be necessary to ensure effective removal. R&D costs have been included in past EPA RIAs. For example, the RIA for the 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and corporate average fuel economy standards estimated R&D costs through the use of indirect cost multipliers. EPA requests comment on the R&D expenditures that may be necessary to ensure effective removal of PFOA and PFOS.
Another potential indirect impact of this proposed designation may include an impact on the number of sites identified, assessed, and/or remediated. However, the incremental change in the total number of such sites is unknown due to a lack of data. Therefore, it is not feasible to quantify the associated costs. See Section 3.7 for discussion about the nature of indirect costs and Section 3.8 for a description of uncertainties and analytic limitations.
3.4.2  Indirect Benefits
Requiring notification of releases of PFOA and PFOS to NRC may improve the speed of subsequent response actions (both privately and publicly funded), thereby reducing risks and conferring health and other social benefits earlier. For example, the reporting of a release could raise community awareness of a release and accelerate a privately-financed voluntary cleanup. This may reduce risks faced by nearby exposed individuals more quickly. 
EPA expects that response actions would occur more rapidly than under the baseline situation. Under the baseline, a determination that the detected levels of PFOA and/or PFOS may present imminent and substantial danger would be required along with the commitment of government funding to pay for response. Responding to contaminated sites sooner lessens environmental exposures over time and thereby reduces the cumulative impacts on human health and the environment. 
The proposed designation may also lead to an incremental increase in the number of contaminated sites identified, assessed, and remediated. Thus, in addition to an indirect potential effect of speedier cleanups, benefits may be experienced due to additional sites being addressed.  
The benefits of reduced PFAS exposure vary, but research has shown that exposure to PFOA and PFOS may lead to the following adverse health effects: high cholesterol, changes in increased liver enzymes, decreased immune response to vaccination, thyroid disorders, pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia, and cancer. Exposure to PFOA may also lead to fetal growth restriction (reduced birth weight). A more detailed discussion of the health effects associated with PFOA and PFOS exposure is included in the Preamble of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Speedier identification, assessment, and response activities addressing PFOA and PFOS exposures are expected to reduce the associated health effects on nearby populations.  The nature of response actions that may induce the described indirect benefits are dependent on various factors that are challenging to predict, but, depending on local site conditions and technology options, may include averting actions or requirements for response. CERCLA cleanups are conducted when site-specific risk assessments identify potential environmental or human health risks. To the extent that the proposed designation reduces the risks of these adverse health effects, this will lead to a health care cost savings. 
The health benefits related to reduced exposure to PFOA and PFOS may be realized by multiple segments of the population. To the extent that individuals who realize these benefits participate in the labor force, the reduction in exposure to PFOA and PFOS would potentially lead to improvements in worker productivity. In general, the number of sick days among workers who are healthy is lower than the number of sick days among workers who are not healthy. While at work, healthier employees are generally more productive. Thus, pollution reduction at sites affected by PFOA or PFOS where people are exposed is likely to improve productivity for those exposed individuals who are work force participants. A small but growing literature addresses the relationship between air pollution and worker productivity.
As described in Section 3.6.1, the proposed rule may result in R&D expenditures to develop more effective removal methods for PFOA and PFOS. A potential benefit of these expenditures is that removal may become more efficient. The need for R&D and subsequent magnitude of related benefits, however, are uncertain. EPA requests comment on any R&D-related benefits that may result from the Proposed Rule.
In addition to the indirect benefits described above, the clarification of reporting responsibilities, and earlier responses to contamination, could indirectly contribute to more efficient litigation (e.g., by reducing public entities burden of proof requirements related to contamination). To the extent that this occurs, funds that would have been used for related litigation can be redirected to expand or improve other publicly funded goods and services.

