Water News

Southwest Airlines Cancellation and Change: What Callers Learned

When a trip goes sideways, the difference between a change, a cancellation, and a credit can be confusing. These accounts come from Southwest Airlines travelers who faced forgotten ID, family emergencies, basic-fare cancellations, delayed connections, and fare quotes that did not match what they saw online. They are not official Southwest policy, but they show the questions to ask and the details to write down: change costs, cancellation fees, credit amounts, expiration dates, and whether a refund or credit applies. Use them as a practical checklist before you decide.

Need help with your Southwest flight right now?

Talk to a live agent now

Same-Day Changes When You Cannot Make Your Flight

One traveler arrived at the airport and realized they had forgotten their ID. Worried about missing the scheduled Nashville-to-Denver flight, they asked to move to a later nonstop leaving that afternoon. The representative found the later flight nearly sold out and quoted the last-minute change cost, including fare difference and fees, at about $585. The traveler asked what the difference would be and whether the later flight could be confirmed. They needed a same-day change, not a cancellation of the whole reservation, and the return portion was set to stay as booked. The lesson: ask for the total change cost, confirm the seat, and state clearly which parts of the trip should remain unchanged. Write down the quote before you agree.

Canceling After a Family Emergency

A traveler needed to cancel an Ontario-to-Honolulu flight after a family emergency. The caller explained that their son had a seizure and was in the hospital, so they needed to stay with him. They asked whether the cancellation fee could be waived and wanted to confirm they would receive the value of the ticket as a credit. They were told the cancellation fee was $75 and that the remaining fare, about $216, would come back as a future credit valid for one year. The traveler took notes, confirmed the credit terms, and decided to go ahead with the cancellation. The lesson: ask about a waiver, but also confirm the fee, the credit amount, and the expiration date in the same call.

Basic-Fare Cancellations and Credit Terms

A couple needed to cancel both tickets on a basic-class trip from Denver to Santa Barbara and asked about flight credit. They were told the cancellation fee was $185 per passenger and that each traveler would receive $417 in credit, for $834 total. The credit would be valid for six months and could be extended by three months if they called before it expired. The traveler thought the fee was steep and asked whether a full year of credit was possible. They paused to check with the other passenger before deciding whether to proceed. The lesson: for multiple tickets, ask for the per-passenger fee, the total credit, and the extension rules. Confirm whether a longer credit period is available before you cancel.

Missed Connections, Refunds, and Fare Quotes

An airport traveler’s first flight was delayed, and they realized they would miss the connection to Phoenix. With no other flights available that night, they had already rebooked on another airline and needed to cancel the Southwest return. They asked for a refund of the return fare and the checked-bag fee. The representative explained that a refund might not be possible and that a flight credit could be the fallback. The traveler said a credit would still work and waited while the refund option was checked. In a separate fare story, a traveler saw a $304 online fare for two people from Omaha to Ontario, but the confirmed fare was $435 per passenger. They were told the lower number was a standby fare and that the website had been having problems. The lesson: ask whether a quote is standby or confirmed, and get the total per person.

Frequently asked questions

I forgot my ID and don’t think I can make my flight. What should I ask?

Ask whether you can move to a later nonstop the same day instead of canceling the whole reservation. In one story, the later flight was nearly sold out and the quoted change cost was about $585, including fare difference and fees. Confirm the price and whether the seat is confirmed before you agree.

Can I switch to the later nonstop today?

Yes, if a seat is available. A traveler who forgot their ID asked for a same-day change to a later nonstop leaving that afternoon. The representative found the flight nearly sold out and quoted about $585 including fare difference and fees. Ask whether the later flight can be confirmed and whether the return portion stays as booked.

My son is in the hospital, so I need to cancel. Is there a way to avoid the cancellation fee?

In one family-emergency story, the caller was told the cancellation fee was $75 and the remaining fare, about $216, would come back as a future credit valid for one year. The traveler asked about a waiver, but the story does not show one was granted. Ask directly and write down the terms.