3.4.3  Transfers
This proposed rulemaking is one step towards potential PFOA and PFOS response cost recovery for EPA, and allows EPA to respond to PFOA and PFOS contamination without making a potential imminent and substantial danger finding. However, the proposed designation does not require EPA to take response actions, does not require any site-specific response action by a private party, and does not determine liability for hazardous substance release response costs. In the baseline, if EPA sought to initiate a response action, the Agency could use its authority under CERCLA section 104(a) for pollutants and contaminants if a release or threatened release may present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare. When the EPA responds to a release or threat of a release of a pollutant and contaminant under Section 104, the US Government (i.e., the taxpayer) incurs the costs and does not have the authority to recover those costs from responsible parties. This is because the costs of response to address a substance under CERCLA Section 107 are only recoverable if the substance is a "hazardous substance." The proposed rule would designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under Section 102, which would enable EPA to recover its costs of response from responsible parties  -  i.e., transfer the cost of its response from the taxpayer to a liable party. Thus, an important indirect impact of the proposed designation is to transfer the costs of potential response activities from the public to polluters. The potential in some instances to affect liability in a way that would transfer response costs from taxpayers to polluters is not considered a cost (either direct or indirect) resulting from the proposed rule. A qualitative discussion of the nature of potential transfers associated with future discretionary response decisions is presented below (see Section 3.6.4)
In addition to having the capability in the baseline to address PFOA and PFOS with a potential imminent and substantial danger finding, there is another important circumstance when PFOA and PFOS contamination can be addressed in the baseline. To the extent PFOA or PFOS are commingled with releases of hazardous substances at facilities, EPA and other agencies exercising delegated CERCLA authority may require the responsible party to address such releases. If this proposed designation is finalized, a broader range of response authority could be applied. EPA and other agencies exercising delegated CERCLA authority, may respond to PFOA or PFOS without making a finding that the substances may present imminent and substantial danger, may require the responsible party to address a release, and may seek contribution or recovery of costs incurred for their response actions, contingent on other relevant statutory criteria being met. The above actions are considered transfers and may apply to releases that occurred prior to finalizing the Proposed Rule as well as after promulgation of a Final Rule.  
3.5 Uncertainties Regarding Indirect Impacts on Response Activities 
Significant uncertainty about the extent of existing PFOA and PFOS use and contamination, evolving assessment and response technologies, and health science pose outstanding barriers to developing a robust quantitative analysis of the indirect costs, benefits, and potential transfers associated with response to PFOA and PFOS contamination under CERCLA. This section describes some of those uncertainties in detail and provides further insight into the analytical limitations preventing quantitative analysis. EPA requests comment on uncertainties regarding the unquantifiability of indirect cost, benefit, and transfer impacts as described below.
 EPA is not aware of any peer reviewed literature on systematic examination of liability, management, and cleanup costs associated with PFOA and PFOS contamination. There are several peer-reviewed journal articles providing perspectives on this topic.[,]  However, none of the articles that EPA is aware of provide quantitative data expressly for PFOA and PFOS, but rather provide insight about possible costs of liability, management, and cleanup associated with PFAS, defined in each article as a class of over 9,000 chemicals.  These articles do not provide information about costs specific to distinct response activities, the number of sites for testing and remediation, the level of remediation, types and/or quantities of environmental media considered for remediation, or other details that would be useful in conducting robust quantitative cost and benefit analysis. In addition, these works do not provide enough information on regulatory structure to inform attribution of costs.  Attribution of costs is an important consideration due to ongoing work at State and Federal levels. Given the lack of information and systemic analysis of remediation of PFOS and PFOA, we seek information and comment that may allow EPA to estimate incremental indirect costs associated with this rule.
 While data specific to PFOA and PFOS remediation are limited, a 2019 EPA Market Study provides some context for remediation costs associated with other hazardous substances at non-federal NPL sites. The NPL is the list of sites of national priority among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. Based on the 2019 study, historical average total site costs to address all hazardous substances across all sites on the NPL (inclusive of all contamination types and sources) equals between $35.2 and $48.2 million per site These costs are provided for reference, and it is unknown how they would relate or compare to costs associated with response actions addressing PFOA and PFOS at a contaminated site.  For instance, PFOA and PFOS present at a site with other hazardous substances may be addressed with treatment methods used for other hazardous substances, in which case addressing PFOA and PFOS risks would not result in additional response costs above the baseline. Some examples of these treatment methods include granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration, incineration, and the removal/landfilling of contaminated media. In instances where PFOA and/or PFOS contamination are at levels that present a risk absent other hazardous substances, examples of costs associated with a response action would be dependent on the extent of contamination, the cleanup level needed to manage the risks associated with the contamination, and the treatment technology available.   
3.5.1 Uncertainties Regarding the Number of Potential Sites Indirectly Affected
EPA lacks information on the number of sites that may require response actions to address past PFOA or PFOS releases. Although the entities that have historically used PFOA and PFOS are described in Chapter 2, the specific sites contaminated with these chemicals is unknown. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes users and associated products that, based on historical use, may contain PFOA and PFOS. 
Although this EA lacks adequate data to comprehensively identify and assess the number of sites affected by the proposed rule, there are data available that provide insights into EPA's current understanding of the baseline extent of PFOA and PFOS contamination. One source of data resulted from EPA collecting information on the occurrence of PFOA and PFOS at National Priorities List (NPL) sites.  A total of 175 sites recorded both PFOA and PFOS detection, 3 sites recorded only PFOS detection, and 6 sites recorded only PFOA detection. It is important to note that this list is a preliminary indicator of potential contamination and the existence of a PFOA or PFOS detection at a site is the first in a series of subsequent, contingent steps from a determination that a response action may be necessary to address the chemicals. 
Additionally, the use of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Concentrates (AFFF) at airports is a potential source of site contamination. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) public facing dataset presented by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that there are 3,314 airports across the US; it is unknown how many of these airports have experienced AFFF releases. Using SEMS data, 48 NPL sites with a PFAS detection are located at airports, though the majority of these sites are located at military installations and may not be representative of operations at commercial airports.
 The existence of PFOA or PFOS detections or use at a site does not necessarily imply that further evaluation is needed or would result in a determination that a response action is warranted. The universe of sites that have PFOA or PFOS contamination that warrants response action under CERCLA is indeterminable due to lack of site-specific information and standards for cleanup.  
3.5.2 Uncertainties Regarding Cleanup Standards
Exhibits 2-2 and 2-3 provide examples of state and residential standards used to evaluate PFOA and PFOS levels in water and soil, and additional scientific reviews that may inform future standards. To date, site remediation has been focused on sites of specific concern to various states and localities, with varying cleanup objectives. Associated costs may therefore reflect fluctuating levels of concern or types of sources; specific-site remediation activity may or may not be representative of potential sites, in scope or cost, indirectly affected by the proposed rule. The lack of data about the number and types of sites requiring assessment and the specific costs associated with required assessments and response activities prevents quantitative assessment of response costs.   
 There is significant uncertainty surrounding additional and future impacts associated with development of/changes in federal cleanup standards to reflect changes to toxicity values for PFOA and PFOS. Absent a change in reportable quantities, these would not affect the direct costs of the Proposed Rule or the sites affected by the Proposed Rule, but they would ultimately affect indirect response costs, benefits, and potential transfers. The associated impacts resulting from developments and/or changes in federal cleanup standards are noted here for awareness but would be attributable to those subsequent rulemakings specifying such standards.
          Appropriate site remedies and associated costs, benefits, and transfers are determined in part by the response standards in place.  As these emerge and evolve at the federal level, anticipated remedies and costs may change. Moreover, current state requirements vary and may change, affecting the selection of technologies. 
          The number and type of sites and environmental media requiring response action might also be affected as cleanup standards emerge at both the federal and state level.
3.5.3 Uncertainties Regarding Assessment and Cleanup Technologies and Associated Costs
 The evolving understanding of technology used to assess and respond to various PFOA- or PFOS-contaminated media at sites introduces further uncertainty in developing a quantitative estimate of the cost of response actions associated with the designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA section 102(a). Treatment and disposal technologies for PFOA and PFOS are changing, and the associated costs of implementing these technologies vary significantly based on geographic location, partly due to transportation costs and access to treatment and disposal facilities.  
 Numerous research efforts on PFOA and PFOS dedicated to risk assessment methods and advancing remediation technology options are underway and new information is regularly made available in this regard. Examples of such efforts include the following: Department of Defense environmental research programs include the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environment Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). These programs have sponsored research on addressing PFAS contamination and information about the research is available on their website.  EPA's Office of Research and Development has conducted and sponsored a number of studies to advance the understanding of PFAS treatment, disposal, toxicity, and environmental fate and transport and much of this research is ongoing. In addition, the Contaminated Site Cleanup Information Web Site (CLU-IN.org) publishes information about advances in technology across the hazardous waste remediation community, including developments in treatment options for PFAS.
 Finally, the incremental cost of addressing PFOA and PFOS relative to baseline costs of treating other contaminants on existing contaminated sites is unknown. PFOA and PFOS present at a site with other hazardous substances may be addressed with treatment methods used for other hazardous substances, in which case addressing PFOA and PFOS risks would not result in additional response costs above the baseline.
3.5.4 Summary of the Process and Associated Costs for Determining Response Efforts
 The following information provides an overview of the process of determining whether response may be warranted at a site, and the associated methods that might be employed if a need is identified:     
 Sampling. For sites on the NPL, EPA may take samples to determine whether a PFOA and/or PFOS release requires additional investigation or action. 
 Additional investigations and feasibility studies. Once media have been sampled, additional data are gathered at the site. A feasibility study is also conducted that develops and evaluates options for remedial actions.
 Remediation efforts. A remedial design plan is developed to address contaminated media. Contaminated soil is removed, treated, and/or disposed. Contaminated groundwater is pumped and/or treated; successful water treatment technologies include activated carbon adsorption, ion exchange resins, and high-pressure membranes. Water cleanup activities can also include installing water treatment facilities, providing alternative drinking water, shutting down drinking water wells, and connecting homes with private wells to municipal water systems.
 With regard to the potential for new sites to be added to the NPL due to PFOA or PFOS contamination, before EPA adds a new site to the NPL, the site must meet EPA's requirements and be proposed for addition to the list in the Federal Register, subject to a 60-day public comment period. Response actions, which include investigations of releases of hazardous substances and determining if removal or remedial action is necessary, are contingent, discretionary, and site-specific. EPA prioritizes the highest-risk sites under CERCLA (and that listing process is open to public comment); the process for selecting remedies includes public notice and comment; and cost considerations, among other important factors such as protectiveness, are part of CERCLA's site-specific cleanup approach. The associated impacts resulting from newly added sites to the NPL are noted here for awareness but would be attributable to those subsequent final rulemakings listing individual sites.
 The Department of Defense (DOD) has also released cost estimates associated with PFAS response efforts at military sites, not specific to PFOA or PFOS.[,] It is important to note that these estimates represent one cost point for potential PFAS response costs specifically focused on applications related to national defense. It is possible the PFAS costs released by DOD are not representative of other sites as the types, quantity, and handling of PFAS are expected to vary greatly. An equally important consideration to note associated with DOD cost estimates is that the EPA expects the size and scope of, and therefore costs associated with, federal PFOA or PFOS cleanup sites to be substantially larger than non-federal sites.
  DOD reports that it has incurred $1.1 billion in investigation and cleanup costs for PFAS through fiscal year 2020; future remediation costs, or costs after fiscal year 2020, will exceed $2.1 billion.  As of 2020, DOD has identified 687 sites with a known or suspected release, including 328 Army installations, 149 Navy installations, 203 Air Force installations, and seven Defense Logistics Agency installations. DOD provides an additional breakdown of its annual obligations between fiscal years 2018 and 2021 in its 2021 Report to Congress:  
      DoD obligated $204.5 million to investigate and $124.3 million to clean up PFAS through the end of FY 2018. DoD obligated an additional $51.9 million for investigations and $120.8 million for cleanup of PFAS in FY 2019. In FY 2020, DoD planned to obligate $70.8 million and $40.6 million to investigate and clean up PFAS, respectively; DoD's actual obligations were $242.5 million and $28.3 million, respectively. DoD plans to obligate $56.4 million to investigate and $39.9 million to clean up PFAS in FY 2021. After FY 2021, DoD estimates that it will obligate $442.8 million to investigate and $318.1 million to clean up PFAS. The appendix provides these obligations by DoD Component and installation.
      DoD does not track funding by contaminant and, as such, the data presented in the appendix represents the DoD Components' best estimates of the funding obligated and to be obligated for investigations and cleanup of DoD releases of PFAS. The planned obligations are as of the end of FY 2020 and may change based on the FY 2021 Appropriations Act. Additionally, based on current information, DoD estimates obligations for beyond FY2021 to exceed $1 billion for active installations and National Guard locations as reported here, for a total of $2.1 billion including Base Realignment and Closure sites. DoD expects this estimate to increase as the DoD Components complete the initial assessments and additional information is known about the extent of the cleanup required. The DoD Components will plan and program for these requirements as they are defined.
 Estimates of DoD cost obligations to date are both imperfect and partial, as noted by DoD, and it is not clear whether spending for a site is proportional to the extent of contamination or risk. To date, 64 percent of DoD's investigation and cleanup cost obligations are allocated to sites operated by the Air Force or the Air National Guard, suggesting that one of DoD's areas of focus has been on aviation applications.
3.5.5 Summary of Critical Uncertainties Regarding Indirect Impacts on Response Activities
 Some of the key critical uncertainties affecting the feasibility of generating quantitative estimates of costs, benefits, and potential transfers associated with response actions for PFOA and PFOS contamination, and more specifically, the indirect impact of the Proposed Rule, if any, on assessment and response activities are provided here.  These include:
    Limited data from PRPs and EPA specifically documenting the incremental costs and benefits of PFOA and PFOS cleanup. 
 EPA does not know each of the sites contaminated by PFOA and/or PFOS.
 EPA does not have record of the cost of assessment and cleanup at sites contaminated by PFOA and/or PFOS. Thus, there is no estimate of the magnitude of costs and benefits associated with response actions.
    Limited data are available from PRPs and EPA specifically documenting the incremental cost of PFOA and PFOS cleanup when other hazardous substances are also present. The extent to which PFOA and PFOS contamination co-occur with other substances complicates cost estimates in several ways, including:
          Incremental costs for assessing the extent of PFOA and PFOS contamination are not well documented or specified to date, but may be limited or reduced in context with multiple pollutants. 
Response costs related to PFOA and PFOS may also be affected by other contaminants. For example, treatment for other hazardous substances comingled with PFOA and PFOS may be effective at responding to PFOA and PFOS. Alternatively, consideration of PFOA and PFOS in combination with other contaminants may result in selection of different response methods to optimize site-wide cost effectiveness. Data are not readily available to quantitatively assess these impacts at a level beyond anecdotal examples.
CHAPTER 4.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSES RESPONSIVE TO STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, this chapter summarizes our analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. This chapter assesses potential impacts, with respect to the following issues:
Energy impact: considers the potential for this proposed rule to affect the supply, distribution, or use of energy, including changes in the price of fuel.
Regulatory flexibility: considers the potential for rule-related costs to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE).
Minority and low-income populations: considers the potential for the proposed rule to have disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations.
Children's health: considers the potential for the proposed rule to have a significant or disproportionate impact on the health of children.
Regulatory planning and review: requires examination and quantification of costs and benefits of regulating with and without the proposed rule.
Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the proposed rule with respect to unfunded mandates imposed on state, local, and tribal governments.
Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty.
Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to include impacts on Native American tribal governments and their communities.
Employment: considers potential impacts on employment resulting from the compliance costs associated with reporting.
4.1  Energy Impact Analysis
Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to consider the potential energy impacts of the proposed rule and resulting actions. Under Executive Order 13211, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use. 
This action is not a "significant energy action" under Executive Order 13211 because it is not related to, or likely to have a significant adverse effect on, the supply, distribution or use of energy.
4.2   Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq., generally requires EPA to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If a regulation is found to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, further analysis must be performed to determine what can be done to lessen the impact. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. EPA developed a screening analysis and supplemental analysis consistent with the requirements under RFA.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR Part 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA typically considers costs in excess of one percent and three percent of revenues as indications that the proposed rule may have a significant impact on a given small entity including businesses and governments, and estimates of greater than 20 percent of total small firms or 1,000 total small firms affected as indications that a substantial number of small entities may be affected by the proposed rule. The following sections consider these thresholds.
4.2.1  Associated Cost of Proposed Rule
The explicit reporting requirements associated with designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances include the reporting requirements for episodic releases of hazardous substances found in CERCLA section 103(a), and the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 304. The reporting activities are:
 Telephone notifications to the NRC, SERC (or TERC), and LEPC (or TEPC); and
 Preparation and submission of a written notification report to the SERC (or TERC) and LEPC (or TEPC). 
The costs associated with notification under CERCLA and EPCRA are documented in EPA's Information Collection Requests and Supporting Statements for those regulations, which are No. 1049, OMB No. 2050-0046 and No. 1395, OMB No. 2050-0092 respectively. Additionally, this proposed rulemaking considers additional costs related to federal property transfer requirements associated with the alignment of CERCLA designation with other federal regulations. As discussed in previous sections, the latter costs are currently unable to be estimated due to the lack of information about the number and locations of PFOA and PFOS releases meeting or exceeding the reportable quantity (RQ). This analysis assumes that a given facility will experience no more than one such release per year. Exhibit 3-1 above summarizes these per release costs. The total reporting cost for a facility submitting both a telephone and written notification would be roughly $561. 
4.2.2  Revenues of Impacted Small Entities
To estimate the annual breakeven costs per facility, the analysis relies on three pieces of information for each industry: (1) average annual revenues per small entity, (2) average number of facilities per small entity, and (3) the target breakeven percentage of costs to revenues (either one percent or three percent) at both the entity and facility level. While regulatory flexibility determinations focus on entity revenues and not single facilities, uncertainty about the facilities potentially affected and the limitations of the breakeven analysis format make it useful to examine the breakeven values at both an entity and facility level, to reflect the possibility that all locations of an entity (e.g., a car wash) could operate in similar ways and report similar releases.
Exhibit 4-1 shows the estimated breakeven costs per small entity (firm or government) and facility, by industry. These results are presented using six-digit NAICS codes. Estimated annual breakeven costs per facility are lowest for Car Washes (NAICS 811192). Estimated breakeven costs are next lowest at Sewage Treatment Facilities (NAICS 221320) with annual costs of $12,786 meeting the one percent revenue threshold, followed by Commercial Printing - except Screen and Books (NAICS 323111) and Other Airport Operations (NAICS 488119) with annual costs meeting the one percent threshold of $21,930 and $22,239, respectively. Estimated annual breakeven costs for all other industries are greater than $25,000 at the one percent revenue threshold.
While EPA did evaluate potential revenue impacts on Sewage Treatment Facilities (NAICS 221320), it did not analyze impacts on small municipal drinking water utilities because these entities were not identified as potential sources of major PFOA or PFOS releases (see Chapter 2 for full discussion of the universe identified for analysis). EPA does not currently have data on the number or extent of potential releases by small governmental entities, and requests comment on the associated impacts to small municipal drinking water utilities from the proposed rule.
                                       
                                  Exhibit 4-1
     Breakeven Estimates for Annual Costs per Facility (adjusted to 2020$)
Industry
                          NAICS Code and Description
                     Annual Revenues per Small Entity
[a]
               Average Number of Facilities per Small Entity
[b]
        Breakeven Annual Cost per Entity: 1% Threshold
[c = (1% x a)]
        Breakeven Annual Cost per 
Entity: 3% Threshold
[d = (3% x a)]
      Breakeven Annual Cost per Facility: 1% Threshold
[e = (1% x a)/b]
      Breakeven Annual Cost per 
Facility: 3% Threshold
[f = (3% x a)/b]
Aviation operations
488119 - Other Airport Operations
                                                                     $2,537,912
                                                                           1.11
                                                                        $25,379
                                                                        $76,137
                                                                        $22,939
                                                                        $68,818
Carpet manufacturers
314110 - Carpet and Rug Mills
                                                                     $8,527,078
                                                                           1.05
                                                                        $85,271
                                                                       $255,812
                                                                       $81,335 
                                                                      $244,006 
Car washes
811192 - Car Washes
                                                                       $569,439
                                                                           1.07
                                                                        $5,694 
                                                                       $17,083 
                                                                        $5,313 
                                                                       $15,939 
Chrome electroplating, anodizing, and etching 
332813 - Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring
                                                                     $3,194,451
                                                                           1.04
                                                                        $31,945
                                                                        $95,834
                                                                        $30,704
                                                                        $92,111
Coatings, paints, and varnish
325510 - Paint and Coating Manufacturing
                                                                     $8,579,550
                                                                           1.08
                                                                       $85,796 
                                                                      $257,387 
                                                                        $79,697
                                                                       $239,090
Firefighting foam manufacturers
325998 - All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
                                                                     $9,615,850
                                                                           1.06
                                                                        $96,159
                                                                       $288,476
                                                                        $91,107
                                                                       $273,322
Landfills
562212 - Solid Waste Landfill
                                                                     $2,732,229
                                                                           1.02
                                                                        $27,322
                                                                        $81,967
                                                                        $26,744
                                                                        $80,231
Medical Devices
339112 - Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
                                                                    $10,924,915
                                                                           1.05
                                                                       $109,249
                                                                       $327,747
                                                                       $104,317
                                                                       $312,950
Municipal fire departments and firefighting training centers
922160 - Fire Protection
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
Paper mills
322121 - Paper (except Newsprint) Mills
                                                                   $109,190,104
                                                                           1.28
                                                                     $1,091,901
                                                                     $3,275,703
                                                                       $851,896
                                                                     $2,555,688