So the credit is valid for one year?

In the family-emergency cancellation, the remaining fare of about $216 was described as a future credit valid for one year. In a basic-fare cancellation, the credit was valid for six months and could be extended by three months if the traveler called before it expired. Credit terms vary by situation, so confirm the expiration date.

We need to cancel both tickets and get the credit. What fees and credit should we expect?

In one basic-class cancellation from Denver to Santa Barbara, the fee was $185 per passenger and each traveler would receive $417 in credit, for $834 total. The credit was valid for six months, with a possible three-month extension if they called before it expired. Ask for the total fee and total credit before you cancel.

EPA FY2024 DWSRF and LSL Replacement Funding

During the first week in May 2024 EPA released two memos regarding FY 2024 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) lead service line replacement funding allotments to individual States.

The first memo (fy24-bil-lslr-allotments-memorandum_may-2024) is from EPA’s Office of Water to EPA’s Regional Offices and presents the FY 2024 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) lead service line replacement funding allotments to individual States.  The source of the funding is the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, BIL).    The FY 2024 allotments are based on the updated 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA).  Based on information collected in the updated DWINSA, EPA estimates the cost to replace all lead service lines nationally to be “$50 billion to $80 billion.”  The BIL provided $15 billion for lead service line replacement. The total FY 2024 allotment is $3 billion.

The second memo (implementing-lslr-projects-funded-by-the-dwsrf) is from EPA’s Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water to EPA’s Regional Offices regarding “Implementing Lead Service Line Replacement Projects Funded by the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.”   The memo describes “….programmatic requirements for full lead service line replacement and details exceptions; provides recommended strategies on LSL identification and LSLR planning and design; identifies best practices for risk mitigation when an LSLR is conducted; and emphasizes the importance of public notifications during projects. This memo stipulates new requirements for agreements signed after August 1, 2024.”

EPA Federal Register Final PFAS as CERCLA Hazardous Waste

In the May 8, 2024 Federal Register (Fed Reg_PFAS as CERCLA Haz Waste_2024-05-08), EPA published the final rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, known as Superfund).

Link to April 17, 2024, AWWA article on the legislation introduced regarding designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances:

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/bipartisan-legislation-to-protect-water-utilities-ratepayers-from-pfas-cleanup-costs-introduced-in-us-house-of-representatives#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWater%20utilities%20and%20their%20ratepayers,said%20AWWA%20CEO%20David%20LaFrance.

Background. In September 2022, EPA published a proposal to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Lability Act (CERCLA, known as Superfund). CERCLA authorizes EPA to designate compounds as hazardous that “may present substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment.”  Public comment deadline was November 7, 2022.   In April 2024, EPA posted a copy the pre-publication Federal Register notice with the final determination to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.

EPA Pre-Publication Federal Register Final PFAS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances

EPA posted a copy the pre-publication Federal Register notice with the final determination to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA (pre-publication_final-rule-cercla-pfoa-pfos-haz-sub).  Also, here is a link to an EPA memo “PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA.” (pfas-enforcement-discretion-settlement-policy-cercla)

In addition to the text in the Regulatory Update below that was copied from AWWA’s public comments on the proposal, here is a link to an AWWA Statement Released two days ago:

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/bipartisan-legislation-to-protect-water-utilities-ratepayers-from-pfas-cleanup-costs-introduced-in-us-house-of-representatives#:~:text=The%20American%20Water%20Works%20Association,(CERCLA)%20for%20per%2Dand

SWRCB Votes to Adopt Final CrVI MCL

On April 17, 2024, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) voted to adopt the final CrVI MCL of 10 µg/L.  DDW staff indicated the next step would be to submit information to the California Department of Finance, and then submit the final regulation to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) no later than June 15, 2024.  If all proceeds according to schedule, the effective date of the CrVI MCL would be October 1, 2024.

Title 22 regulations (section 64432 (b)) states, “Unless directed otherwise by the State Board, each community and nontransient-noncommunity water system shall initiate monitoring for an inorganic chemical within six months following the effective date of the regulation establishing the MCL.”