322130 - Paperboard Mills
                                                                    $53,571,512
                                                                           1.08
                                                                       $535,715
                                                                     $1,607,145
                                                                       $495,518
                                                                     $1,486,553
Petroleum refineries and terminals
324110 - Petroleum Refineries
                                                                   $919,097,728
                                                                           1.16
                                                                     $9,190,977
                                                                    $27,572,932
                                                                     $7,948,953
                                                                    $23,846,860

424710 - Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
                                                                    $54,054,028
                                                                           1.21
                                                                       $540,540
                                                                     $1,621,621
                                                                       $445,151
                                                                     $1,335,452
Pesticides and Insecticides 
325320 - Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
                                                                    $25,079,234
                                                                           1.06
                                                                       $250,792
                                                                       $752,377
                                                                       $236,296
                                                                       $708,887
Photographic film manufacturing
325992 - Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing
                                                                     $3,410,199
                                                                           1.05
                                                                        $34,102
                                                                       $102,306
                                                                        $32,595
                                                                        $97,784
Polishes, waxes, cleaning products  
325612 - Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
                                                                     $9,060,815
                                                                           1.04
                                                                        $90,608
                                                                       $271,824
                                                                        $86,932
                                                                       $260,796
Polymer manufacturing
325211 - Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
                                                                    $33,570,756
                                                                           1.14
                                                                       $335,708
                                                                     $1,007,123
                                                                       $293,955
                                                                       $881,864
Printing facilities where inks are used in photolithography
323111 - Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)
                                                                     $2,256,953
                                                                           1.03
                                                                        $22,570
                                                                        $67,709
                                                                        $21,930
                                                                        $65,790

325910 - Printing Ink Manufacturing
                                                                     $7,404,767
                                                                           1.35
                                                                        $74,048
                                                                       $222,143
                                                                        $54,671
                                                                       $164,012
Textile mills (textiles and upholstery)
313210 - Broadwoven Fabric Mills
                                                                     $8,800,871
                                                                           1.04
                                                                        $88,009
                                                                       $264,026
                                                                        $84,396
                                                                       $253,189

313220 - Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery
                                                                     $4,053,810
                                                                           1.04
                                                                        $40,538
                                                                       $121,614
                                                                        $39,164
                                                                       $117,492

313230 - Nonwoven Fabric Mills
                                                                    $16,383,181
                                                                           1.08
                                                                       $163,832
                                                                       $491,495
                                                                       $151,160
                                                                       $453,479

313240 - Knit Fabric Mills
                                                                     $8,001,426
                                                                           1.01
                                                                        $80,014
                                                                       $240,043
                                                                        $79,434
                                                                       $238,303

313320 - Fabric Coating Mills
                                                                    $12,333,111
                                                                           1.06
                                                                       $123,331
                                                                       $369,993
                                                                       $116,573
                                                                       $349,720
WWTPs
221320 - Sewage Treatment Facilities
                                                                     $1,357,425
                                                                           1.06
                                                                        $13,574
                                                                        $40,723
                                                                        $12,786
                                                                        $38,357
Note: Revenue values obtained from United States Census Bureau's 2017 Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB). Values converted from year 2017 dollars to year 2020 dollars using the GDP Deflator.
Note: EPA did not consider the cost impacts on small government municipal drinking water utilities because they were not identified as potential major sources of PFOA and/or PFOS releases in any of the literature reviewed.


For the sector with the lowest breakeven costs per facility (Car Washes  -  NAICS 811192), the smallest size class reported has a revenue average of $48,496. Even in this class, the per release cost of $561 represents less than three percent of revenues and just slightly more than one percent of revenues. Similarly, for five other industries, the $561 cost per release is slightly more than one percent of revenues for the smallest revenue class among small entities but less than three percent (range of 1.02 percent to 1.08 percent). The annual revenues for these entities range from $51,980 to $55,256. Collectively, these entities represent less than 9 percent of the small entities reflected in Exhibit 4-1. In addition, the $561 cost is likely to overestimate the typical costs realized by these entities on an annual basis, as entities this small are unlikely to have reportable releases each year.  Thus, EPA expects that there would not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

4.2.3  Resulting Impact of Proposed Rule on Small Entities
It is not clear what number of small entities in any sector would be required to report as a result of the action under consideration by EPA, but even the total per release cost of $561, when compared with the average revenues for single facilities at small entities in key sectors affected by PFAS (Exhibit 4-1 above), does not come close to exceeding one percent of average facility level (or firm-level) small-entity revenues in any sector. As a result, this proposed action is not expected to result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, including small government entities, under the RFA. 
4.3  Impacts on Minority and Low-Income Populations: Analysis
 4.3.1  Introduction
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619; January 27, 2021), Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, also calls on Agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their missions "by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts." It also declares a policy "to secure environmental justice and spur economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution and under-investment in housing, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure and health care." EPA also released its "Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis" (U.S. EPA, 2016) to provide recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, time and resource constraints, and analytic challenges will vary by media and circumstance.
This RIA includes a screening-level analysis of the demographics of the populations in proximity to potential sites affected by the Proposed Rule and considers the possible impact of the proposed guidance on populations and locations relevant to Executive Orders 12898 and 14008.
 4.3.2  Demographic Analysis
This demographic analysis examines populations in U.S. Census block groups that intersect with identified site boundaries and designated areas around them (i.e., buffers). Site spatial information can either take the form of polygons identifying the actual site boundaries, or single points designating the location (centroids), depending on the availability of data. Polygons represent the actual mapped boundary of any particular site. Centroids, on the other hand, are point estimates. To estimate the populations living near (or in some cases within) site boundaries when only centroid information is available, the analysis models centric (circular) boundaries meant to approximate site boundaries. These areas are created using certain distances around the centroid; standard distances used to approximate sites and the areas around them for RCRA and NPL site centroids are one and three miles. Similarly, the analysis considers buffers of one and three miles around the site boundaries of polygons. 
This proposed regulation identifies groundwater and surface water as potential sources of exposure for the identified PFAS. Because the location of future releases of PFAS is uncertain, this analysis considers populations around facilities in sectors associated with widespread historical uses and releases of PFAS as proxies for facilities that may have future releases of the PFAS considered in the proposed rule. This analysis examines the following site types as proxies for facilities that are known to have commonly used PFAS:
 Operating Department of Defense (DOD) facilities
 Operating U.S. airports and airfields
 Large U.S. airports and airfields
 All other U.S. airports and airfields (i.e., medium and small)
 Plastics material and resin manufacturing firms identified as having produced PFOS and/or PFOA[,] 
 2020 PFOS and PFOA releases reported to EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
These proxy sites may not capture actual release locations that will require reporting, and they do not reflect all sites where PFAS was used or released, but there is some consistency in the historical use across sites in these sectors. This historical use provides EPA with a reasonable starting point for examining demographic patterns. The assessment of these sites would be informed by information on the prevalence of PFOA and PFOS at these sites, the corresponding risks to local populations, and the benefits of the proposed designation. The development of reliable quantitative or even qualitative ratings of the proxy sites or sectors, however, if not feasible due to a lack of available information. There is uncertainty regarding future releases of PFOA or PFOS  and the risks associated with future releases would depend on site-specific information that is not readily available, such as the likely size of a release at a given site and the exposure level for each site if a release were to occur.
Exhibit 4-2 summarizes several key demographics of the total populations near the universe of proxy sites and compares these demographics to U.S. national averages. The six key demographic categories examined are minority (reflecting an examination of both race and ethnicity; minority is defined as populations excluding non-Hispanic White), poverty level, linguistic isolation, education, age (specifically population less than five years old and greater than 64 years old), and age of housing. 
                                       
                                  Exhibit 4-2
Proportions of Key Demographics in the Total Near Site Population and the Total U.S. Population
 Demographic Category
Population within 1 or 3 miles of a Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturer and/or a Release Reported to TRI
                 Population within 1 or 3 miles of a DOD site
               Population within 1 or 3 miles of a Large Airport
         Population within 1 or 3 miles of a Small or Medium Airport 
                                U.S. Population

                                    1 mile
                                    3 miles
                                    1 mile
                                    3 miles
                                    1 mile
                                    3 miles
                                    1 mile
                                    3 miles

Race
                                                                               
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                              
Asian
                                     6.02%
                                     6.82%
                                     7.93%
                                     7.42%
                                     6.22%
                                     8.16%
                                     3.73%
                                     4.34%
                                     5.39%
Black/African American
                                    22.58%
                                    23.56%
                                    15.83%
                                    16.34%
                                    14.51%
                                    17.03%
                                     9.04%
                                    10.26%
                                    12.65%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
                                     0.06%
                                     0.08%
                                     1.07%
                                     0.55%
                                     0.36%
                                     0.33%
                                     0.19%
                                     0.19%
                                     0.18%
Native American
                                     0.44%
                                     0.36%
                                     0.78%
                                     0.75%
                                     0.71%
                                     0.74%
                                     0.91%
                                     0.84%
                                     0.83%
Other
                                     7.80%
                                     7.76%
                                    10.94%
                                    10.73%
                                    11.65%
                                    12.90%
                                     7.23%
                                     7.65%
                                     8.26%
Minority
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
Minority
                                    48.49%
                                    48.91%
                                    50.94%
                                    50.63%
                                    48.71%
                                    56.70%
                                    32.11%
                                    34.71%
                                    39.56%
Ethnicity

 
 
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
 
Hispanic (any race)
                                    17.31%
                                    16.06%
                                    21.77%
                                    22.98%
                                    24.38%
                                    28.39%
                                    16.13%
                                    16.97%
                                    18.65%
Poverty Level
                                                                               
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                                                              
Households below the poverty level
                                    18.76%
                                    16.65%
                                    13.80%
                                    14.61%
                                    13.56%
                                    15.31%
                                    12.17%
                                    13.01%
                                    13.70%
Households with a ratio of income to poverty level of two and below
                                    39.95%
                                    36.70%
                                    34.37%
                                    34.58%
                                    62.68%
                                    62.34%
                                    30.73%
                                    31.82%
                                    32.34%
Other Demographics
                                                                               
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                                                              
Linguistically isolated households
                                     4.17%
                                     4.44%
                                     5.32%
                                     6.34%
                                     6.51%
                                     9.16%
                                     3.10%
                                     3.61%
                                     5.08%
Less than a High School Education
                                     9.55%
                                     8.97%
                                     7.58%
                                     8.59%
                                     8.82%
                                    10.76%
                                     8.11%
                                     8.13%
                                     8.44%
Under 5 years of age
                                     6.25%
                                     6.26%
                                     7.20%
                                     6.78%
                                     7.30%
                                     6.82%
                                     6.26%
                                     6.26%
                                     6.13%
Over 64 years of age
                                    12.98%
                                    13.73%
                                    12.08%
                                    13.21%
                                    11.04%
                                    12.55%
                                    15.55%
                                    15.23%
                                    15.29%
Structures Built Pre-1960
                                    53.59%
                                    48.48%
                                    25.71%
                                    29.73%
                                    28.13%
                                    34.50%
                                    21.64%
                                    24.78%
                                    28.01%
Total U.S. Population Captured in Proximity
% of U.S. Population Captured in Proximity
                                     0.15%
                                     1.42%
                                     2.55%
                                    10.08%
                                     0.12%
                                     2.83%
                                     2.57%
                                    23.87%
                                     100%