 

 

EPA Updated Guidance PFAS Destruction and Disposal

In the April 16, 2024 Federal Register (Fed Reg_PFAS Destruction_EPA Guidance_2024-04-16), for public review and comment the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of updated Guidance for PFAS destruction and disposal.  EPA is requesting public comments by October 15, 2024.  Below is text copied from the enclosed Federal Register notice:

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020…..”directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish interim guidance on the destruction and disposal of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and materials containing PFAS and to update the guidance at least every three years, as appropriate. The EPA is releasing an update to the December 20, 2020, interim guidance for public comment. The updated guidance builds on information pertaining to technologies that may be feasible and appropriate for the destruction or disposal of PFAS and PFAS-containing materials. The 2024 interim guidance also identifies key data gaps and uncertainties that must be resolved before the EPA can issue more definitive recommendations about PFAS destruction and disposal technologies.”

Link to download copy of the Interim Guidance:

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/2024-interim-guidance-on-pfas-destruction-and-disposal.pdf

Update on EPA Proposal to Designate PFAS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances

Proposal. In September 2022, EPA published a proposal to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Lability Act (CERCLA, known as Superfund). Public comment deadline was November 7, 2022.  Following a review of public comments, on December 6, 2023, EPA submitted the final rule to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.  As of April 15, 2024 the final rule is no longer under review at OMB.

CERCLA authorizes EPA to designate compounds as hazardous that “may present substantial danger to the public health or welfare or the environment.” Designating compounds as hazardous substances can lead to cleanup of contaminated sites.  In March 2023 EPA held two “listening sessions” regarding “enforcement discretion and settlement policy to the extent that PFAS cleanup enforcement efforts occur under CERCLA.”

Public Comments.  A number of public comments raised concerns about the potential impacts on drinking water and wastewater facilities.  On November 7, 2022, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) submitted public comments to EPA on the proposal.  Copied below are sections from AWWA’s comment letter.

“AWWA is concerned that the Proposal imposes significant costs and long-term liability on drinking water and domestic sewage treatment facilities (herein referred to collectively as water systems) and threatens to compound financial burdens on water systems that are, or under a forthcoming rule will be, protecting public health through drinking water treatment of PFOA and PFOS. These burdens will be directly felt by the water systems’ ratepaying customers and felt most acutely by those living in environmental justice communities.”

“While the Proposal does not list drinking water systems as “potentially affected entities” this Proposal could impose liability on the nearly 144,000 drinking water systems in addition to 19,000 domestic wastewater treatment systems across the United States, given the widespread presence of PFOA and PFOS in the environment (EPA, 2022a; EPA, 2022b). This liability will cause waste management costs for water systems to increase, which may have upwards of a $3.5 billion annual impact (Hazen & Sawyer, 2022).”

“Those costs will have a direct impact on our members and their customers. The Agency, in press releases and public outreach meetings, has signaled an interest in working to address equity concerns for water systems and other similarly innocent parties financed through ratepayers and taxpayers as it addresses PFAS-related concerns (EPA, 2022c; EPA, 2022d). As a key stakeholder representing members working on the frontlines of these pressing issues, AWWA appreciates the Agency shares these concerns. AWWA writes to explain why the Proposal will negatively impact water systems in a way that is not consistent with the Proposal’s objectives or the EPA’s stated concerns.”

Source: AWWA Letter to Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management, EPA.  “Comments on Designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) as CERCLA Hazardous Substances (Docket ID No: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0341).”  November 7, 2022.

 

EPA Pre-Publication Federal Register with Final PFAS MCLs

On April 10, 2024, EPA released a pre-publication version of the Federal Register with final Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS.  Once published in the Federal Register, the rule will be in effect within 60 days.