This initial, high-level assessment suggests that populations within one or three miles of these sites vary based on site type:
 Plastics material and resin manufacturers and/or releases reported to TRI - the average population within one or three miles of a plastics material and resin manufacturer and/or a release reported to TRI has higher rates of households experiencing poverty, older housing stocks, and larger percentages of minority residents than the U.S. averages for these demographics. Specifically, a much higher percentage of Black residents live near plastic material and resin manufacturers reporting to the TRI. The remaining variables are generally similar to (i.e., within +/- 10 percent of) U.S. average populations. 
 Operating DOD facilities - the average population within one or three miles of a DOD site has larger percentages of minority residents than the U.S. average, driven in large part by a notably higher percentage of Black residents. Populations near DOD sites are within +/- five percent of the U.S. average in all other metrics.
 Airports and airfields  -  Because airports across the country vary widely in size, this analysis categorizes them into three general size classes: small, medium, and large. For presentation purposes, this analysis presents large airports separately and groups the remaining two size categories, small and medium. The average population within one or three miles of a small or medium airport is similar to the U.S. average for all demographic variables, reflecting the larger number and geographic distribution of these types of airports and airfields in the U.S. In contrast, populations within one or three miles of a large airport have higher rates of households experiencing poverty and larger percentages of minority residents. The remaining variables are generally similar to (i.e., within +/- 10 percent of) U.S. average populations.     
These findings, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the location of future releases, are indicative of potential impacts but do not provide a clear indication of the type of disparities related to potential exposure to PFAS. Consistent with the priorities outlined in Executive Orders 12898 and 14008, it is unclear whether the proposed regulation will have a significant impact on disadvantaged populations or communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns relative to other communities. While the locations of reporting releases are unknown, to the extent that these proxy locations are representative of likely reporting locations, this screening analysis suggests that the reporting required under the rule may provide better information to nearby populations potentially at risk of exposure, including communities with EJ concerns. To the extent that PFAS releases are consistent with the broader releases reported to TRI and typically involve disposal or manufacturing sites, demographic data around plastics material and resin manufacturer sites and historical releases may be a more reliable predictor of the type of community potentially affected by this proposed rulemaking. Specific site conditions and demographic patterns may become clear as reporting occurs following completion of a final rule.  
Although the impact of the findings in this analysis are unclear, published literature supports the conclusion that PFAS reporting can help minority and low-income populations. For instance, reported data from Northeastern University's Social Science Environmental Health Institute published in 2019 show that minority and low-income populations are disproportionately exposed to PFAS as nearly 39,000 more low-income households (15% more than the expected based on U.S. census data) and approximately 295,000 more people of color (22% more than expected) live within 5 miles of a site contaminated with PFAS. In addition, information on the broader links between PFAS exposure and communities with EJ concerns continues to emerge. An August 2021 report the Natural Resources Defense Council examined exposure to PFAS in drinking water in California and found that at least 69 percent of state-identified disadvantaged communities have PFAS contamination in their public water systems, and a number of these communities have levels of PFAS contamination that are higher than average. 
As research continues to expand understanding about the distribution of PFAS impacts, it is important to note that this proposed regulation will result in more information about the location and extent of releases. This improved information will not increase exposure risk for communities with EJ concerns and may improve the speed and design of remediation. Because detection of PFAS contamination in drinking water is linked to the location of industrial facilities handling these chemicals, incentivizing the prevention of releases could benefit communities with EJ concerns near these facilities. EPA is committed to minimizing and/or eliminating existing barriers and burdens that communities with environmental concerns may encounter related to accessing data and information collected as a result of this rulemaking, if finalized. EPA seeks comment on strategies to improve access to the reporting data expected to be collected, if designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances is finalized, for communities with environmental justice concerns.
 4.3.3  Analytic Limitations 
The following methodological assumptions and limitations affect the demographic analysis:
 Due to data limitations regarding the current manufacture and uses of PFAS, this analysis cannot predict where exposures and releases of PFAS are likely to occur. Instead, this analysis uses operating DOD facilities, plastics material and resin manufacturers, releases reported to TRI, and operating airports and airfields (locations with demonstrated historical use of PFAS) to proxy areas with potential PFAS exposures and releases. However, these areas may not reflect actual release locations that would require reporting, and the buffers identified represent only an approximation of the potential risk of exposure to PFAS. Actual exposure patterns at specific sites could be highly local, variable, or extend past the three-mile buffers (e.g., in water systems). 
 The goal of this analysis is to examine the potential demographic impacts of highly local release and exposure patterns of PFOS and PFOA. Because of U.S. Census data limitations, this analysis pulls demographic data across entire census block groups and may not accurately specific populations affected by a release where those populations vary within block groups. 
 Because PFAS exposure through drinking water is understood to be an important route of exposure where sources of drinking water are contaminated, an analysis of drinking water sources and their vulnerability to PFAS contamination would be important to understand potential risks for areas with releases. However, because future release locations are not known, this analysis would not provide additional insight at this time. 
 For sites without polygon data, this analysis relies on the use of centroids and one-mile and three-mile centric buffers to replicate site location and surface area, identifying the affected population as the entire population of any U.S. Census block group that falls within the buffer. Many sites in this universe have irregular site areas that do not align with a centroid-based model, and the shape and size of Census block groups varies with population density. This means that this analysis may not capture the specific populations around each site with accuracy, though patterns across a number of sites are likely robust. Specifically, this approach may undercount populations located near sites that are large and/or located in rural areas, where the area of each Census block group is large and centroids are less likely to fall within the buffer.

4.3.4  Supplementary and Sensitivity Analyses 
To measure the effectiveness of centroids in characterizing sites that could potentially release PFAS, this RIA examines demographic characteristics for specific sites using EPA's EJSCREEN to validate and expand results to larger areas around sites to better capture populations in rural or other low-density areas (Exhibit 4-4). Of the 15,816 sites examined in the analysis, 4,543 (or 29 percent) did not intersect with a census block group centroid within the three-mile buffer, resulting in a population count of "0" affected. As shown in Exhibit 4-3, the majority of airports that do not intersect with a census block group are characterized as "small". As a result, demographic information around these sites was not factored into average calculations presented in Exhibit 4-2. However, the vast majority of these sites are small airports, which overall are consistent with U.S. average population demographics. The centroid methodology created few empty data points for operating DOD facilities (52), plastics material and resin manufacturers (3), and TRI releases (0). Like Exhibit 4-2, Exhibit 4-3 illustrates the variability of demographic data across site type. On average, airports across the U.S. are surrounded by populations that reflect national averages in relevant demographic categories. Large airports, however, are more likely to be surrounded by minority and low-income populations than medium or small airports. Some DOD sites are surrounded by populations with higher concentrations of minority and low-income residents, but the majority of these sites are below the national averages for these metrics. In contrast, areas around plastics material and resin manufacturer sites and/or sites reporting releases to TRI, on average, are in areas with higher concentrations of minority residents and households experiencing poverty than the U.S. averages for these demographics, suggesting that releases related to manufacturing facilities could have environmental justice implications. 

                                  Exhibit 4-3
                      Demographics by Site and Site Type
                                  Site Type 
                                  Site Count
                  Do not intersect a Census Block at 3 miles
           Minority Population above the National Average at 3 miles
       Poverty Level (Households) above the National Average at 3 miles


# of Sites
% of Total Site Type
# of Sites
% of Total Site Type
# of Sites
% of Total Site Type
Airport and Airfields
                                                                         14,948
                                                                          4,488
                                                                            30%
                                                                          1,833
                                                                            12%
                                                                          4,014
                                                                            27%
    Large
                                                                            188
                                                                              1
                                                                             1%
                                                                            101
                                                                            53%
                                                                             81
                                                                            43%
    Medium
                                                                            678
                                                                            116
                                                                            17%
                                                                            212
                                                                            31%
                                                                            277
                                                                            41%
    Small
                                                                         14,082
                                                                          4,370
                                                                            31%
                                                                          1,520
                                                                            11%
                                                                          3,656
                                                                            26%
DOD Facilities
                                                                            762
                                                                             52
                                                                             7%
                                                                            312
                                                                            41%
                                                                            329
                                                                            43%
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturers 
                                                                             98
                                                                              3
                                                                             3%
                                                                             46
                                                                            47%
                                                                             50
                                                                            51%
TRI Historical Releases
                                                                              7
                                                                              0
                                                                             0%
                                                                              4
                                                                            56%
                                                                              5
                                                                            71%
Total
                                                                         15,816
                                                                          4,543
                                                                            29%
                                                                          2,195
                                                                            14%
                                                                          4,398
                                                                            28%

As an additional check, this RIA examines four- and five-mile buffers around the 2020 PFOS and PFOA releases reported to TRI using EPA's EJSCREEN tool. In Exhibit 4-4, these results are presented next to the results of the one- and three-mile buffers calculated for this RIA. For these nine sites, the one-mile buffer does not capture populations at three sites, including Cottage Grove, which reported to TRI that PFAS was released for disposal. This information suggests that the one-mile buffer may not accurately capture representative demographic data in surrounding communities for some key sites, such as large manufacturing facilities. The three-mile buffer appears to capture demographics for the community with more accuracy. With the exception of Clean Harbors El Dorado LLC, minority demographics minimally change as site buffers are expanded, confirming that the screening method is generally robust but should not be used for detailed site-specific characterizations. A site-by-site breakdown also presents a more complicated relationship between minority populations and potential PFAS release locations; the standard deviation for minority population around potential release sites is large. Generally, communities around these sites either have large or small minority populations, although most sites have above average minority populations, but more site-specific analysis would be required to fully characterize specific populations. Absent certainty about the locations of future releases, this analysis provides a general indication that releases related to manufacturing sites, in particular, as well as some active military sites, may have implications for communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns. 

                                  Exhibit 4-4
                  Centroids Modeled Around TRI Release Sites
                                     Name
                                    1-mile
                                    3-mile
                                    4-mile 
                                    5-mile

Population
Minority
Population
Minority
Population
Minority
Population
Minority
3M Cottage Grove
                                                                              0
                                                                             0%
                                                                         17,011
                                                                            19%
                                                                         30,066
                                                                            16%
                                                                         50,198
                                                                            15%
BASF CORP - Freeport Site
                                                                          1,199
                                                                            67%
                                                                         23,526
                                                                            59%
                                                                         38,980
                                                                            56%
                                                                         56,440
                                                                            54%
Clean Harbors Deer Park LLC
                                                                          8,589
                                                                            89%
                                                                         68,467
                                                                            92%
                                                                        159,187
                                                                            92%
                                                                        275,545
                                                                            91%
Clean Harbors El Dorado LLC
                                                                          1,565
                                                                            77%
                                                                         11,618
                                                                            70%
                                                                         19,042
                                                                            53%
                                                                         21,007
                                                                            51%
Clean Water Environmental LLC
                                                                          3,782
                                                                            66%
                                                                         21,654
                                                                            83%
                                                                         45,707
                                                                            83%
                                                                         77,325
                                                                            78%
Heritage Thermal Services
                                                                          4,130
                                                                            12%
                                                                         18,317
                                                                            10%
                                                                         24,474
                                                                             7%
                                                                         32,046
                                                                             8%
TM Deer Park Services LP
                                                                              0
                                                                             0%
                                                                           6337
                                                                            56%
                                                                         24,665
                                                                            55%
                                                                         63,321
                                                                            55%
Vickery Environmental Inc
                                                                              0
                                                                             0%
                                                                          1,949
                                                                             8%
                                                                          3,088
                                                                             8%
                                                                          9,162
                                                                             9%
Wayne Disposal Inc
                                                                          6,979
                                                                            42%
                                                                         28,971
                                                                            36%
                                                                         41,545
                                                                            34%
                                                                         63,571
                                                                            35%
National Average (TRI Releases)
                                                                         26,244
                                                                            59%
                                                                        197,850
                                                                            62%
                                                                        386,754
                                                                            65%
                                                                        648,615
                                                                            65%

4.4  Impacts on Children's Health Analysis
Executive Order 13045, "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health (October 5, 2021) requires EPA to consider early life exposures and lifelong health consistently and explicitly in all human health decisions. EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk posed by exposure to PFOA and/or PFOS may have a disproportionate effect on children. Thus, indirect benefits resulting from speedier identification, assessment, and response activities addressing PFOA and PFOS exposures are expected to reduce the associated health effects on nearby populations, including children. To the extent that the proposed designation reduces the risks of these adverse health effects, this will lead to a health care cost savings and a reduction of health risks to children. Discussions of health and risk assessments related to PFOA and PFOS, including developmental and reproductive health effects, are contained in EPA's Health Effects Support Documents for PFOA and PFOS (2016).
4.5  Regulatory Planning and Review 
Under Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review" (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
 Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
 Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
 Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
 Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has determined that this action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The action may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the Presidents' priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO. Additionally, while EPA is not considering costs in its hazardous substance designation decisions in this proposed rule, and despite that there is still significant uncertainty and lack of data as discussed in the economic analysis, OMB designated this proposed rulemaking as an economically significant action pursuant to E.O. 12866. Any changes made in response to the OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. Findings of the regulatory cost analysis (Chapter 3) indicate that the rule, as proposed, is projected to result in aggregate annual social direct costs of approximately $0 under the lower bound scenario, and approximately $0.37 million under the upper bound scenario. 
4.6  Unfunded Mandates Analysis
Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) calls on all federal agencies to provide a statement supporting the need to issue any regulation containing an unfunded federal mandate and describing prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments.
The proposed rule is subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. In general, a rule is subject to the requirements of these sections if it contains "Federal mandates" that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. To the extent that state, local, or tribal governments are required to report releases under the proposed rule, it represents an unfunded mandate. However, this proposed action is not expected to impose an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small government entities as analyzed in Section 4.2 above.
4.7  Federalism Analysis
Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government." EPA typically considers a policy to have federalism implications if it results in the expenditure by State and/or local governments in the aggregate of $25 million or more in any one year.
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. 
This action does not have federalism implications as it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
4.8  Tribal Government Analysis
Executive Order 13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications."
This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Because the proposed rule is expected to result in minimal costs, EPA does not expect that it would result in any costs or adverse impacts on tribal entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
4.9  Employment Impacts
The employment impacts of this action are likely to be minimal and include additional hours for the National Response Center (NRC), State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) (or TERCs), and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) (or TEPCs) employees who answer the phones and record information regarding releases and those NRC, SERCs (or TERCs), and LEPCs (or TEPCs) employees who input that data into the database. The reporting facilities will require employees to spend time making a release report. However, the per facility release costs associated with PFOA or PFOS above the RQ of 1 lb per 24 hours are estimated to be approximately $561. This low cost is not expected to affect the demand for labor at regulated facilities. 
Note, there may be some employment impacts resulting from federal property transfers. As described in Section 3.4, it is difficult to estimate the potential cost or impact resulting from these requirements. 