Link to website with pre-publication version of the Federal Register and supporting documents and Fact Sheets.

https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

Here are some highlights from the pre-publication version of the Federal Register with the final PFAS MCLs:

  1. MCLs for PFOA and PFOS are set at 4.0 ng/L.  These are the same as proposed in March 2023.
  2. The Hazard Index (HI) MCL is 1.0 and is calculated using results for the following four PFAS: PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA.  This is the same as proposed in March 2023, however, EPA has included a requirement that compliance with the HI must be based on at least two of the four PFAS being detected.
  3. EPA has set MCLs at 10 ng/L for three of the four PFAS included in the HI calculation (PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO-DA).  These are new MCLs, not included in the March 2023 proposal.
  4. EPA is not setting an MCL for PFBS.
  5. The final rule makes a distinction between the “initial monitoring period” and the “compliance monitoring period.”
  6. The initial monitoring must be completed within 3 years of publication of the rule in the Federal Register (i.e., 2027).
  7. Initial monitoring is four quarterly samples for all surface water systems and for groundwater systems serving a population over 10,000.  Initial monitoring for groundwater systems serving less than 10,000 is two samples, collected five to seven months apart.  Samples are collected at point of entry to the distribution system.
  8. Results collected after January 1, 2019, can be used to meet the initial monitoring requirements.
  9. Monitoring and reporting violations can be assessed three years after publication in the Federal Register.
  10. Compliance monitoring begins three years after publication in the Federal Register.
  11. Compliance is based on a running annual average of quarterly samples.
  12. MCL violations requiring public notification will not be assessed until five years after publication in the Federal Register (i.e. 2029). EPA has extended the deadline by two years to comply with the MCLs, In the March 2023 proposal, water systems needed to be in compliance with the MCLs three years after publication in the Federal Register. In the Federal Register preamble, EPA encourages State primacy agencies to require public notification, if appropriate, if a water system exceeds an MCL prior to the 2029 compliance deadline.
  13. EPA has increased the “trigger levels” to one-half of the MCLs.  In the March 2023 proposal, the trigger levels were set at one-third of the MCLs.  If a system is on reduced monitoring, exceeding a trigger level will require increase frequency of sample collection to quarterly.

 

EPA will hold three one-hour briefings on the final rule.  EPA’s description of each webinar, dates, times, and links to register are presented below.

 

  1. General Public Overview.  April 16, 2024, 2:00 to 3:00 pm (EDT)

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/general-public-webinar-on-epas-final-pfas-npdwr-tickets-863709838377?aff=oddtdtcreator

  1. Water Sector Professional Technical Over.  April 30, 2024, 2:00 to 3:00 pm (EDT)

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/drinking-water-professional-community-webinar-on-epas-final-pfas-npdwr-tickets-863734211277?aff=oddtdtcreator

  1. Small systems Webinar, 2:00 to 3:00 pm (EDT)

https://www.epa.gov/water-research/small-drinking-water-systems-webinar-series

OEHHA Publishes Final PHGs for PFOA and PFOS

In April 2024, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published final Public Health Goals (PHGs) for PFOA and PFOS.  OEHHA’s notice of adoption of the final PHGs is enclosed.

The final PHGs are:

PFOA – 0.007 ng/L

PFOS – 1 ng/L

Link to OEHHA Press Release:

https://oehha.ca.gov/water/press-release/press-release-water/california-adopts-health-protective-goals-forever-chemicals

Link to OEHHA Technical Support Document for the final PHGs:

https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/air/public-health-goal-document/pfoapfosphgfinaldraft040524.pdf

Link to OEHHA’ Response to Peer Review and Public Comments

https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/response-comments/pfoapfosresponsestocomments040424.pdf

Background

In July 2021, OEHHA proposed for public review draft PHGs for PFOA (0.007 ng/L) and PFOS (1 ng/L).  In February 2022, as required, a Peer Review panel submitted review and comments on the draft PHGs (the Panel provided lots of comments, but generally was in agreement with OEHHA’s conclusions).  In July 2023 OEHHA released a second draft of the PHGs for PFOA and PFOS for public comment. There was no change in the proposed PHG values.