SOURCES CITED
California Air Resources Board, "Chemical Fume Suppressants Approved for Use at Specific Surface Tensions," September 6, 2016. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/chrome/fumesuppresslistfinal9.6.16.pdf
California Water Boards, "Water Boards PFAS Phased Investigation Approach," March 6, 2019. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/7_investigation_plan.pdf
Campbell, Katherine, Stephan E. Sefcik, and Naomi S. Soderstrom (1998), "Site uncertainty, allocation uncertainty, and superfund liability valuation," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 17 (1998): 331-366.
DHL. 2021. DHL eCommerce Solutions: Limited Quantity Policy. DHL. Accessed online Sept. 2021: https://www.dhl.com/content/dam/dhl/local/us/dhl-ecommerce/documents/pdf/us-ecommerce-limitied-quantity-transportation-policy.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency. "542-R-19-002: 2019 Remediation Market Study". January 15, 2020.
Environmental Protection Agency, "Basic Information for Chemical Data Reporting," August 29, 2016. Available: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/basic-information-chemical-data-reporting
Environmental Protection Agency, Designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) as CERCLA Hazardous Substances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0341. https://www.regulations.gov
Environmental Protection Agency, "Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)", August 2021.
Environmental Protection Agency, "Envirofacts: TRI Search", July 2021. Accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/enviro/tri-search
Environmental Protection Agency. Certain perfluoroalkyl sulfonates.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations.  40 CFR 721.9582. 2014. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2014-title40-vol31/pdf/CFR-2014-title40-vol31-sec721-9582.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program.:Link: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program
Environmental Protection Agency. Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 1049.14: Renewal of Information Collection Request for the Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances. OMB Control No. 2050-0046, June 2018. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 1395.10: Statement Supporting the Renewal of the Information Collection Procedure for Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements. OMB Control No. 2050-0092. April 2019.
  Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA-420-R-12-016, August 2012.
Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Environmental Justice. "Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions". May 2015. Link: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/guidance-considering-environmental-justice-during-development-action
Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Environmental Justice. "Plan EJ 2014". September 2011. Link: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej-2014
Environmental Protection Agency, "Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Incineration to Manage PFAS Waste Streams", July 2019. Available at:  https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/documents/technical_brief_pfas_incineration_ioaa_approved_final_july_2019.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency, "Risk Management for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) under TSCA", 2021. Link: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-management-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas
Environmental Protection Agency. "Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS). February 2022.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Technical Fact Sheet -- Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). 2017. Accessed online Sept. 2021: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-12/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminants_pfos_pfoa_11-20-17_508_0.pdf
Department of Defense: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. "Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Cleanup Costs". July 2021.  
Federal Aviation Administration. "National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) - Current  -  Airports", October 07, 2020. Downloaded February 2022. Accessed at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/current/
Federal Register. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 721 - Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates; Significant New Use Rule, December 9, 2002. Accessed online December 2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2002-12-09/pdf/02-31011.pdf
Federal Register. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 721 - Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates; Significant New Use Rule, March 11, 2002. Accessed online December 2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2002-12-09/pdf/02-31011.pdf
FedEx. 2021. Service Guide. Fedex. Accessed online September 2021: https://www.fedex.com/content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/Service_Guide_2021.pdf
Genualdi, Susan; Lowri deJager; and Timothy Begley. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration. 2019. "Investigation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in U.S. food products", Presentation at the 29th annual European meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Glüge, J; Scheringer, M; Cousins, IT; DeWitt, JC; Goldenman, G; Herzke, D; Lohmann, R; Ng, CA; Trier, X; Wang, Z. (2020). An overview of the uses of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environ Sci Process Impacts 22: 2345-2373. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33125022
Graff Zivin, Joshua and Matthew Neidell. (2018). "Air pollution's hidden impacts: Exposure can affect labor productivity and human capital," Science. Vol. 359, Issue 6371.
Graff Zivin, Joshua and Matthew Neidell. (2013). "Environment, Health, and Human Capital," NBER Working Paper 18935, April 2013; and 
Graff Zivin, Joshua and Matthew Neidell. (2012). "The impact of Pollution on Worker Productivity," American Economic Review. Vol. 102(7): 3652-3673.
Hogue, Cheryl. "Governments Endorse Global PFOA Ban, With Some Exemptions," Chemical & Engineering News, May 6, 2019. Available: https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Governments-endorse-global-PFOA-ban/97/web/2019/05
Hogue, Cheryl. "Impacts of Used PFAS into U.S. Scrutinized," Chemical & Engineering News, March 3, 2019. Available: https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Imports-used-PFAS-US-scrutinized/97/i9 
Hu, Xindi C.,,David Q. Andrews, Andrew B. Lindstrom, Thomas A. Bruton, Laurel A. Schaider, Philippe Grandjean, Rainer Lohmann, Courtney C. Carignan, Arlene Blum, Simona A. Balan, Christopher P. Higgins, and Elsie M. Sunderland. Environmental Science & Technology Letters. 2016. "Detection of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in U.S. Drinking Water Linked to Industrial Sites, Military Fire Training Areas, and Wastewater Treatment Plants". 
ICF. 1985. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Reportable Quantity Adjustments Under Sections 102 and 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Volume 1:  A Report to the Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch Office of Research and Development and Environmental Response Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA. EPA Contract 68-03-03182
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, "12 Treatment Technologies". August 2021. Available at: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_3 .
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, "PFAS Fact Sheets," 2018. Available: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, "Regulations, Guidance, and Advisories for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)," January 2018. Available: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/pfas_fact_sheet_regulations__1_4_18.pdf
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, "History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)". April 2020. Available at: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact_sheets_page/PFAS_Fact_Sheet_History_and_Use_April2020.pdf 
Khanna, Madhu, Wilma Rose H. Quimio, and Dora Bojilova. (1998). "Toxics Release Information: A Policy Tool for Environmental Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 36(3): 243-266.
Konar, Shameek and Mark A. Cohen. (1997), "Information As Regulation: the Effect of Community right to Know Laws on Toxic Emissions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 32, pp. 109-124.
Konar, Shameek and Mark A. Cohen. (2000). "Why do Firms Pollute (and Reduce) Toxics Emissions?", unpublished working paper, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922491 .
Lee, Susan, Avinash Kar, and Dr. Anna Reade, "Dirty Water: Toxic "Forever" PFAS Chemicals are Prevalent in the Drinking Water of Environmental Justice Communities." Natural Resources Defense Council, New York. 2021
Memorandum from Barry Breen, Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, US EPA (Sep. 30, 1997) (General Policy on Superfund Ability to Pay Determinations).
Memorandum from Susan Shinkman, Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, and Cynthia Mackey, Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, US EPA (June 29, 2015) (Guidance on Evaluating a Violator's Ability to Pay a Civil Penalty in an Administrative Enforcement Action)
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, "Michigan Files Lawsuit Against 3M, DuPont and others for PFAS Contamination", 2020. Link: https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/0,9038,7-365-86513_96296-517280--,00.html 
Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, "Firefighting Foam and PFAS," https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/investigations/firefighting-foam , 2022.
Nadia Kounang, "FDA Confirms PFAS Chemicals are in the U.S. Food Supply," CNN. June 3, 2019. Available: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/health/pfas-food-supply-fda/index.html 
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, "PFOS/PFOA Facility Identification Survey", 2017. Link: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/pfoasurvey1.pdf 
Northeastern University Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, "Fayetteville Works Plant," 2019. Available: https://pfasproject.com/fayetteville-north-carolina/
Northeastern University - The PFAS Project Lab, "PFAS Contamination Is an Equity Issue, and President Trump's EPA Is Failing to Fix It" October 31, 2019. Available at: https://pfasproject.com/2019/10/31/pfas-contamination-is-an-equity-issue-and-president-trumps-epa-is-failing-to-fix-it/
Probst, Katherine N. (2020). "Superfund at 40: Unfulfilled Expectations", in Looking Back to Move Forward: Resolving Health & Environmental Outcomes, edited by Hampden T. Macbeth. State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, New York University Law School.
Renner, R., 2006. The long and the short of perfluorinated replacements. Environ. Sci. Technol., 12e13.
Schultz, Melissa M., Christopher P. Higgins, Carin A. Huset, Richard G. Luthy, Douglas F. Barofsky, and Jennifer A. Field. Environmental science & technology. 2006. "Fluorochemical mass flows in a municipal wastewater treatment facility.", 7350-7357.
State of Washington Department of Ecology, "Toxics in Firefighting Law." https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Reducing-toxic-chemicals/Addressing-priority-toxic-chemicals/PFAS/Toxics-in-firefighting 
Stockholm Convention, "Guidance for the inventory of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related chemicals listed under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants," March 31, 2014. Available: http://chm.pops.int/Implementation/NIPs/Guidance/GuidancefortheinventoryofPFOS/tabid/3169/Default.aspx
Susan Genualdi, Lowri deJager, and Timothy Begley.  Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration.  2019. "Investigation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in U.S. food products", Presentation at the 29th annual European meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Toxics Use Reduction Institute, "Per- and Poly-fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Policy Analysis," May 2021. Available: https://www.mass.gov/doc/turi-pfas-policy-analysis-may-2021/download
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "DoD Sites", June 2021. Accessed at: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/dod-sites-boundary & https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/dod-sites-point
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, "The Humanitarian Data Exchange: Airports in the United States of America", June 2021. Downloaded on June 18, 2021. Accessed at: https://data.humdata.org/dataset/ourairports-usa
United States Postal Service (USPS). 2021. HAZMAT Shipping Tutorial. Accessed online Sept. 2021: https://www.uspsdelivers.com/hazmat-shipping-safety/#step-4-1 
UPS. 2021. 49 CFR Shipping Examples. UPS. Accessed online 2021: https://www.ups.com/us/en/help-center/packaging-and-supplies/special-care-shipments/hazardous-materials/49-cfr-examples.page?
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, "Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health," January 10, 2018. Available: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects.html
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). "Report GAO-21-421: Report to Congressional Committees - DOD Is Investigating PFAS and Responding to Contamination, but Should Report More Cost Information". June 2021.  
U.S. National Response Team, "Regional Response Teams," February 2019. Available: https://www.nrt.org/sites/2/files/RRT_Factsheet_02142019%20final.pdf.
Winchell, Lloyd J.; John J. Ross; Martha J.M. Wells; Xavier Fonoll; John W. Norton, Jr; and Katherine Y. Bell. "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal destruction at water resource recovery facilities: A state of the science review", June 2021. Water Environ Res, Vol. 93(6): 826-843.

